Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive308

TW by default has three rollback options for articles, two labeled "vandalism" and "good faith", and one without judgement. It would be hard not to notice this. If Equazcion has disabled these options, I would suggest they be restored so that rollbacks of edits performed in good faith are not all labeled "vandalism". / edg ☺ ★

01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ten comments up:"I want to make it clear yet again that I don't necessarily consider Burntsauce's edits to be vandalism. I used the TW vandalism rollback function because it was the easiest way to roll back that many edits -- it only takes a single click. Burntsauce refused to participate in the discussions, where his edits were called disruptive by consensus, and instead performed his edits repeatedly across all the articles. He needs to participate in the discussions on his talk page and/or at

WT:TRIVIA.

Equazcion • argue/improves

• 17:25, 10/9/2007

".

Block Could someone please block him temporarily?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:32, 10/9/2007

For what? Editing?

ム

17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was requested before I saw that he stopped.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:40, 10/9/2007

Agreed - the user has agreed to stop and abide by a proper resolution. Wikidemo 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivial removals - going forward

If you read the heated exchange above, you will learn that I removed a large swath of unsourced pop culture and trivia sections from a number of articles. So where do we go from here? Is it right to "blind revert" back to the unsourced version?

Discussion is good and I understand that, but it can also be used as a method to stonewall the progress and improvement to an article. Let me get to the heart of my question:

1. Should articles that had no sources and the trivial section removed, remain with the trivia removed, and then discuss?
2. Or should those articles be reverted back to the UNSOURCED VERSION, and then discuss?

I've already done all the hard work yesterday. I'm going to take a Wikibreak for the remainder of the day, but would like to know what the consensus is on the articles I've made changes to.

Until there's a consensus to change WP:TRIVIA to allow blanking of anything labelled "trivia/pop culture", I don't think running around blanking it on sight is a good idea at all. It's just flying in the face of lack of consensus. --W.marsh 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to contribute to a flame war on someone's talk page, so did not add to the comments there. I have mixed feelings about wholesale trivia sections and laundry lists generally, but here a trivia section tag would have been more appropriate than wholesale blanking of articles. In the case of the articles on my watchlist that were hit, Burntsauce removed material that was actually relevant and interesting within the context of the article, and even if that is debatable, we were talking about very short lists containing at most 3-4 items, not things like massive lists of TV episodes or something. I consider Burntsauce's behavior to be Troll-like and for that reason, it needs to end. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have unsourced sections just sit? I've tagged articles for a while (with trivia and fiction cruft tags, and so on): and seen no improvement. If no one cares to improve the sections, they just sit? People are entertained by trivia sections, yet they refuse to source them or even clean them up much. I think that's a bit of a problem. Wikipedia is volunteer work, so we can't force people to work. However, if the problem isn't solved... why not remove the section? Keeping the mess isn't the solution here. Mass blanking isn't the solution either, as people will complain of course. Perhaps, move the sections to the talk pages to be cleaned up? The content will still be visible, and the article wont suffer in my view. RobJ1981 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The

WT:TRIVIA is that Burntsauce's removals were not appropriate, and supportive of the rollback. This is not about whether or not the sections belong, but the manner in which they were handled. Removing all sections of a specific title at a rate of 2 per minute with no more explanation than "popcultureectomy" is not constructive or respective of other editors who might disagree with you on this very controversial subject. PS If we're talking about what to generally do with pop culture sections this isn't a discussion for ANI anymore, but for WT:TRIVIA.

Equazcion • argue/improves

• 17:40, 10/9/2007

At this point, it is probably most correct to leave the articles in whatever

verified and is notable into the article narrative. Delete the rest.--Isotope23 ^talk

18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - While in some cases he was perhaps a bit too bold, I generally support these deletions. They were not vandalism, and should not be called such, even by auto-summaries. I commented supportively on

WP:CIVIL in some of his summaries and responses, but he has been warned for that and seems amenable to proceeding in a civil manner. On the articles I work on I will be going back and re-integrating any relevant bits that were cut, but in sourced prose. The cruft is still there in the previous versions. It's easy enough to copy and edit it if some of the deleted facts truly merit inclusion. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫

19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not IAR. We have maintenance tags for a reason.

WP:TRIVIA also specifically discourages wholesale removal of these sections as a remedy.

Equazcion • argue/improves

• 18:22, 10/9/2007

Burntsauce broke plenty of rules. All of these deletions ought to be restored. The people who are editing these articles can deal with them in due course, not people who swoop in and try to reshape Wikipedia to suit their liking. It's not restoring unsourced material without finding a source, it's a roll back of improper deletions. Wikidemo 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said above, I don't see any "rulebreaking" here by either of the editors who were primarily involved in the core content issue. Both of them seem to be exercising what they believe to be a correct implementation of guidelines and policy. The problem is how they both went about it. That said however, I don't see any good reason to stir the pot more by undoing either the deletions or the restores that stand as neither were at the core improper. I'll also add that waiting around for the people who primarily edit these articles to deal with them isn't probably the best tactic... they are the ones who let them get into this sorry state in the first place.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside: Those of us who have expressed our distaste for cruft and trivia should drop by

Well, I've just clicked on a dozen of those articles at random, and I've yet to see a piece of information in the deleted sections that improved the article. Indeed, some of them are so ridiculously trivial and/or unsourced that if I'd stumbled over them myself I'd have deleted them on the spot as well.

ELIMINATORJR

18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at 30 and seen plenty of useful material that got deleted. Wikidemo 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

←Just another aside,

• No - he's only removing unsourced material - see this diff [16] for example.
  ELIMINATORJR
  19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Was this before or after' blocking me for restoring the material he wanted to delete? Wikidemo 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest all revert warring on these articles be dropped now. This is going past

WP:POINT into territory that I think is easily blockable.--Isotope23 ^talk

19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hereby removing myself from this. I am in shock that in such a controversial issue that's still under heated debate, an admin would do something to inflame it further. Settle this on your own. I just lost a lot of respect for the title of admin. I'm speechless.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:09, 10/9/2007

You lost respect for an admin because he was enforcing Wikipedia policy? Er, OK. We could've done without the edit-warring, but Neil certainly has policy behind him here.

ELIMINATORJR

19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections" --W.marsh 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V suggests removing unsourced trivia, though - Neil was leaving in anything sourced.

ELIMINATORJR

19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V does not mention the word "trivia". Contrary to popular belief, WP:V is not carte blanche to remove any sentence without an inline citation after it... it speaks of challenging and removing claims that are actually in question, not just purging stuff you don't like. --W.marsh 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue; the question should always be "does this edit improve the article?". As Will points out below, a lot of the information removed is either original research, or just plain incorrect.

ELIMINATORJR

19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then that can be removed as challenged, but unverifiable, information. The problem is, while some of that kind of stuff has been caught in the crossfire, the actual reason the purges happened was the stated desire to remove all sections labeled as trivia and pop culture, which is not backed up by policy, as you mistakingly claimed. --W.marsh 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, hang on; I didn't say it should be removed because it was trivia, in that I agree that the idea behind the original edits was probably erroneous. I do believe, though, that the rise of trivia sections is a problem; for example, someone tried to add one to

You said "WP:V suggests removing unsourced trivia" which is an incorrect statement. WP:V suggests removing challenged, unsourced statements... but doesn't deal with unchallenged trivia. --W.marsh 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that was badly phrased; I meant it as you say, just that in this case it was referring to trivia.

ELIMINATORJR

19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In this particular instance, it behooves an admin, who is supposed to remain cool-headed and objective in the face of conflict, to refrain from making edits that are currently the subject of heated debate. Are these edits such an emergency that they couldn't wait until after all this discussion settled down a bit?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:19, 10/9/2007

As far as the above goes,

ム

19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I've been ec'd several times and my point already made, I would like to say there is no rulebreaking. In fact, I applaud Burntsauce for removal of trivia. Put simply, most IPC/CR/TRIVIA sections have no sources and are mostly

• Superconductivity - it's a start. Still a bit of OR over the second paRagraph.
• GEICO Cavemen - Unsourced. But not much OR.
• Enoch Powell - Paragraph 2 is fine. The rest is either unsourced, or just media making fun of the man. Highly POV against him.
• Gravy - popular food in popular culture? Wow, that's new.
• Strained yoghurt
  - one item, wrong article. Not really IPC then.
• Naqada - redundant to disambiguation.
• Ugliness - most points refers to use of the word (even more ludicrous than what Stephen King in popular culture
  was redirected to), and the only thing I think should be there would be The Ugly Duckling.
• Kettle Foods - being parodied is no measure of popularity.
• Amphetamine psychosis
  - IPC on a medical disorder page is just wrong. Also the Requiem for a Dream point is classic OR.
• Animal cracker - Shirley Temple's song is fine and should be integrated. The rest is just based on passing mention.

Burntsauce, I once again applaud you and urge you to flush Wikipedia of this nonsense. Consensus cannot override key policy. Will ^(talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree there was no rulebreaking re - content.

WP:V trumps trivia. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫

19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. You can argue almost any point by claiming policy is on your side. If your position requires arguing that an established guideline on the point is wrong, and most people disagree with it, you shouldn't be deleting hundreds of article sessions, engaging in edit wards, or blocking users, over the issue. Aggressive editing based on idiosyncratic interpretation of policy simply makes one a loose cannon. Wikidemo 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument ad Jimbo, but unverified information "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Will ^(talk) 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I would do with excessive popular culture sections is either do the work needed to improve the article, or tag it. If it is really excessive, then I sometimes dump the material on the talk page and leave a note there requesting clean-up. That way the material is available for review on the talk page and there is no need to go digging around in the page history to find it if someone wants to work on sourcing and integrating the material into the article in a more resonable form. Note that only some articles are amenable to this. Some of the material needs to be marked on the talk page as unsuitable for the article. Sometimes a mention in another article is acceptable. One way of viewing such pop culture sections is that they are

The user concerned has been notified of this discussion. —Random832 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't much like an admin calling me an idiot [19] and then erasing comments challenging that characterization [20]. This was a stupid (and minor) content dispute in an article about the inherently funny organ called the uvula. It's not worth a fight, there was no chance of my violating the 3-revert-rule on it, and I've stopped watching the page now, especially as he saw fit to protect it, which seems like an overreaction, but I'm not so concerned about that as I am about what I consider to be un-admin-like behavior. It's as though User:Tecmobowl had been reincarnated as an admin. A scary thought. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I had nothing to do with these incidents but I've just waded through this. The issue in question was Baseball Bugs restoring, and

User:Burntsauce (an unrelated editor) of indiscriminately deleting 300+ pop culture references in about 90 minutes. Baseball Bugs then complaints on Alkivar's user page - four times - but instead of responding or doing anything Alkivar simply deletes Basebal Bugs' comments from his talk page. This admin has a pattern of making non-consensus changes then indefinitely protecting his version of the article, an abuse of privilege. See his/her contribution history. Blanking requests and complaints is also wrong for an admin. Admins have a special duty to respond on their user page to people questioning their actions. Simply blanking complaints is un-admin behavior. I suggest someone counsel this admin formally or send him/her back to admin school. Wikidemo

16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The protection is inappropriate and I will remove it. I despise these trivia sections with a passion and whole-heartedly agree with removing them anywhere and everywhere they are found, but the protection is obviously inappropriate. --B 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To the talkpage removals, please see

WP:TRIVIA. I agree, that calling people idiots, isn't very civil. SQL^{(Query Me!}

) 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One other word - as inappropriate as protecting the article may have been, it is equally inappropriate to accuse Alkivar - a dedicated admin who acts in good faith - of being a sock puppet. --B 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT accuse him of being a sockpuppet, nor do I even think he is one. I simply say that his uncivil behavior reminds me of Tecmobowl. I expect a higher standard of behavior from an admin than from an editor, especially an editor like Tecmobowl. And I expect a response to a fair question. His name-calling and stonewalling, refusal to respond, is what specifically reminded me of Tecmobowl. Admins should be better, much better, than Tecmobowl. Dropping to that level is disgraceful, especially on the part of an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your comparison has then certainly derailed your initial complaint because plenty of folks read that as a passive aggressive accusation of sock puppetry. So whatever the merits of your concern, they've been essentially erased by the enmity your choice of words caused. Something to consider for next time. I offer no opinion on the merits of this case, this is a drive by response to the Tecmobowl bit, which i think was an unfortunate decision on your part in the initial post. It certainly does nothing to advance the conversation, and as you see here, has pulled attention away from your concern and dropped your 'cred in this conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't read Baseball Bugs' post as accusing Alkivar of sockpuppetry, whatsoever. Sometimes a comparison is just a comparison. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I said "it was as if". That's a comparison, based on the false assumption that people would know who Tecmobowl was and understand the comparison. Nowhere did I say I thought he was a sockpuppet, nor did I think that, nor do I think that now. It was simply an analogy to a bad (and since banned) user. And I'm seeing that a number of users have issues with this admin, so comparing his behavior to that of a bad user still seems fair. And his continual refusal to respond speaks for itself. Maybe a short-term block would wake him up. I got blocked once for calling someone an idiot, so I don't do that anymore. Admins are not exempt from the civility rules, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

update - this user appears to have indefinitely and without warning blocked User:Equazcion, who was at the time engaged in rolling back the contentious edits discussed above. This was after the notice here, and after an admin had undone his edit protection of the articles mentioned here. Blocking users is supposed to be a last resort, and indefinite blocks without warning are an extreme remedy. For an administrator to do that in order to stop a good faith editor with whom he is having a content dispute is a picturebook example of abuse of administrator privileges. Another admin subsequently unblocked the user, but some damage was done - the rollback stopped halfway through. So we have 300 contentious edits made by a third party, half of which are reverted, and now everyone is afraid to do anything for fear of getting blocked or ending up in an edit war. I strongly suggest that this admin be considered for de-sysopping, or at least warned that this is no way for an admin to act. Wikidemo 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As the user who was blocked, I support this motion. An admin who is engaged in a content dispute with a user shouldn't be blocking that user -- especially indefinitely, by IP, and without warning, which I feel was particularly extreme.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:18, 10/9/2007

Sorry to interrupt but holy shit. Indefblocking an established user for doing some reverts?! What the hell? Almost speechless... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So predictable. I say watch him do the same to my comment in a minute though, and lo and behold... —Random832 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Acting like that, I don't understand why this person is still allowed to be an administrator...

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:38, 10/9/2007

i think this should all go under one heading - we "pseudo-edit-conflicted" as i moved it. —Random832 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion after move from above

Improper use of page protection in a content dispute, improper use of blocking in a content dispute. Use of rollback on user comments on his talk page. I think we have enough for a desysop, anyone want to try either arbitration or CSN (I think that a "community desysoping" is well within the bounds of "community sanctions" - or he could be banned from "in popular culture" sections - that's a topic ban, right?) —Random832 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or another as to the matter in question, I don't think it can be done at CSN. The sanctions there are executed by admins, and admins can't de-sysop other admins. You'll need to go through Arbcom. Raymond Arritt 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, CSN is currently at MfD and may very well not exist in a few more days. Raymond is right, you need to open an ARBCOM case if you wish to pursue this.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that

WP:RfC/U would be a better course of action before we head ourselves into arbitration. That way we would have an addition backing if any case is accepted. nat^tang

18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in this situation, nor do I want to be, but the admin in question has already been the subject of an RFC/U. Skinwalker 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Skinwalker. Arbitration seems to be the only venue left. east.718 at 19:12, 10/9/2007

While I will not comment on the need for arbitration, I will admit that arbcom is the proper venue for this if the need is felt. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had direct dealings with Alkivar (that I can remember) but I seem to see his name often - and not in a good way. Has there been any communication with him or does he simply delete all talk page messages? I see he barely participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar and also that two RFAs failed more than two years ago citing similar behavior. I don't know what other recourse there is if he isn't explaining anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Alkivar would respond to a admin conduct RFC? --Iamunknown 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just continue the one that was recently in progress. Pile on if you want. This situation doesn't look good to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there have been several RFCs tends to make me agree with

('Stop') : ('Go'); without making any comment on the need for arbitration I think that is the appropriate venue if someone wishes to pursue this.--Isotope23 ^talk

19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The current RfC is mostly about incivility. The circumstances—mass tagging of images and mass notifications on Alkivar's talk page—however, are noteworthy, and I think most editors would become incivil. This is more about inappropriate page protections, inappropriate blocking, and also about being uncommunicative ... all more "admin conduct"-type things than incivility. (I say that "uncommunicative"ness is an admin conduct-type thing because of recent RFARBs where admins were admonished to be communicative.) --Iamunknown 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to throw in my two cents. I would like to know why Alkivar has done some of the things he's done. Unfortunately (it seems like), he is unwilling to make any comments. I say go to Request for Comment. The only other time when I got involved with Alkivar was when he indef blocked another user and protected their e-mail, despite being a good-faith editor. The user is unblocked now. Although it shouldn't be in this section, Burntsauce should of informed the related WikiProject that he was planning to remove a load of trivia sections from 300 articles. If it was something "controversial" (this to a certain extent is) he should of informed related WikiProjects before going ahead and doing it. Davnel03 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

An

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Alkivar. nat^tang

21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only time that he has used the admin tools in a questionable manner? He didn't revert the undoing of his administrative actions so unless he repeats any of them, this may be premature. --B 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have looked through his logs and found several other questionable actions. I am now convinced this is the correct course of action. --B 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How it should have gone, and how to repair the damage

Quite apart from he questionable actions of individual admins --the arb com case having been requested, and on arb already agreeing to accept it, is now the necessary way to go there. )

I come to this late, having been caught napping -- quite literally. But I noticed it early last morning, because a few of the articles affected were on my watchlist. I left a personal message asking Burntsauce to pause, and telling him forthrightly that i intended to go through the list of articles, restoring those parts of those articles that I thought defensible, while moving content into more appropriate places if practical--and also saying that i would in some cases revert the changes if there were so many items involved that they needed more extensive consideration. I said I'd go slowly, & it would take at least a day.
I also said that I considered what he had done technically justified per WP:BOLD, as the first step,and that revert would be the 2nd, followed by the third of discussion. But I also said that doing it in this dramatic fashion was not a good idea. At this point Equazcion lost patience, and said he would restore them all immediately (I didnt see this in time , or I would have asked him not to do that). Technically, he may have been justified, per the second step of the Bold-Revert-Discuss process. I could conceivably have used my administrative tools--and, believe me, I was tempted. A gross violation of the need for consensus, even if technically permitted is destructive behavior in a wiki. I could have reverted all the changes, protected, and blocked Burntsauce for perhaps 24 hours to prevent further destructive editing. But I knew that i was so involved in the effort to retain these sections that this would not have looked well. I might have survived arbcom, but my credit would have been greatly damaged, and I would have had difficulty in editing this material further. But I've never used anything other than persuasion to further my views in any topic; in fact, I very rarely use protection and blocking at all, except the most obvious spammers and vandals. I rely, just as I did before become an admin, upon persuasion. (I then went back to sleep to rest up for the extensive editing I thought I would do, after placing a request for help on the trivia project page. Later, upon seeing this, I decided not to complicate matters further.

My own position on this material has been expressed repeatedly at any AfDs, but I summarize here:

• Trivia can in practice mean relatively trivial, or utterly trivial. But unfortunately it has been widely used outside WP to mean "collection of miscellaneous curious facts about a person or thing, some of which may actually be important but some are just amusing" and the use of our trivia sections copies this. We're stuck with the word, because the rest of the world uses it, and because of the intrinsic meaning it has a negative connotation to many sensible people, which is not always reflected in the material.
• "in popular culture," however, is a respected academic term for a way of studying literature and society, and is to some extent the currently popular specialty, both in writing and in courses for students. There are some old-fashioned people who think it a diversion from serious analysis, but they are a small minority. Some seem to have gotten involved with Wikipedia and are trying to restrict us to their preferred limitations.
• Sourcing for this material in obvious cases can come directly from the primary source, as it can for plots. When Superman is mentioned in a movie, Superman is being referred to. How important this may be needs judgement, as always, and it is right to base this judgement by sources from reviews or other discussions of the movie. But in some cases merely the fact that magicians appear in every computer game is relevant collection of obvious material to show their importance as figures in the medium.

My position of editing unsourced material is that sources should be looked for. It takes considerable time and work to properly source a long and complicated article--even if I fully knew all the places to go for sources, I would allow at least a days work for each long popular culture section,and , even so, would hope for assistance. Destruction is quicker. Removing unsourced material, like deletion, is a last resort. It is easy for find hundred of articles on almost any type subject and say--they have been here for a year, obviously they couldn't be sourced, let us remove them. And easy to do this for thousands of sections in articles on almost any subject. (I just found such sections in 8 of 10 random articles.) I do not use not use bots, but even without one, I could do any hundreds in a day--destruction that would require much longer to properly even reverse, and years of work to correct all the actual problems and remove the truly unsourcable. Any WP process if carried to extremes can be harmful. Most mass anythings done here have not been good ideas. Working faster than people can discuss is not in the longer run productive. Those who use wikilawering to justify these need to learn better--to use common sense and consideration. This is not a competitive sport.

What we should do now is return patiently to sourcing popular culture material. There aren't that many people with the skill and time to do so--and removing them from impatience is not the way to do anything at WP. I will believe those who delete them want to improve WP when the first try to source them. To his credit, Burntsauce has made made a number of such edits. He is not usually thoughtless. I had previously on his page offered to work with him on this material, and I remain willing. On a practical basis let a few good people continue to selective restore--on the basis of what appear worth the effort to sourcing. To his credit, Equazcion usually edits judiciously. And then let the editors more generally who know about the material be encouraged to source it. and let us develop clearer agreed guidelines--like consensus generally, they will be compromises. There is no room in a cooperative project for people who are too dogmatic to accommodate their colleagues. DGG (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Persuasion is best. Policies and guidelines are best used to back up arguments, not replace them. I wish all admins would act as you do, relying on persuasion and co-operative editing, and only use the blocking and protecting admin tools in cases of bad-faith disruptions. Your point about the study of popular culture being an established (if sometimes controversial) academic area is a good one. There are several peer-reviewed journals specialising in this area. Of course people should use these as sources, but unfortunately most are not open access and a difficult to obtain. We have an article on the

Journal of Popular Culture. Other such journals are The Journal of American Popular Culture, The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. Those are not quite as established at the JPC (founded 1967), but it gives you an idea of what is out there. Of course, the articles in these journals are a world away from the collections of trivia being discussed here, and it takes effort to bring the two together, but no-one ever said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Deletion, now that is easy. Carcharoth

14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with both DGG and Carcharoth's thoughtful, well-worded, and well-referenced opinions posted above. There is a great deal of value in this material and we just need to keep working to improve and source rather than destroy content that a sizable segment of our community is willing to devote time and energy on and that sees real encyclopedic value in the material as well. Have a great evening! Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal information revealed, now in page history

Resolved

Please see this edit to

You Can't See Me!

22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Methinks

WP:OVERSIGHT might be the best place to bring this up. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!}

) 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was already oversighted. Anchoress 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks!

You Can't See Me!

00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted the two revisions, and killed my computer (and apparently caused a database lock) in the process. Sorry! Daniel 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that deletion, etc, applies to _versions_, not _diffs_ - the second one wouldn't have needed to be deleted. —Random832 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on

Pro-pedophile activism

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where an "Adult-child sex" paragraph was created containing only information favorable to the practice -- which constitutes massive undue weight, since the practice is widely regarded as disgusting and immoral, and is additionally problematic because "Adult-child sex" is a neologism coined by pedophilia activists. However tolerant we might be of single purpose accounts in other contexts, operating a single purpose account to make Wikipedia articles more favorable to pedophilia is quite simply unacceptable, not only because such editing violates our neutral point of view policy, but also because articles biased towards pedophilia have a tendancy to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Particularly in light of the latter consideration, it may be advisable to impose severe sanctions against problematic single-purpose accounts. John254

00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An article has now been created: Adult-child sex, and the edit-warring continues (redirects and so forth). Some truly novel, original approaches to this persistent conflict are needed. -Jmh123 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's NYB when you need him? east.718 at 02:05, 10/10/2007

I've removed that section from

ELIMINATORJR

06:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic always needs the involvement of "uninterested" editors and admins to counteract and balance a group of editors who are "interested" in the pro-pedophile activism point of view. (That's PPA POV in shorthand). The PPA editors have discussed editing and gaming Wikipedia on forums, have used multiple accounts, and have persisted for years. Maintaining NPOV requires editors who can engage committed POV-pushers on an unpleasant topic. (No one ever said encyclopedia writing is fun.) I invite folks to help out by watchlisting some articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#Articles, categories, and links list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I only blocked one user User:Whig for disruption on Homeopathy. Please review this, I might have missed something in the revision history. Thanks, Mercury 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Protection of an Article

Resolved

Please can

The Islamic Schools Of Victoria be protected from editing by IP users? It has suffered a protracted attack of blanking and other vandalism from IP users over several days. Thank you. DuncanHill

13:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected by

WP:RPP. Thanks, Caknuck

15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I found the Request Protection page after posting here, then forgot to come back here and say so! DuncanHill 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Role account

• Amcham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Apparent role account for American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium, as evidenced by this diff and other contribs. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a message and indef blocked (autoblock disabled, though). -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Edits from IPs on page Queen Elizabeth

3 IPs that I have seen have made continued vandal edits to Queen Elizabeth. These IPs all go back to British Columbia Systems Corporation [21][22][23] . The edits have been similar to each other and are either block avoidance, sockpuppet or most likely multiple people editing the page. The ips are

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

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

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

The vandalism seems to have slowed but as a precaution I thought I would report the IPs Rgoodermote 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like class is over. If they come back, we can do a little rangeblock. Raymond Arritt 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea, I will keep a watch on their contributes. Rgoodermote 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Period F

Resolved

Hello,
This user account appears to have been created solely for the purpose of vandalizing articles. There has been only on edit so far but it was to vandalize the Burger King article.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I have

WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Max rspct and disruptive editing

I believe User:Max rspct is engaging in disruptive editing by constantly trying to delete anarcho-capitalist section in Anarchism despite longstanding consensus to include it.

First he was blocked for violating 3RR on this issue: (his block log; reverts: [24], [25], [26] + one deletion as anon).

Then he tried same thing again in july: [27], [28] (after User:Libertatia reverted him with explanation "longstanding consensus is for inclusion" he reverted back with edit summary "very funny").

Now he begins again: 09:21, 10 October 2007 (he deletes section on anarcho-capitalism without any explanation and marks his edit as minor), 16:11, 10 October 2007 (he reverts User:Brisvegas using popups).

None of his deletions was accompanied by comments on talk. -- Vision Thing -- 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The return of Amorrow

Some of you may have noticed a flurry of reversion and deletion in my recent changes and in the recent changes of others... some of you even asked me what was going on.

talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are very likely him, because SallyForth123 is very likely him as well. Please be on the lookout for suspect behaviour. Please be on the lookout for potential socks, and seek assistance if you think you need it. There are always checkusers available on IRC and there are always admins available who are familiar with the edit patterns exhibited. We may make mistakes. If mistakes are made, bring them to the attention of the person you think made the mistake... let me apologise in advance on behalf of all, and I and others will work hard to correct them (restoring pages or comments caught in deletions by mistake, undoing tags, etc...) but this requires prompt, decisive action. ++Lar: t/c

18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a clue... what are we looking for?

iridescent (talk to me!)

19:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the SallyForth123 account(s), but Amorrow's edits at the time he was banned are certainly rather distinctive. A lot of them have been deleted, but see e.g. this old version, as well as this revert by one of his socks from last year. See also

Wikipedia:List of banned users#Amorrow, Template:Pinktulip and this old ANI discussion on the same subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who had to revert 1,597 of them, I'd seriously dispute they were valid - although they were minor. Orderinchaos 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nod. I spotted the pattern in SallyForth and socks right away as soon as it was suggested... If you have seen his edits or those of his well known socks, after a while you will see the pattern too. A challenge here is if those of us that recognise the spotter characteristics get too detailed, he may possibly be able to avoid doing things which are dead giveaways now. Since he is so very corrosive to this site that he is "block on site, revert on site" by policy, we don't want to make it harder to catch him than we have to by giving things away. I'll say this though... if you see an editor that seems to have a misogynistic streak, if the very first few edits seem to show knowledge of our ways you wouldn't expect from a newbie, or if there's belligerence in tone to others at the slightest hint of questioning, if there are references you just don't get, or there are a lot of little edits to the same page, or an inability to stay away from certain subjects (successful women, for example,

Bill of Attainder, and especially Wikipedia self referential topics like Essjay, Wikia, Angela, Jimbo, etc.), an inability to avoid taking cheap shots at established editors that new editors would not be expected to know well at all... ask someone whose been around a while what they think. Some of those are signs of puppets in general, true. But finding a tendentious trollish account by pattern and behaviour, blocking that account, and then determining it's the sock of another banned user rather than Amorrow ... that's not the end of the world, is it?. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c

01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc. He's questioning the block. Perhaps someone else familiar with the user's pattern can review the block. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a stupid mistake. I'd been looking at Roomsmight (

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but after I was called away from the computer I confused the account with that of Hoplon. I've unblocked and apologized to Hoplon, and will let more involved editors decide on what to do with or about Roomsmight. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Yep, Roomsmight is a clear match, created in response to the last block. I've blocked it, reverted the TfD nominations, and applied some more IP blocks.

t

10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If Amorrow is using multiple accounts, they should all be indefinitely banned. Is there a checkuser link?--MONGO 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The accounts are getting banned as they are discovered... that's why this thread is here, to ask all concerned to be on the lookout and bring things to the attention of checkusers or admins. I don't at this time, believe that there is a case on WP:RFCU for this. That's not uncommon. If someone wants to start one that would be fine, but hopefully sock tagging will be sufficient. Some of Roomsmight's changes still need rolling back. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All reverted now. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Access to deleted articles

See also User_talk:Lar#Amorrow in which Everyking (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is asking me for access to articles and pages which are substantially or completely by socks of Amorrow, and in which I decline to grant it to him. He doesn't seem to want to take no for an answer, although I don't think there's an issue with that which requires any action by anyone else... I merely raise it for awareness since he may well ask other admins. If anyone is unclear as to why I think there is a potential issue with Deborah_Mayer they are welcome to contact me. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Steindavida, again

User:Steindavida has been blocked for gross incivility and repeated addition of himself to Wikipedia articles despite his article having been deleted because he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Since the day he was blocked, he has come back with anon accounts to re-add himself to Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver)‎, and to edit war and vandalize The Amityville Curse, so much so that the latter article was semi-protected. So now, daily, he comes in with a new anon account, edits Talk:The Amityville Curse so as to make personal attacks on another editor and re-edits Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver)‎, and every day his new sock puppet is blocked and his edits reveted. User:Golden Wattle has gone out of his her way to try to present a fair representation of Mr. Stein on the Amityville Curse article, but Stein has gone so far as to vandalize not only my User page, but Golden Wattle's as well. And now he's making legal threats, along with yet again another personal attack: [29]. Is there anything that can be done short of blocking all of the Toronto Bell Canada IP addresses? Corvus cornix 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT applies - an indef block should be handed down pending a retraction of the threat. Have you opened a suspected sockpuppets case or checkuser request yet? east.718

at 22:19, 10/9/2007

No, that was something I was hoping to avoid.  :) Corvus cornix 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit over it. The insults are gratuitous. The legal threats are actually of course pathetic but against policy. We can't of course block such a major ISP with a range block. I guess ongoing assistance from fellow admins in watching

talk

22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

also

talk

22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody tried contacting Bell Canada yet? Caknuck 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My past experience of contacting large ISPs was entirely unsatisfactory (Telstra Australia) - a total waste of time. They suggested I contact an administrator of the site - when I said I was one and was proposing a range block that took out the whole of the Telstra IP addresses to deal with this editor (subject to

talk

21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Joel Beinin

I'm about to start pruning out a lot of personal attacks and name-calling in Talk:Joel Beinin, unless anybody objects. Corvus cornix 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any reason to keep it - I assume you're referring to the long bold text ramblings? —

iridescent (talk to me!)

22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Corvus cornix 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin please sort this page/battling users out. User:Nishidani and User:Bigleaguer are getting out of hand now. Civility and rational discussion has totally gone. Comments from each other's talk pages are being copied and/or linked onto the article talk page (I've already deleted them). These two are going into meltdown. Personally I'd recommend they both get a temporary block if only to give them time to resharpen their claws! ---- WebHamster 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the page under attack from an anonymous user and then another user, both of whom engaged in highly POV editing, and blanking. The damage done to the text was, independently, fixed on several occasions by myself and RRoland. Since one of the two responsible User:Bigleaguer, also created confusion on his own user page, and made understanding what one earth was going on by repeated changes to both Beinin's page and his own tlk page, where proper calls, and, on my part, attempts at trying to reason the editor into behaving according to Wiki rules, were made.

I posted the evidence on Beinin's page, since that page was under attack by User:Bigleaguer . I regret that User:WebHamster has taken my attempts to settle this by civil and rational persuasion as implicitly uncivil and irrational. I am surprised that someone who has contributed to the Beinin's page, which has been under successive assaults by anonymous editors, someone who has repeatedly called for respect for the rules on BLP, should be considered on the same level as the person(s) who have repeatedly endeavoured to mess up that page. Still, I welcome any administrator in to examine the record, and make adequate provisions. The passage Webhamster removed (rightly, I was reconsidering posting it on Bigleaguer's own page), is as follows:-

==Annex.Bigleaguer's blanking of his Talk page where remonstrations were made about his behaviour here==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigleaguer&oldid=163603332

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bigleaguer&oldid=163603148

Nishidani 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)tes

Note I am just learning protocol. Anyway Nishidani cleverly reinserted remonstrations minus the remonstrations against his remonstrations. Nice one Nishidani. The talk page on my account will stay up, hopefully with my answer to N. Why the caps?? 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the last remark. Bigleaguer's repeated playing with his and Beinin's talk page made tracking down the changes he made extremely arduous, and if in providing those links, I got the wrong one, I will stand corrected. Nishidani 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Herbert Dingle Page

Please keep an eye on the Herbert Dingle Page. There is a vandal by the name of DVdm who won't leave this page alone. He is posing as a responsible and regular wikipedia editor but he has a specific purpose of removing any kind of contributions that might in any way cast a shadow of doubt over Einstein's theories.

Herbert Dingle was an established scientist in the 1960's who challenged Einstein's theories. DVdm wants to water down this piece of history by removing references to the controversy and beefing the article up with biographical details.

Keep an eye on DVdm. I suspect that he uses sockpupets, perhaps Denveron and other IP adresses.

DVdm is posing as the good guy and trying to make out that other editors that are trying to present a balanced article, are actually the vandals. ( Brigadier Armstrong 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC) )

Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy. He somehow sounds like the sort of person who would be the subject of a Twilight Zone episode... Mr. Dingle is a shy, ordinary man in the early 1960s who works in a boring job and is yelled at by his boss, henpecked by his wife, and insulted by his acquaintances at the bar... until one day he has a "Eureka moment" and realizes that he has a better theory than Einstein's... and he can use it to get the better of everybody who's been abusing him! But he'll discover that what it really gets him is a one-way trip into... The Twilight Zone! (Sorry... a bunch of TZ DVDs have just come up to the top of my Netflix queue.) *Dan T.* 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this some oblique way of saying that you are sanctioning DVdm's ongoing vandalism on this article? (124.157.246.207 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I remember Herbert Dingle rather well. But he didn't so much think he had a better theory than Einstein, he just thought Einstein was wrong. This made other people very, very cross. So cross in fact that when they tried repudiating Dingle's ideas they got in a muddle and got their arguments all wrong. And Dingle then calmly pointed out their mistakes! These days he'd be dismissed as a troll. Thincat 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See below and archived intervention request and article talk page. - DVdm 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I didn't see this report, but I managed to find my way to this page via an alternate route and protected what is undoubtedly the wrong version.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

==> Perhaps you could restore the last version of 2-oct? There was some reasonable agreement over that one. Cheers and Thanks. DVdm 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't do any version changes on an article I protected. I've indicated at the talkpage that a request for unprotection should be requested if you disagree with the protection. This isn't a endorsement of the current version, I just think it is inappropriate for me to get into a content dispute on an article I protected unless there is a libel issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! This user has deleted my posts every time about a new gravity theory relating to inertia in the article inertia by John Moffatt. Please allow my changes and stop DVDm from doing this- it really is ridiculous!

Protection of William Shakespeare (main page FA)

Additional admin input on how to handle to day's featured article would be helpful. William Shakespeare is an article that is usually semi-protected. However as it was todays' FA, I unprotected it. At 01:56, Alabamaboy reprotected the article citing excessive vandalism. Although I would have prefered to wait alittle longer, I didn't have any objection to that decision - the page had been vandalised over 30 times in less than 2 hours. Later today at 08:27 I decided to give unprotection another go as a different set of users would presumably be online. I thought this experiment reasonably successful, counting only a dozen instances of vandalism in the next 3 1/2 hours - comparable to the amount of vandalism the featured article normally receives. I was therefore surprised to find that Alabamaboy has reprotected the page. This seems unnecessary given present levels of vandalism and I think we should do our utmost to ensure the FA of the day is editable given it is the first page many come across of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Having had no reply from Alabamaboy, I raise the matter here - what do people think? WjBscribe 13:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course vandalism goes down while the US and Europe are mostly asleep... I don't support unprotecting, vandalism will almost certainly be ugly now that more english speakers are awake. But I've always said the supposed benefits of leaving the main page FA unprotected are not anything near what they're trumped up to be. --W.marsh 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• That's why I protected it again--the article had been hit hard in the last hour and a half before semi-protection was reinstated. As the admin who probably keeps the closest eye on this article, I can state that during the school year William Shakespeare is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, this vandalism was well above what usually happens during a main page link and I feel it is justified. It's also worth noting that the vandalism continued after the semi-protection, just not from anonymous editors. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In the last hour and a half before protection it was only vandalised 6 times! That's pretty low for a main page FA, speaking as someone who invariably watchlists the article of the day. WjBscribe 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my count was 6 vandalisms in the last hour before I protected it. And in my opinion, that's not too low. And as I stated, the vandalism of this article will pick up big time as school comes into session in the USA. That happens every time the article in unprotected.--Alabamaboy 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And if the vandalism picked up, I would support protecting the article but 6 edits in an hour (hour and a half was the timeframe used above) is not heavy vandalism for the article of the day. In my opinion any amount of time that we can leave this article open to editing is a good thing - even if its only a few windows of several hours. If we do not protect other such articles when they are vandalised at that level, there is no reason to make a special case for this only simply because it is semi-protected when not the main page FA. WjBscribe 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As I stated, school is now open in the USA and vandalism will go crazy on the article if it is unprotected. I also totally disagree with this idea that the main page FA should be unprotected b/c there is only what some term a "moderate" amount of vandalism. That said, because there is concern about my actions I have now unprotected the article. Please note, though: I will semi-protect this article again when vandalism reaches yesterday's levels. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. WjBscribe 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been vandalized at least 25 times in the two hours since semi-protection was lifted, which a large portion of that occurring within the last 30 minutes. That is close to the levels seen yesterday. I have now re-semiprotected the article.--Alabamaboy 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be comparable to levels at which we protect other main page featured articles, but I give up on arguing as you seem determined to treat the William Shakespeare article as a special case... WjBscribe 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that an administrator of this, the encyclopedia so famous for being freely editable would lock down today's highest-profile article no fewer than 3 times in a matter of a few hours, leaving it thus for hours on end. If you do not want the article to show case wiki pedia and all that it is renowned for, then please print the article out, and mail it to your readers. Splash - tk 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Splash, it was stated that the page has just been hit with an unusually high amount of vandalism in a short time. That's why it was semi-protected. WAVY 10 Fan 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about a couple of tens of edits over the course of a few hours, particularly on the featured article of the day. It was semi-protected because it was more than usual for the article, I suppose. That is par for the course when an article is on the main page. It was not in any way under unusual attack for that position. Protection was inappropriate. I note more generally that the article is protected far too querolously in general. Vandalism is a fact of wiki life, and it is proportional to the profile of the article. Splash - tk 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that an admin is not really at their most objective when the article being spammed is one of their proudest works with 350+ edits. The instinct of a major editor of course is that the article is perfect and FA to be put on display, but in general I think it should be left unprotected to allow new editors to improve it. I think it should be a general principle that the main editors should sit back and see how the article is modified during its FA status. Sad mouse 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (Oh, and for disclosure I had a debate about the introduction with Alabamaboy, but my statement before is based on my ideal of how FA should operate rather than in response to that debate).

Generally agreed with Splash and WJB. The amount of vandalism was pretty standard, I'd even go so far as to say substandard, as far as FAs go. On the off chance that anyone is unaware of the guideline regarding featured article protection, you can look it over at

WP:NOPRO. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference of opinion among admins and editors on whether or not to protect an article linked to by the main page. Some admins and editors favor no protection, others favor protecting. I fall into the last category. Once an article gets a significant amount of vandalism, I believe an should be protected so editors don't have to waste all their time reverting vandalism. This applies whether or not the main page links to the article--and I'm not alone in believing this.--Alabamaboy 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but at any time consensus on the issues has been measured, yours has been the minority view. If you think our policy on main page FA protection should change - argue for a change in the policy. But as an administrator your are expected to abide by the community consensus on when you should use your admin tool. If we allow each admin to act on their own judgment of wheether or not protecting the day's FA is appropriate we will end up with silly wheel wars. Please respect the consensus on the matter or seek to change it. WjBscribe 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept that a number of people think I have done wrong. I apologize if this causes you and the other editors any trouble. I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on the discussion, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope people will comment.--Alabamaboy 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SmackBot

I left a message on the bot's talk page, and User:Rich Farmbrough is apparently ignoring the issue. The bot running two tasks right now. One task is changing the section title on all articles from "Reference" to "References", which is appropriate IMO despite being against its approval [32]. The second task is the problem. It is changing the section title on all articles from "External link" to "External links" sample diff The bot's approval does not allow this change {Approval). I left a message to stop the bot (diff), but Rich has restarted the bot. Royalbroil 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not involved but how does "Task approved" not mean Task Approved per the first diff and "Go ahead" not mean approved per the second diff? (Honest questions)

Spryde

18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As seems fine here. The edits are correct per the external links guidelines. I did block temporarily as I initially believed it was incorrect, but have now unblocked. The approval also seems to be OK. TigerShark 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the edits are within guidelines, I have no problems with the edits. I don't understand Spryde's comment, but instead of discussing this anymore, let's let a dead horse lie. Royalbroil 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Joaquín Martínez

Resolved

Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs) seems to be a bad faith, single-purpose account intent on pushing his point of view. He's been here for less than a month, and has already been blocked three times; he has now filed a request for arbitration against someone he is in a content dispute. Accusations of "liberal deceit" seem to be a hallmark of his editing, as is edit-warring. Why put up with this blatant disruption? I propose blocking the account indefinitely now, for outright refusal to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Civility. Picaroon (t) 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was considering the same thing ... I would love to see him have the opportunity to apologize and edit constructively first, but honestly, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. --B 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic but, isn't this the sort of disucssion that should happen at the

WP:CSN? The banning of a maybe non-encyclopendic account/person? --Rocksanddirt

18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that CSN goes away tomorrow once the MFD is over ... and we're not talking about even a borderline useful contributor here. --B 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would obviously endorse such a block. My reasons are expressed on the frivolous RFAR. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• He's been blocked three times for violating the three-revert rule on Conservapedia and doesn't show any signs that he understand why his conduct is inappropriate. Coming off a week-long block, he immediately begins the exact same behavior, and then starts filing frivolous Arbitration cases against other users and being immensely incivil. An indefinite block is clearly appropriate. --Haemo 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've indefinitely blocked him for edit warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks. Anyone who disagrees with my block is welcome to unblock him. I don't think any admin will be willing to do as much. --Haemo 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • After viewing just one of his reverts on Conservapedia, fully endorse. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Their Eyes Were Watching God

Can someone check the history of Their Eyes Were Watching God, alot of obvious socks. 131.94.55.33 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they're socks. Seems more like some sort of class project-type situation. -Chunky Rice 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking... it looks like a class project to edit that article... though whether they are improving it or not is debatable.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion (from last week) is related. --

barneca (talk

) 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping an eye on this class project, other articles that the class appears to be editing include The Secret Sharer and Frankenstein. - TexasAndroid 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comment on

WP:COPYVIO material", and she put it back on October 9. After the second edit I left her a message, but she blanked her Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs

) 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kristinbaker

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

An individual has created an impersonation account to insert personal comments into the Kristin Baker page. -Jmh123 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a girl named Kristin Baker who doesn't understand what she's doing. --Haemo 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Similar comments were added to

Kristen Baker in August by Special:Contributions/74.67.75.168, who has made a few other edits, at least one of which is intelligent. Could be an adult and child imitating the adult, I suppose. -Jmh123

20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Haemo could be right about the similar names. Krstin Baker does seem common. However, the IP comes from Oneonta, NY. Isn't Baker based out of New York? IMO, it seems like a minor relative. Or, who knows? Could be a huge fan.--Sethacus 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

False Information Asserted

User_talk:Gerovital1 has been warned before for this exact same infraction. There's a diploma mill that claims to operate out of France that Gerovital1 has re-added to the List of colleges and universites in France. This is a diploma mill that doesn't even operate out of France. Here's the warning that I put on his talk page.

List of colleges and universities in France, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The state of Oregon has stated that these institutions are not even in France[33].TallMagic

20:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TallMagic 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SuccessTech Academy shooting

Please review

Burntsauce

22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he can sue, or anything. My 'redirect' button did the job nicely. If someone really thinks that such a run-of-the mill AfD must be buried, then well I suppose they will blank it. Splash - tk 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless.

Burntsauce

22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the most amazing solutions can do that to a person. I see that the predictable low behaviour is now unfolding in the history of the article about the shooting. An article that will, quite obviously, re-appear no matter it is deleted in a holy panic right now. Splash - tk 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the history. He is deceased, but an allegation in the history presumably would concern people who presumably are still alive. --B 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce courtesy blanked the AfD, and I have reverted the courtesy blank. There is nothing in the AfD that hasn't been reported numerous times on countless news reports, so it is completely unnecessary to try and protect the subject. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination

There was an AfD nomination for the

SuccessTech Academy shooting article earlier today. The nominator nominated it on the grounds of their assumption that the events were a hoax. The AfD was open for approximately two hours, when it was proven to the nominator that it was not a hoax, they withdrew the nomination. OK, it's a real event, but that doesn't mean that every school shooting needs an article. I re-nominated the article, and have had two different individuals revert my nomination, and the grounds that there was already an AfD discussion. No, there was a two hour discussion about the possibility of it being a hoax, not about whether or not the event is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I am within my rights to nominate this article for deletion, and I strongly protest the repeated removal of my nomination. Corvus cornix

23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been reverted three times now. I'm not going to get into a 3RR struggle over this, but I strongly object to my perfectly valid nomination being deleted for spurious reasons. Corvus cornix 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest just making a new AFD. That way, the keeps that came from before it was realized that it wasn't a hoax don't confuse anyone. --B 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with C.C. If you disagree with an AFD, you DISCUSS, you don't revert it away. I've seen too many people, including admin, revert stuff they don't like.

UTAFA

23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to license one side to revert the AfD tag back on, while condemning the other for removing it. Splash - tk 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the users who reverted the AfD notice. I thought that the non-admin user who closed the first nomination after the nomination withdrawal forgot to remove the template, so I removed the template (without checking the page history -- my bad). I followed up my reversion quickly with a note on Corvus cornix's user page: "If you want to nominate this article for deletion, please make a (2nd nomination) AfD page, then copy and paste the two edits made to the original AfD into the second nomination page." I personally have no problem with a second nomination AfD (despite it being my opinion that the article will be kept), but I'd prefer it go through the proper channels: follow the instructions on

WP:AFD and if it is reverted after that, then you bring your complaint here. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka

23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, UTAFA is a sock of a banned user and has been blocked indefinitely. · jersyko talk 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats

See [34]. Corvus cornix 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Offending party blocked.

Burntsauce

23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating articles for each Google geographic domain?

Am I correct that we don't need articles for each of Google's geographic domain names, as

Google search, since they all just redirected back to the article. But should these redirects even exist? --ZimZalaBim ^talk

01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, why should our coverage of Google editions be different than our coverage of Wikipedia editions?--W.marsh 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep 'em. Redirects are cheap. --Carnildo 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call on removing the links. There's no point in making a circular link, it only confuses readers. hbdragon88 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Information

please delete the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.205.212.203 it is a trademark and privacy violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckchick007 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this would be either. It's the talk page for an IP associated with a bank. Perhaps you could explain further? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Tweety21 - this is a sock of a blocked editor who persists in the delusion that editing via IP should offer her anonymity that is simply, well, not possible when you edit via IP. Maralia

04:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard, the article, again

Since two days there is a low-key revert war on L. Ron Hubbard (article is "under probation", yeah, right), caused by Anyeverybody who meantime was rv'ed by four Wikipedians but continues w/o sense. Pls check in. Misou 05:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After just a short glance, it's clear to me that both Anyeverybody and Misou are being disruptive by edit warring here (Misou is also using the term "vandalism" for a content dispute). I'd say it would be appropriate, per the terms of the probation (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS), to ban both (and possibly other editors; I haven't looked closely enough now) from the article. What do other admins think? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Anyeverybody has belatedly started pursuing dispute resolution by making an RfC on the article. Maybe we can solve it this way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

trademark violation

please delete the following trademark off of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.205.212.203 privacy violation as well.Canuckchick007 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you referring to? --Haemo 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See

#Copyright Information five threads up. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs

05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kwork

A source on the Alice Bailey page is under hot discussion as to whether or not it is reliable or represents a fringe element (see this).

I inserted a template on the source and User:Kwork has it three times this morning. Here are the diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163346135
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163358204
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&curid=425823&diff=163359948&oldid=163358811

Because Kwork has violated the 3RR rule, continually pushes a negative POV (here he states his goal for the page), and refuses to build consensus on the talk page and just unilaterally reverts, I ask that he be temporarily blocked from editing. His posts have been respected but he does not do the same for others. Renee 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They were not reverts. The section of the article under dispute has a tag at the top of the section, so her source template is redundant; which an editor with her experience should have understood. However I have now explained that to her on the article's talk page. Renee has been very hostile to my editing, and is looking too hard to to find a way to get rid of me. She has three reverts within just a few hours, but I have no wish to see her blocked, and will not give the diffs. Kwork 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

correction -- I have one edit and two undos today. Just now he has added back in a quotation that several other editors have been working on and agreed there should not be a full quotation, see this and this and this discussion. Again, there is a complete lack of respect toward other editors. Renee 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also explained this on the article's talk page [35], as Renee already knows. If you guys do decide to block my editing, please make it permanent, not temporary; and from all Wikipedia, not just one article. It would be a great relief, after months of getting hassled by a group fanatical editors (including Renee) using wiki-lawering to block criticism of Alice Bailey who is their guru. Renee is correct about one thing, I have no respect for her....although I do try to remain civil. If you are looking for extra reasons to give me the boot, you might find something helpful here [36] Kwork 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from third party. This is a routine content dispute, and Kwork (talk · contribs) is not any more disruptive than Reneeholle (talk · contribs). Also, there is no 3RR violation yet today, if there is one, Renee is just as close to crossing the line as Kwork. Also, there have been no 3RR warnings posted yet.

In addition to those two editors, there are two more experienced editors working on the article, and an administrator or two have checked in now and then. I do not believe this needs administrative action at this time, unless it escalates further.

Renee, who filed this report, should know that if she tries to use this noticeboard to get administrator intervention against her opponent in a content dispute, that her questionable behavior will be reviewed as well, and she might not get what she wants.

The RFC/U Kwork linked to above is another example, similar to this AN/I report, of trying to stop him from introducing valid information into the article. The RFC/U is still open (and I believe it should be closed as "no action needed"), but other than than the people who filed it, none of the outside views endorse the report, they all indicate that there is no significant problem with Kwork in particular.

I consider that both this AN/I report, and the RFC/U are a distraction and a waste of effort, in an attempt to stop an editor with valid concerns from including NPOV info in an article.

For disclosure: I do believe that Kwork has a good point about some of his ideas and that some of that information does belong in the article. But I am not in one "camp" or the other. I am a policy-based editor, and it bothers me seeing administrator procedures like this one being used to try and stop an editor from contributing.

I recommend this incident be closed. I recommend that both Renee and Kwork read

WP:3RR. I think we can stop the situation from erupting into a full-on edit war using discussion on the talk page. If not and help is needed, we can post a new report. --Parsifal _Hello

18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal is hardly an outside third party. She has repeated sided with the anti-Alice Bailey faction, has supported one-sided entry of templates and edits (yet ignores the other side's pleas for help), and she is incorrect about the disruption. She can be helpful on occasion but tends to support uncivil behavior by users like Kwork. (I can provide diffs if need be.)

Please, please examine the talk pages and the edits and you will see a long pattern of disruption by Kwork with a stated purpose to promote Alice Bailey in a negative view. He himself sites the RFC/User on him above so this problem is not isolated.

Finally, Kwork (again) is extremely uncivil toward me (see his post above, where he says, Renee is correct about one thing, I have no respect for her). He repeatedly says things like this on the talk page and has posted similar things on my user page. (and, he does this towards others who don't agree with him like Sethie, James, Sparklecplenty, Eaglizard).

Please grant Kwork's wish and ban him. Renee 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. I did not say I was an "outside party", I said "third party", which I am. Regarding the other editors Renee mentioned, both Jamesd1 (talk · contribs) and Sparklecplenty (talk · contribs) are SPA accounts, possibly COI in that they are devoted followers of their guru. There is evidence about those issues, but it's not necessary to go into it now, because those two editors have left the project, having become frustrated at not being able to WP:OWN the article.

I don't accept Renee's label for me of "Anti-Bailey" in any way. I want an NPOV article that includes both the light and dark aspects of this controversial author and teacher. The way I see it, Bailey wrote a lot of stuff. Some of it was inspiring and innocuous, but some of it was clearly anti-semitic and racist. That's where the intensity of the dispute is coming from. I have no desire to make a non-NPOV article that paints Bailey with a broad negative brush. But, I do feel the controversial aspects should not be buried or removed, which appears to be what Renee wants.

Aside from all of that, I still believe this is just a content dispute and there is no one user causing problems that should be blocked or banned. I don't believe this belongs on this noticeboard. If the disputes continue, then

dispute resolution procedures should be used. --Parsifal _Hello

19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from another third party. User:Parsifal's characterization of User:Kwork as being "not any more" disruptive than User:Reneeholle is rather extraordinary. I believe Renee has been among the most polite and moderate editors on the article (far more so than I myself have been). Perhaps I am (as Kwork continually claims) biased, but I would challenge Parsifal to provide even a single diff to change my mind on this.

On the other hand, I must agree that, absent an actual violation of 3RR, no administrative intervention is necessary, and this is largely a content dispute (at this point). I also recommend this incident be closed. (Parenthetically, I would note that this page should probably be expecting to see us again very soon, based on current trends.) Eaglizard 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard and Renee have disrupted progress editing the Alice Bailey article for months with wiki-lawering. Perhaps an RfC, to review the whole miserable situation for which they are responsible, would be helpful in clarifying that. Or, if they would prefer to go to mediation, that is certainly okay with me. Kwork 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Kwork, it would be helpful. However, I've been trying to wait until such odious procedure becomes truly necessary. In any case, this is not the page for this discussion, we have several of those already. I encourage you (and Renee) to file any sort of community request you think is useful, in the proper place and format. Eaglizard 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, Eaglizard. Why would you want to use an "odious procedure" when you still have hope of getting rid if me by a simple, trouble free, procedure here? Kwork 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially a content conflict, however there are numerous behaviour issues happening in relation to attitude, notably

agenda advocacy. I became involved as an outside party, but I am not neutral, as I openly believe Kwork is generally in the wrong and misrepresents policy at this article. Vassyana

22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana arrived as one of the most biased participants in the ongoing argument from her first appearance. I have previously seen nothing like it from an administrator. She could have at least made some pretense at looking neutral (at least for a day or two) in what was a difficult situation to start. (The problem is not made easier by the opposing editors coordinating their moves via e-mail. I know that is allowed, but it is not a good practice.) Kwork 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My first experience on the article was opposing original research a bit back. I'm not involved in the article as an administrator, but rather just another editor. My sysop bit doesn't give me any additional status or abilities in content disputes. As such, I feel no obligation to pretend neutrality or hide my observations and opinions. By the by, I'm a he, not a she. Vassyana 04:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are cooperating with a group of editors who have a goal of preventing any meaningful criticism of Bailey entering the article, no matter how small and limited in extent, and all you can say is that I "misrepresent policy"; but not that I am wrong. What an amazing example of technocratic thinking, and wiki-lawering. Kwork 11:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy

chi?

13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Use of unfree content outside the mainspace is not fair use. It is totally unnecessary in an AfD debate - people can view the images by looking at the articles themselves... WjBscribe 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also warn the user not to include non-free images on non-mainspace pages. So we know for sure he is aware why the image was removed. --

chi?

13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could some one please come and close this utterly pointy AfD? --Jack Merridew 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it pointless? Only two people have commented so far... WjBscribe 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See my first comment; this is a bit of pique by White Cat over my suggestion of a merge of the character articles; he is a fan, a defender of these articles. He surely does not truly want them deleted. --Jack Merridew 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am first a Wikipedian and then a "fan". For me to "wage war on" or to "defend" articles I would need to have a combative mentality - which I do not. AFD isn't about what I want and instead about consensus. If something is truly non-notable, then it should be deleted. If it is notable, that is a different story. The community

chi?

14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, you took my use of the word defender as having a military connotation when I intended it in the sense of a protector; a usage that I think was obvious enough. --Jack Merridew 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time I made a nomination contradicting my personal veiws on a topic by the way. --

chi?

14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this an example of forum shopping — seeking a venue and outcome that will thwart the merge suggestion? --Jack Merridew 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You violated Wikipedia policy by including a non-free image outside of article space. White Cat asked for an admin's help in eliminating the violation of our fair use policy. How, exactly, is this forum shopping? Picaroon (t) 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I be "forum shopping" by removing a fair-use image you added and then restored despite a warning? What would I be shopping for? --

chi?

17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not restore the image after the warning, I responded above. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

re

Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters#Merge character articles that were not going to White Cat's liking. This view has been expressed by others at the Afd. I would also like to point out the White Cat summarily reverted my initial merge-tagging of the character articles; see [39] and about 35 other reverts in the same 5 minute time frame. --Jack Merridew

10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is bad practice to seek the opinion of a more general public" - are you seriously suggesting that? Or are you implying a legal threat as that is a law related article. --

chi?

12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I used the term forum shopping in a wikipedia-context — which is entirely apparent. Moreover, I sought a wider audience for the merge discussions which you attempted to undermine with your reverts of all the merge-tags. I just looked-up

WP:FORUMSHOP — seen it before? --Jack Merridew

12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11#Belldandy --Jack Merridew 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete article copied and pasted from my userspace

Resolved

I deleted the article in the mainspace. --Isotope23 ^talk 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an article at User:William Graham/MGMT for the band MGMT. The article isn't complete and the band does not yet assert notability because their major label release won't be out until 2008 and doesn't even have a firm release date.

User:Rabbitfighter found the in progress page, then copied and pasted the it from my userspace and into article space at MGMT. This destroys attribution of content so there is no change log.

I was planning on moving my work in progress once it was complete and there was notability established. I'm confused on why the user would do this. Some administrator help would be appreciated.

The only two paths I see are to:

1. Delete it in article space or
2. Delete it in article space and move my incomplete version there to keep attribution

--William Graham ^talk 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Approach Rabbitfighter about it and talk to him/her, and AfD the article, mentioning that you're working on it in your userspace. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page and then he blanked his user page and his talk page. --William Graham ^talk 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a minute and I'll delete the mainspace version.--Isotope23 ^talk 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

17 reverts for no reason

I was just wondering if it's a violation of some policy for a user to revert 17 edits by multiple editors for no special reason other than he didn't like that I was one of the editors who made some of those edits? [40] (Almost all of my edits were referenced.) After doing the 17 reverts, this user then proceeded to selectively re-add some of the info, not all, and removed most of the references. I asked for a reason for the reverts and the rationale can be found on Vision Thing's talk page. Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the Nobel Prize article without User talk:Vision Thing's (and User:Anthon.Eff's) approval. (There a very long thread about this in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics.) Besides the edits mentioned above, he's also reverted some of my other edits (one of which included a reference) that he didn't like.[41] [42]

I don't know if this falls under content dispute,

WP:OWNERSHIP

, or none of the above. I've also left messages on the talk pages of the following admins:

• User talk:Dekimasu#Nobel Prize and Talk:Nobel Prize
• User talk:PeaceNT#User:Vision Thing and the Nobel Prize articles (with longer explanation)

but they seem to be away right now.

–panda

23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a single revert to 17 versions back, not 17 reverts. He expressed specific problems with the changes you made, far from the "Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the

ownership issues, he accuses you of 'unilateral' changes without making any specific complaints about the content of your edits, and that's a problem, but you've either misunderstood the terminology or mischaracterized his actions. Even if I revert back to when an article was _created_, it's still only one revert. —Random832

03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't write the comment correctly as I meant a single revert that removed 17 edits by multiple editors. His accusation of "unilateral changes" stems from the extremely long thread at Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics. Vision Thing changed the intro text in the Nobel Prize article to include the econ prize as a Nobel Prize 21:38, 29 September 2007 [43], which started the entire conflict. I wasn't the only editor who objected to seeing the econ prize listed as a Nobel Prize [44] [45] [46] [47]. Only after a few other editors became involved did Vision Thing finally decide to offer a "compromise" text [48]. Compare that with the introductory text both before and after Anthon.Eff made changes to it [49] -- notice that there are two paragraphs in the introductory text. The current introductory text has only one paragraph (see Nobel Prize), changed by Vision Thing on 9 October 2007.

• 17:34, 9 October 2007 [50] version with 2 intro paragraphs
• 17:36, 9 October 2007 [51] version with 1 intro paragraph
• 17:40, 9 October 2007 [52] re-added some of the changes I made
• 18:00, 9 October 2007 [53] modified the text about the committees that I had written

Going back in time to the "compromise" text, it only included four sentences. I made no changes to those four sentences except for removing a very small statement that I contested [54] and had already mentioned in the talk page. [55] The longer version for why the statement I removed is not 100% true can be found here, which Vision Thing has even now agreed to [56].

Since Anthon.Eff felt that it was acceptable to start editing the article and added the compromise text [57] (same link as above) despite my protests to it, I then proceeded to edit other text that was not under discussion, which included:

• removing references that did not support the statements they referred to [58] [59]
• adding text + references to the second paragraph of the introduction and adding references to the first paragraph [60]
• removing an incorrect statement in the article [61]
• modifying text + adding a reference in other locations [62] [63]
• adding a {{fact}} tag in another location [64]

So the claim of "unilateral changes in the introduction" is interesting as (1) I didn't modify the text he proposed in any major way, despite never agreeing to it to begin with, and (2) except for that one edit, the majority of my edits had nothing to do with (i) the introduction, or (ii) any text that was being discussed.

So yes, "Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the Nobel Prize article without User talk:Vision Thing's (and User:Anthon.Eff's) approval" as Vision Thing reverted all of my edits about text that was never under discussion and then selectively re-added the text that he had reverted, including removing the majority of the references that I had added.

–panda

05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• –panda, but he seems to believe that he alone is right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is obstinate.--Anthon.Eff
  14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• If it isn't already obvious, Anthon.Eff has chosen to side with Vision Thing on this issue. A summary of the time of events for the compromise text can be found at User talk:PeaceNT#User:Vision Thing and the Nobel Prize articles.

• The compromise text that Anthon.Eff claims that 3 editors agreed to was before I posted my version.
• My proposed text was never commented on except by Anthon.Eff and Vision Thing and essentially buried by Anthon.Eff's comments. It's still unknown if Tkynerd or any other editor has even seen it since no one else has commented on it.
• The reason why I started to ask questions to Anthon.Eff and Vision Thing instead of directly answering them was because

• I had already answered their question [65]
• all of the references/links that I listed (eight total) were ignored or discounted because of the usual statement that it's original research, there are other reliable sources that contradict, or my sources couldn't be used because it doesn't say that the econ prize isn't a Nobel Prize. [66] [67] I listed links to the
  Encyclopedia Britannica, one to the UK version of Encarta, since the normal Encarta website didn't support his claims, and one to an article written by the Australian government. He then claimed that his references were more reliable and fixated on the UK Encarta text that stated "reviewed by Nobel Foundation" [69] [70] [71] even though the normal Encarta website doesn't contain that text [72], and I notified him about it [73]
• Anthon.Eff had up to this point not done any research on this topic nor had he produced a single reference and I thought it was time that he did his own research instead of me doing all of the work for them.

• At this point, I wrote a comment to Dekimasu about many things, one of which was how Anthon.Eff hadn't done any research yet on the topic he was arguing about [74]. (I know he had been reading my comments to Dekimasu because of the way he worded his replies.) Finally, Anthon.Eff decided to do some research.
• I would like to know which new sources Anthon.Eff is claming were introduced that I didn't comment on.
• As for moving Anthon.Eff's comment back to the previous topic, that's already been said 3 times. [75] [76] [77] The "new topic" was about text that we already discussed in the #Economics thread and there was no reason for the new subsection other than to hide the fact that it had already been discussed.
• "he labors under the delusion that he alone is right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is obstinate." This is an interesting comment by Anthon.Eff since I've already convinced Vision Thing [78] about the text I contested, another outside editor entered the conversation to tell Vision Thing how obstinate he was being [79] (already listed above), after Tkynerd cited text opposing Anthon.Eff & Vision Thing's views [80] Anthon.Eff attacked Tkynerd claiming ill-concealed political agenda in the edit summary [81].

• Let's not lose sight of what the original issue is. In a single edit,
  WP:OWNERSHIP issues involved as it doesn't seem acceptable for me to edit text in the Nobel Prize
  article.

–panda

15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Another point:
  –panda
  17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN

closed

As a result of the

cool stuff

) 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the latter, simply as a matter of being less confusing. --B 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let them peter out where they are. No new cases there. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Asadaleem12 case is already being handled at CheckUser, I think, so it doesn't matter to me. JuJube 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the page, I believe the Tweety21 case is ready for closing. Note, though, that I am the person who opened that case. --Yamla 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the Tweety21 discussion and modified

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Header to indicate that the board is closed for business. --B

15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial threat against me made by Iwazaki

Resolved

 – user given last warning

I am filing this ANI against Iwazaki due to his incivil behavior against me. I have filed a similar ANI here which will explain his incivility history against me. There is an MfD going on here where he made a racial statement to me here saying "If you need the murdered tamil list let me know, probably thats the only thing i can do for all the people died on the hands of satan." I so happen to be Tamil and do not take this lightly. Furthermore, I am offended with this racial threat directed against me. If an admin could look into this it would be appreciated. Thank you. Wiki Raja 04:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a gross personal attack, and very much in line with this user's other behavior. I've given them a final warning on the subject. --Haemo 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::I realise that I've wandered into this argument rather late, but I'm having difficulty seeing the racial threats or personal attacks here. All I can see is Iwazaki saying that a group of Tamil terrorists have killed many Tamils. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)I just noticed the discussion further down the page. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated legal threats

There have been repeated legal threats on Talk:Matthew Joyce article by User:Kenanmike[82], User:86.129.116.17[83][84]. These threats have gone on long enough and I feel a block may be in order. I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to lodge this type of complaint, but I could not find a better place. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both per

WP:NLT until such time as legal threats are withdrawn. Anon ip block allows account creation, but if that's not the best way to handle the anon, please feel free to change it. Shell ^babelfish

08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Block Review (Orangemarlin)

I blocked User talk:Sm565 and User talk:Orangemarlin for disruption after a warning on Talk:Homeopathy. Please review. Mercury 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this appears to be between established editors and several single-purpose ones. El_C 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercury (talk · contribs) has just blocked, Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) a respected, long standing, good faith editor. It's my opinion that this was a very poor decision by mercury, particularly when weigh against the fact that several editors, also in good standing have reverted essentially the same edits by Sm565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), on numerous occasions in the past.[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92]. When I brought this up, mercury's response was less than enlightening, and failed completely to address either the issue of why he/she choose to treat an established, productive editor in the same manner as a disruptive SPA, or how precisely he expected orangemarlin to discuss the matter, while blocked. Can someone please overturn this post haste.  – ornis⚙ 10:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The block is very unfair indeed - Orangemarlin seems to have done very little other than remove a POV tag and ask for it to be discussed on the talk page, then when it was added, re-removed it. Particularly given there was no warning, discussion was ongoing on the talk page, and Orangemarlin's status as a good faith editor with thousands of edits, I have unblocked Orangemarlin per Mercury's talk page, where he suggests an uninvolved admin should review it.
  ム
  10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Good call. El_C 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Hear hear.  – ornis⚙ 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Note I have not similarly undone the block on

  ム

  11:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism-only account

ResolvedDidn't read properly.

Not fully active at the moment, but most edits are silly vandalism since August 28. User is Misbah Ismailjee (talk · contribs). x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to talkpage, this editor has been indefblocked for a day already. Anchoress 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, wrong log page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect several articles that attract vandals?

Hi. I don't have enough experience in Wikipedia to know when semiprotection is warranted, but would like to ask if that would be possible for several articles on my Watchlist that attract vandals nearly every day: Neanderthal Cro-Magnon Cave painting and Lascaux. The vandalism is almost exclusively from anonymous editors, obviously children. In the last week or so I've begun posting vandalism warnings, and a couple blocks have been issued. But it takes time away from the improvements that are very much needed in the Cave painting and Lascaux articles. Thanks. TimidGuy 11:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See

Spryde

11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're free to ask for protection at

WP:RPP, but a quick look tells me that it won't be granted. None of these articles is receiving the level of vandalism that would require temporary semi-protection, let alone permanent. Semi-protection is more for something where we're getting multiple attacks in an hour, not one a day. -Chunky Rice

13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, it is for when the tools that cause less collateral damage such as reversion and blocks (up to and including range blocks) are not able to reduce the flow adequately. Only then should protection be applied. After all, if one or a few users is/are hitting an article repeatedly, there's no reason to freeze out everyone else. Semi-protection is too regularly used as a first resort, when it is in fact the last. Splash - tk 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Battle Group

Resolved

 – Protected and watchlisted

I've been reverting various edits on this article for a few days now. At first, partisan(s) of the group were trying to eliminate sourced references to an anti-semitic incident. Later, critic(s) of the group have begun adding inappropriate rants. As a result of this edit[93], I'm too angry for further involvement. Someone please watch the article. --MediaMangler 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User dumping massive amounts of copyright text

Folantin

13:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have left this warning which clearly states the issue. It does not seem the user was not honestly aware of the implications of what policy he is violating. Will give a second chance for now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Orangemarlin

Could someone restore this, please? I deleted it to hide some personal info, but for some reason it's fritzing my crappy work computer every time I try and undelete.

I deleted it to remove the last 3 edits (those containing OM's IP), so restore all edits bar those 3 please.

ム

14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, but it also seems to be in his talk archive already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't do the same to that as well?  – ornis⚙ 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We can - done.

ム

14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

IP address 209.173.6.202

the IP address of 209.173.6.202 (contribs) (talk) is being used for vandalism. This has been an ongoing issue for two years, there have been blocks placed on it in the past. I would like to see it blocked again, for as long as possible.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

There are only 2 previous blocks, the longest was 31 hours; some IPs are much worse. I've blocked it for a week. Please report vandals to

WP:AIV for faster response. Mr.Z-man

17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Revenge of sockpuppets?

Resolved

By accident, I found this new interesting user: User:SalonSam. He/she leaves a message with the text "I know you people have been endin' the livs of me friends but now i am here to take their place" and a reference to several blocked sockpuppets at random pages in Wikipedia.[94] Perhaps someone should look at it before it takes a more sinister form. Tankred 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Someone speedily reported them on good 'ol AIV and I reverted, blocked, & tagged 'em. Seems like they are a meatpuppet for User:ClaimJumperPete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Group of users blanking Star Trek character articles

Administrators, there appears to be something strange going on with articles about Star trek characters. Worf and Geordi La Forge have been hit in the last couple of days by a group of users (or perhaps the same user with several different accounts) who are reverting the entire article to a version from months ago. The reason for this isn’t clear but the edit summaries contain phrases like “resetting article” and “returning to stub”. There was also a border line personal attack where one of the users called another “a lazy tagger”. Now, I don’t know a great deal about Star Trek, but this looks like vandalism. And even if there is some kind of justifiable reason to repair these article, or remove bad info, reverting to a months old version, wiping out everyone else’s changes since then, doesn’t appear to be the right way to do it. -OberRanks 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deanna Troi and Data (Star Trek) also being hit by the same people. -OberRanks 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You could probably make a convincing argument for a checkuser case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're socks. The only three I see doing this are Cromulent Kwyjibo, ShutterBugTrekker, and Anton Mravcek, all of whom have been around a while and have different editing interests. Perhaps they just agree. I see a note here, but brief notes to those three editors asking for discussion of the issue would be step one. They may not have even noticed the talk page thread.--chaser - t 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked the user(s) to stop re-instating the bold changes, and there is a thread at Talk:Data (Star Trek) about it, although I don't think s/he responded. I'm disturbed by this "it's all the lazy taggers' fault" nonsense. The article can be cleaned up just as easily as it can be "rest and fixed." If anything it's just as lazy to gut the article - they're not taking the time to clean things up either. But seriously, why not have disorganized information than no information? These three people keep referring to some magical theory that a stub is better than an untidy article, but I don't see how that's necessarily true. Unless they have consensus support, they should stop making these bold edits and discuss the changes they want on the talk page. --Cheeser1 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen this before. Basically, the issue is over the fact that the articles are primarily written with an "in-world" style. The 'vandals' are removing all the information that goes against this (like the entire fictional back story found in

WP:FICTION content disputes we see in other places. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 07:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy trapped in a box and can't get Out Of Universe, Batman!... seriously though, is there a WP:Star Trek to whose attention this can be brought? I'm gonna go look, and if so, let all know. ThuranX 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've notified the project regarding this thread, and the larger issues at hand, hopefully the three day weekend will yield a cleanup. ThuranX 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They have responded to a discussion on the Worf article

Sign

) 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. See

chi?

09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The same Anton fellow is at it again, and has left this acerbic comment on the one article's talk page. I generally am fine with stub-ifying articles as in-universe as most of the Star Trek character ones, but I take exception to his incivility toward other editors. In his partial defense, the folks reverting his quasi-blanking (myself included I think once) have commented about respect the consensus-building process, but no one's actually started up a section on any of these articles' talk pages to discuss what should go and what should stay. I imagine if Anton's edits were more piecemeal, and if he used a less-uncivil tone in talk-page comments and edit summaries, this wouldn't be that big a deal. --EEMeltonIV 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In Anton's defense: he's daring to do something besides just complain. Did the articles on Family Guy characters improve because of tags? Heck no. They improved because scholarly-minded users like edgarde thoughtfully trimmed all that was extraneous or mere repetition of plot, (which Melton repeatedly cites as a reason for the in-universe tags, though the tags actually say that the article does not distinguish fact from fiction).

With the TNG character articles, a clear track record is emerging: tagging does not work. "Stub-ifying" actually does. In fact, the in-universe tags have got to be the most counterproductive tags Wikipedia has. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that a Checkuser should be done, and possible the offending accounts be blocked during this period. I can't exactly stick my finger on it, but there are subtle similarities between their userpages, and that they are pushing the same, rare (not likely to be a coincidence), agenda, stubifying to a version of the article with errors. Anyway, I think a checkuser would be a good idea at this point, also, because one seems to "step in" when the other is in danger of violating the 3RR, see article history. Just my opinion. --

Sign

) 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil - incivility, personal attacks, contentious POV edits

Andyvphil persists in uncivil behavior and personal attacks in connection with his POV/contentious editing of the John Stossel

article.

The article has been the subject of BLP notices here and here, regarding building up an excessively long criticisms / controversies section repeating derogatory claims made by partisan "watchdog" groups. I came late to this article with no agenda or position, but did try to help out where I could.

In doing so I find myself attacked by Andyvphil, one of those edit warring on the page but whose position also seems to be that there was too much poorly sourced derogatory information. This editor has received five warnings on his talk page from four users (including me) over civility, 3RR, and pesonal attacks in connection with this article: [95], [96], [97], [98], and [99].

He has responded to the last civility warning by trying to impugn me and calling me and at least one other user a "troll." He shows no sign of acknowledging or trying to reduce his incivility. I don't want to have to build an arbitration case against this user or defend his tit-for-tat accusations just to come in as a neutral party to a BLP problem, just wish he would stop contentious editing and lashing out at people. Warnings don't seem to be working. Wikidemo 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's get it right: my last "attack" was "The worst I'm guilty of is feeding the trolls by not giving them the last word." Would it have helped if I'd blue-linked

Andyvphil

14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above is typical of the problems with this user; instead of responding or trying to the notice of incivility he simply turns this into an attack on me and others. Blue-linking to calling me a troll does not help anything. Claiming (yet again) that I am playing games to protect my turf is an

WP:AGF violation. In fact I have no position and no turf to protect. I am merely mediating, and asked for admin help (as I am doing again now) to deal with a disruptive and uncivil editor. I have done everything deliberately and don't see any need to defend myself against sarcastic jibes that I am clueless, don't read the record, etc. I have read the record. He is all wet in his claim that the other users were uncivil to him but that is beside the point. Even if they were that does not justify his playground-level taunts of other users as thinking they are tin gods, etc. I stand by this and all of my comments. Wikidemo

15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo made previously contested/deleted/restored deletions to

Andyvphil

22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you to make of this? - you ask, rhetorically. If you wish to be responsible, you will make of it that I am bringing to light your behavior issues because after five warnings - six, now - over a single article you have utterly refused to bring your conduct into line with Wikipedia policies on civility and editing. Your specious and persistent accusations that I am acting in bad faith, repeated yet again in the paragraph above, are further incivility. Please stop.Wikidemo 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikidemo, I too went to the page because of a BLP concerns and found myself being attacked by this user. What gets me the most is that he is unwilling to see that he is a lone offender and that many people have, in good faith, given him warnings rather than reporting him. I had no agenda accept to improve the article per the BLP call, and to see that Andyvphil is unwilling to be more civil and that he arbitrarily makes edits even after the discussion page shows that the editors all came up with compromises and other solutions clearly is disruptive. I would like to add another link that Wikidemo did not include to show yet, another warning issued [103]. The discussion page of the John Stossel article will clearly portray his offenses and the other editors trying to work with him, thus establishing that there is a pattern going back to July.--Maniwar (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More recent evidence to show pattern of disruptive editing [104], [105]. --Maniwar (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The first edit Maniwar lists is a diff of my making a change proposed by Morph, agreed to by Maniwar, and as yet disapproved of on the talk page by no one. Indeed, it was afterwards reinserted by Morph with the comment "it seems everyone has agreed to the change". The second edit is Maniwar warning me on my user page, after reverting that very same edit, that he would place a "vandal" tag on my user page if I made another such "arbitrary edit contrary to the consensus". He elsewhere described the edit as "disruptive and/or POV editing" and therefor "considered vandalism". But wait, it seems he disapproved of my edit comment, and did all that without even looking at the edit!

Andyvphil

16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor is obviously utterly unrepentant about his conduct, and seems to be claiming it is all other editors and not himself. Maniwar and I are neutral in this situation and came to the article after a BLP notice simply to help deal with BLP violations, but he has dragged us into things by turning the accusations around on us. It would help if someone new to this could lend some perspective, hopefully a stern warning that this kind of conduct is intolerable and must be stopped immediately. If he persists after yet another warning (which would be his seventh, by five different editors), I would urge people to consider a block. Wikidemo 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've demonstrated above that Maniwar's "vandalism" warning was as specious as his one for "3RR", and Wikidemo doesn't even attempt to rebut me, but just asserts that it's additional proof of my bad behavior. It's not. Not disassociating himself from false accusations is what is bad behavior. And after starting this waste of my time and noticeboard space, he has the gall to accuse me of dragging him into "things"?

Andyvphil

13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now given this user a seventh warning for incivility based on the above comment. Will someone please counsel this user to be more civil and stop making personal attacks? Thanks. Wikidemo 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another bogus "warning". "Not disassociating himself from false accusations is what is bad behavior" doesn't qualify as a NPA violation. And thinking so is clueless. And if that provoked, factual observation gets me #8 from Wikidemo, so what? Garbage piled on garbage is still garbage.

Andyvphil

22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "Clueless", "garbage". Warning #8. This AN/I process seems to be useless so unless someone is willing to do something can I close this discussion as unresolved? The cycle of Andyvphil repeating his incivilities and my continuing to warn him over it is not leading anywhere.Wikidemo 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else embarrassed of Wikidemo, or is it just me...? HalfShadow 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's not just you.

pray

06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not helpful. If you have something useful to say will you please say it? Wikidemo 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Herbert Dingle disrupted (again)

Article Herbert Dingle is subject (again) to a disruptive edit war by a string of clearly special purpose accounts and probably suspected sock-puppets. See archived intervention request and article talk page. Can someone please run a check-user on this, and/or protect the page to version of 2-oct or Denveron's version of 10 oct and herhaps protect the acticle? Thanks. - DVdm 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy. He somehow sounds like the sort of person who would be the subject of a Twilight Zone episode... Mr. Dingle is a shy, ordinary man in the early 1960s who works in a boring job and is yelled at by his boss, henpecked by his wife, and insulted by his acquaintances at the bar... until one day he has a "Eureka moment" and realizes that he has a better theory than Einstein's... and he can use it to get the better of everybody who's been abusing him! But he'll discover that what it really gets him is a one-way trip into... The Twilight Zone! (Sorry... a bunch of TZ DVDs have just come up to the top of my Netflix queue.) *Dan T.* 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.246.207 (talk)

To admins: is the above sentence "Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy" combined with this suffiecient to take some measures? Thanks - DVdm 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually wrote the original line, as a smartass quip as a result of watching way too many Twilight Zone episodes. I have no idea why the anon IP reposted it. *Dan T.* 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well whoever you are, you're not a very helpful administrator. If the matter can cause an edit war, then it is important enough for an administrator to intervene. Your cheeky flippant response indicates to me that you are DVdm himself. (Brigadier Armstrong 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

It is quite clear that DVdm is the one doing the disrupting and that he has got quite a number of sockpuppets eg. Dan T and Denveron.

I am requesting that an administrator intervene and examine the actual argument in question. Dvdm is deliberately trying to mask out what Herbert Dingle is famous for. ( Brigadier Armstrong 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) )

Ummm... pardon? I'm nobody's sockpuppet. The many people who have gotten into intense arguments with me over my 3-year Wikipedia history have called me lots of things, but not a sockpuppet of DVdm, a user I've never even heard of. *Dan T.* 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well whoever you are you are not a very helpful administrator. Your cheeky and flippant response tells me that you are DVdm himself until proved otherwise (Brigadier Armstrong 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

There's always room for humour, especially in an effort to defuse situations, however there is never room for unsubstantiated accusations. Just be grateful it was only a Twilight Zone parody rather than a dissertation on Dingleberries. ---- WebHamster 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually an admin. (Just because this is the Administrator's Noticeboard doesn't mean that only admins can post here.) And "guilty until proven innocent" isn't a good attitude here, where

Assume Good Faith is policy. *Dan T.*

17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Brigadier, please don't make ridiculous accusations against other editors. Natalie 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Brigadier, any topic can lead to an edit war: there have been fierce edit wars over some spectacularly

lame topics. It won't help your case if you lose your temper over a silly joke. Focus on the facts, not on the people -- especially if they're bystanders who mean no harm. -- llywrch

19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

user:panda

possible breach of good faith

background

this is regarding the nobel laureate lists: approx six weeks ago, there arose a question as to 'what exactly' the country data is to represent in the articles.[106] though on the surface, it is obvious, it is less clear in nobel foundation citations (John James Richard Macleod citation). an rfc was begun on 14 Sep, and as before, the consensus has leaned toward reflecting the data in the nobel citation data rather than use some other

wp:syn

method to interpret intent or establish fact.

complaint

user:panda, an assumption of good faith would be in order. however he has taken on this behaviour before with results that can arguably be regarded as disruptive.[107]

[108]

redress

an examination to determine whether the behaviour and tactics employed by

user:panda are within the bounds of wiki-policy. --emerson7

18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. You guys felt that the country data that the Nobel Prize websites provided was confusing, and so started an RFC about what to do about it. As the discussion was going on, panda found a source which specifically explained what it meant, removing the ambiguity. You accused him of "original research" and are now claiming that he's breaching good faith by trying to muddle the process since he believe that since there's no longer any ambiguity, there's no problem. I suggest you
  assume some good faith on his part, and go back to trying to sort out what is obviously a content dispute on the page. We aren't the "good faith police" here, and you haven't explained what administrative action needs to be taken here. --Haemo
  19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• that is incorrect. the ambiguity yet exists, but is not the basis of my complaint....which is in regard to his tactics and machinations. --emerson7 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Which appear to be entirely in good faith; something which you should assume on his part. --Haemo 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quick response to emerson7

I don't have time for a complete response right now but emerson7 has been harassing me since I reverted one of his edits in one of the Nobel Prize articles quite some time ago. A quick look at my talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows evidence of this. This entire incident report has been made in retaliation for me finding out what the country data actually means for the Nobel lists, according to the Nobel Foundation and his obvious dislike of me bringing this fact to the Nobel list articles (see Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists, Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists, and User talk:Panda#dis-information).

emerson7 forced the first RFC (Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not) by engaging in an edit war with me, refusing to accept facts that I presented both on his his talk page, my talk page and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and refusing to answer until I created an RFC.

The second RFC is about a much larger issue that spans 6 Nobel Prize articles. I haven't had time to focus much attention on it because of other matters associated with the

Nobel Prize in Economics articles. emerson7

has refused to participate in this RFC, despite being asked to on his talk page. Instead, he takes offense by it and has been disruptive when he does respond.

I've already been advised by two editors (

WP:Wikiquette and/or this forum and have not done so for the sole reason that I actually believe emerson7

does useful things for WP by fighting spam. Now I'm kind of sorry that I haven't already done so.

If anyone has breached good faith, emerson7 has done it time and time again. I can provide multiple diffs to support these claims. Right now I need to run but if you need some diffs immediately, please check User talk:Dekimasu#emerson7 or User talk:JHunterJ (archive).

–panda

19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm one of the participants in the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I have no reason to doubt Panda's good faith based on the interactions that I've had with Panda on that talk page and on my user talk page. It seems to me that this report by emerson7 is the consequence of prior disputes between him and Panda, about which I don't know much, so I can't comment on that. --Itub 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question Do I need to provide diffs for the above or has this already been tossed out?
  –panda
  20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon Editor Once Again Causing Problems

I've posted about this person here [109] and here [110], but he continues to return. This editor reverts edits without reason, engages in name calling [111], [112], [113], and does not try to come to a consensus on the issues at hand. This time he is using this

List of light heavyweight boxing champions and you'll see the IP addresses he's used). I've tried to engage the person in a conversation but to no avail. I'm unsure what to do about this person.MKil

19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

I'll do another

WP:RPP, this time for a semi on the articles affected. Gimme a list and I'll file the report. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!}

) 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note this diff on this page. Woodym555 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I'll file the report right now on the list; it's not a good idea to wait for any more articles if this anon is stalking MKil's edits. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. He's also been continually reverting edits at

Talk:List of light heavyweight boxing champions.MKil

20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)MKil‎

Added them to the request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this attack, and this one as well. I think a block would possibly be appropriate for wiki-stalking and personal attacks, you may wish to report this at

WP:AIV. Ariel♥Gold

20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a block. --Haemo 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo. Ariel♥Gold 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

JForget protected the list for a month, its talk page for twelve days, Roy Jones, Jr. for a week, and the rest for three weeks. According to him, this is a long-termer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy's also been a nuisance for around a year on list of current world boxing champions. Protection would be nice, especially since the only anon to ever make a non-vandalism contribution now has an account. east.718 at 02:38, 10/11/2007

I'll make a request for it as well, if it hasn't already been protted. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)//Aaaaand, it's listed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were an admin. I would have done it myself otherwise. east.718 at 04:42, 10/11/2007

Naah, I'm not an admin yet... -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

help!!!!!!!!!!!1

I am starting a task force to make Hillary Clinton article an FA and an admin is banning me because of this7F 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see here, just another sock of banned user Dereks1x . . . · jersyko talk 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He blocked someone then comments to just move along not disclosing that he is the banning admin. This is a ploy to avoid oversight and is misconduct by Jersyko.

Reviewing the situation, it seems that 7F is an editor that comment on a featured article nomination on

Hillary Rodham Clinton

. 7F gave suggestions to improve the article. A sock would be expected either to support violently or oppose violently, not give suggestions for improvement.

It seems like the banning admin has edited with the people supporting the FA. So banning 7F has the effect of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute and to sway a vote. This is misconduct.

There is no evidence for labelling those who they oppose a sock. 7F edits are in different articles than the accused.

7F should be unblocked and allowed to improve the article so that it can become a featured article. I see no vandalism or POV edits.

UTAFA

23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am used to seeing conflict (such as the Arvand Rud article where the Iranian viewpoint is suppressed and attacked) but even there they don't block people and strike out comments like Hillary. For the record: I am not voting in that FA nomination, either for or against.

UTAFA

22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, another user that was previously suspected to be a Dereks1x sock that has now removed all doubt. Blocked UTAFA as well. · jersyko talk 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I occasionally read admin noticeboards to further my understanding about WP policies. This one I do not understand at all and I hope you will help educate me. I understand what a sockpuppet is but I don't understand how you go about concluding that a user is a sock. I know that there is a checkuser mechanism for verifying that a user is a sock, but before you can do a CU you have to have solid reason for believing that is the case. I looked at the user pages for 7F and UTAFA and saw the message block about "refer to contributions for evidence". I glanced through the contributions and did not see any obvious similarities. So just what is the evidence? I ask not to dispute it, but so that I might gain the ability to spot evidence myself. Sbowers3 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally most socks edit in the same fashion or pattern as the original. When all else fails, they can always do an IP check. HalfShadow 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered Notice

comment by Jaakobou - i apologize for "forum shopping" both here and here. my only defense is that the editor i've complained about continued breaching policy, and my actions helped provide for a volunteer (User:Zscout370) for mentorship. regardless of the advancement caused by my action, i will be more careful not to over-expand any complaint i may raise in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

I'm closing this as forum shopping. Please read/participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recent editing by PalestineRemembered Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

has been mentioned for community sanction and/or inspection by a number of editors, including his mentor Geni, - on this ANI.

Yet, he's continued chasing me around, attacking my alleged "long record (and block) for harrassment on editors and admins on their TalkPages"^[114] on a conversation which has nothing to do with him.

I request he'd be blocked from editing until the community finds him a replacement mentor (this time, someone with admin options) - per this subcategory - and/or decides on other sanctions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If PR is to be blocked for occasional edit-warring, soapboxing, arguably POV edits, etc., then I request that Jaakobou, Tewfik, Armon, myself, and just about everybody on I/P pages except for ChrisO and HG be blocked as well. Another option would be to drop this crazy scapegoating, and get on with the messy process of consensus-building on talk pages, instead of tying up process pages with frivolity.--G-Dett 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is guilty (except ChrisO and HG) so no-one is. Cute, but you're really just

whistling past the graveyard. If you've got a case against me or anyone else, present it. <<-armon->>

01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw [115] and [116] and I think it's safe to say he breached about 6 out of 8 of his promises from the arbcom he was party to a year ago and it is obvious he has learned very little since. I support a short term ban till we can get this whole mentor/sanction thing resolved. Kyaa the Catlord 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, more false claims. That ArbComm case was this summer, and closed because those attempting to ban Palestine Remembered finally admitted that they were wrong to do so, because their whole proposal was based on false claims and a lynching party. Now you want to hold a new lynching party. No way. If we do it, I'll probably force it back to ArbComm just the way I did this summer. (As an aside, this sort of thing is why we made the exactly wrong decision in merging CSN back here - we should have absolutely forbidden the use of this page for ban discussions, moved them all to CSN, and put a minimum closing time requirement over there. That would have solved the lynching party problem.

GRBerry

05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't know why partisans keep butting in. there's absolutely nothing false about my statement on the repeated personal attacks.

please follow my earlier statement and links on the other ANI - if there's anything unclear or that might seem false, regarding this issue of repeated harassment (or the issue of the "missing" mentor), let me know - otherwise, stop making statements on unrelated issues.

my request is a short term block until the mentor issue is fixed... this is nothing new - i just saw User:Isarig blocked for the holidays just because his assigned mentor wanted "to celebrate" (and because he edited something a little close to the area he was topic banned from). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 11 October 2007 (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.

Knowingly inserting false information

I have noticed that

Template:Nobel Prize in Economics and Herbert Simon‎. // Liftarn

12:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn has not provided diffs or an explanation. However, this appears to be largely a content dispute and multi-article edit war about the proper naming of the

Nobel Prize in Economics. Cardamon

18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would modify this to state that

–panda

18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: removing references and inserting false information[117], false info[118][119][120] // Liftarn

Punkmorten

I have twice nominated an article for deletion as it consists of only one sentance, and twice it's been closed out by Punkmorten without consensus.
Example |1
Example |2
As you can see, at neither time was any consensus reached. (Most likely, Punkmorten will mention my comment on the second nomination where I called him a "moron". Yes I said it, and yes I know that comment was wrong. There was no excuse for that comment and if a sanction is enforced against me as a result, I'll comply with it.) PunkMorten claims that consensus was already reached via

WP:AFDP

and that a consensus on this article is not needed.

WP:AFDP

is a guidline and not a policy. The official policy WP:Notability states that notability must be shown in the article. This article did not show it. The votes themselves did not show consensus of any kind. I am asking that this be looked into, and if I'm wrong, feel free to let me know in any way you see fit, including sanction for my admitted violation of

WP:CIVIL

However if I'm right, and no consensus was reached I would like to have this AFD reinstated and let whatever consensus be reached that needs to be reached. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's always
  WP:DRV... but I've never seen a town that really exists deleted. It's one of the few certainties of the deletion process. Maybe he should have let the AFD run though, to show the consensus or inspire people to improve the article... --W.marsh
  16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • verifiable populated places are usually one of those things. Why don't you request a translation of the German article or do some research and expand it yourself instead of pushing for deletion. Mr.Z-man
    17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man, I certainly haven't pushed for deletion. The article was there since March 2006. It was in a state where it was just one line. Not suitable for wikipedia. 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well now it consists of several sentences. As well as several interwiki links, an infobox, & a latitude/longitude widget -- but those have been there for a while. You're beating a dead horse; please move along. -- llywrch 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of 75.192.177.89

An unregistered editor at the above IP address has three times made the identical edit to Paul Truong. The first time, the edit was made without an edit summary. That editor has now reverted it twice, each time without an explanation, and without heeding a request to discuss the edit on the article's talk page.

I checked, and these three edits to the same article are the only edits this IP has ever made. I think it is appropriate to block this IP. Marc Shepherd 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Just after I wrote this, I saw that this IP had indeed posted something to the talk page, though it didn't really make clear the basis for the deletion. Marc Shepherd 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Roosterrulez and Myself (User:Chappy84)

I recently added a

here) and started disagreeing with other edits I have made (See: here and here). I have repeatedly tried to explain to the user calmly (or atleast the intention was to be as calm as possible, the comments may have come across incorrectly) on the users talk page User talk:Roosterrulez, while still trying to ensure that Wikipedia's guidelines and standards are used (or atleast the standards to my knowledge). I have stated this to them while also stating that I do not intend to direct negative feelings towards them or have a problem with them as a user. The user still however seems to have a problem with me and has in my opinion persisted in nit-picking with myself as a user and my user page. I am not sure why they feel they need to do this. Could someone please take a look at this and let me know of any decisions made. Chappy^T_C

18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried

dispute resolution — because I don't see any specific admin action here. --Haemo

19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, when I originally raised this on WP:Football I was referred here for if I actually had a problem with another user. I didn't actually have a problem at that point, and hoped not to raise a full issue, as I hoped by trying to be civil with the user, they would desist. I am not sure whether they have seen what I have raised here, however after your response I have received an apology from the user for atleast the nit-picking which they had done, and reverted when I removed it from my talk page. Hopefully this is the end of the matter, however if it does continue I will proceed with the instructions on WP:DR. Chappy^T_C 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking by Ouzo

Guitar Hero III page despite plenty of warnings. If an admin could consider it, I and many other editors of that article would much appreciate it. Thanks. --Ouzo

19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia:Dispute resolution measures have you tried thus far? Can you supply diffs to substantiate your request? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)