Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490

Hpfan1 (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor who has difficulty restraining his enthusiasm for Abercrombie & Fitch related topics. His enthusiasm has, over the past couple of years, led him to upload many copyrighted images. I gave him a final warning in September.[1]. Today I noticed that he's uploaded several copyrighted images since then. I've left a note on his page that he can be unblocked as soon as he posts a note to show that he understands and will follow Wikipedia:Non-free content. In case I miss it, any admin is invited to unblock him once he's posted such an acknowledgment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Subpaged due to size to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ChrisO and Elonka by MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Today, I've been involved in some edits to this image and an associated article. The sequence of events:

• I removed the image from Albert Fish, replacing it with one (Image:Albert Fish 1903.JPG) further down in the article that was a free license image that provided the same information; his visual appearance. Both are mugshots, but one old enough to be PD while the image I am discussing here is not, having been published in 1934.
• I tagged Image:Albertfish-full.jpg as being replaceable and orphaned [2], as it was no longer on the article and it was clearly replaceable by the free content mugshot.
• WP:NFCC policies I was removing the image under [3]
  .
• I re-removed the image from the article as unneeded fair use [4], as we already know his visual appearance from the free license image at the top of the article.
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use tags and orphaned fair use tags from the image again, with no explanation as to why [5] and did not reinstate the image to the article.
• I re-instated the orphaned and replaceable tags to the image [6] and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the correct procedure to handle the warning tags [7].
• Following this, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) returned to editing without ever having responded to me. Much later, he made a minor edit to the image adding in "original" with respect to the source statement. [8]
• Another editor User:Wildhartlivie has removed the replaceable image and orphaned fair use tags [9] claiming "image can be and is used in article to illustrate subject prior to execution; fair use rationale is provided" and reinstated the image to the article [10]

I've stopped editing on this image and article, as this is obviously devolving. There's a number of problems still extant here. The image is most definitely still orphaned, and User:Wildhartlivie was out of line for removing the orphaned and replaceable fair use tags. User:Wildhartlivie claims there is a fair use rationale provided, but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components.

In my opinion, the image should be deleted. We have a perfectly serviceable image for depiction purposes in the 1903 mugshot now at the top of the article, and the 1934 mugshot doesn't bring anything to the table that the 1903 shot doesn't, except that he's older, which has no bearing on the article. Thus, it fails

#1 in that it is clearly replaceable (and has been replaced) and #8 in that there's nothing about the image that having the image removed would cause detriment to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Lastly, though fixable, it fails #10c.

Would an administrator please step in? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For one, it does illustrate his face in greater detail. While there is a clear silhouette in the first, the detail of his face is not that clear. Your statement of but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and

Crossmr (talk

) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way but in blatant cases where fair use images are replaceable, we do delete, and this is a blatant case. So what if the image brings better detail? Is there some detail of his face that is important to the content of the article? Answer: No. This is a blatant case. And, with all due respect, I asked for an administrator to step in. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because the whole purpose of an image is to bring detail to an article. A PD image is relatively useless if it doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question. One could argue that the PD image doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question because of the age and size of the image. And with all due respect this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and if you don't like other people responding to your questions you might not want to ask them.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture when he was older is more meaningful, as it's what he looked like just before he was a fried Fish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have restored the free image per the non-free content policies.
  β^_command
  02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  Why don't you wait to see if your speedy deletion is approved before you hide it from public view?--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just list it for IFD and let everyone debate it for seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just listing the image for seven days is not the panacea that some here seem to think it is. There's a reason we don't send all CSD articles to AFD. That same reason applies to images. There's no point to putting something to IFD when it is blatantly a violation. There's been scads of debates on here before about whether to allow fair use when the fair use image is higher quality. Guess which side of that debate has routinely won? Hint; we're the free encyclopedia, not the free encyclopedia except when non-free content is higher quality than the free content. There is nothing conveyed by the 1934 image that is not conveyed by the 1903 image. If there is, then please state it here and now. All I'm hearing so far is "It's better, therefore keep" or "This is what he looked like before he died". You can do better than that, can't you? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. Clear detail of the individuals face. The earlier image is small, poor quality and washed out on one side. As the speedy deletion tag clearly states: illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information,. This does not adequately provide the same information as the poor quality of the photograph leaves the characteristics and details of the individuals face difficult to discern.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That might have been a valid argument if the "characteristics and details of the individuals face" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren ^(talk) 21:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an issue with the representation of this. In fact, I returned the image to the article, further down the page in the section that included discussion of Fish and his execution. I did not removed the tags yet leave it orphaned as User:Hammersoft stated. I removed the tags here, one of which stated Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. I then returned the image, with some other page edits which included repositioning the images here. The image was not orphaned. I have an issue with my name being brought up on this issue without having been approached in any way prior to, or notified when, it was posted. I stumbled upon this discussion, which does allege wrongdoing on my part, while checking another issue. There is obviously a difference of opinion regarding the use of this image. If the rationale or licensing had an issue, then there should be no reason why that cannot or should not be addressed. There is most definitely a difference between the image used in the infobox, which was taken 31 years prior to the events which make this person and the article notable. There is a great disparity in the appearance of the individual, and the image under discussion here illustrates the man at the time these acts were committed, following his arrest. It illustrates his appearance at the time of his execution, while the other depicts someone in a far different condition and place that relates to 1934 in no way. Why not stick an image of him in grade school? That is as much like the man who committed these crimes as the 1903 image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted the image. (Partly I7, partly IAR to scuttle the argument). "Looks better" isn't, and has never been, a valid
  non-free content rationale. The image isn't just replacable, it is replaced. I'm one of the staunch defenders of fair use when it is appropriate; this is most definitely not a case where it is. — Coren ^(talk)
  21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  This is more than looks better. The free image does not adequately describe the subject as I pointed out the facial details are not clear because of the low quality, size and washout on one size. IAR isn't a trump card, you need to explain why you did something. The Free use clearly states that when the same information is conveyed by a replaceable image it should be removed, this isn't the case at all. You've already gotten more than one person who feels that to be true. If someone uploaded this kind of image of someone who was alive it would probably be immediately punted from the article as quality too low. Yet here you have someone who is dead and you claim it good enough when a better one exists.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  As I've said above, that might have been a valid argument if the "facial details" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren ^(talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  They're relevant to identifying the subject which is the purpose of a photo.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A Possible Sock

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TNA_World_Heavyweight_Championship&action=history hows

^T /_C

04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Young editor in trouble?

Resolved

 –

WP:OVERSIGHT Tiptoety ^talk

03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could I have some extra eyes on

• Steve ryder001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He came to my attention when he slapped a {nonsense} tag on another editor's User page ([11]) for no apparent reason.

His userpage claims that he's twelve years old, and also releases some other personal info that should probably be redacted. (I've blanked for now, but I don't know how we deal with those cases — do we delete?)

The bulk of his non-userpage edits appear to be to add images to articles. He's been uploading to Commons, apparently. Looking at the images he's uploaded, he's universally claiming that the pictures (mostly of celebrities) are his own work — a claim that I find somewhat implausible.

Is there a Commons admin who can have a look at those images? I suspect that they're all bad. (Commons upload log: link.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on userpage has been deleted and an e-mail sent to oversight. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the content of those images (they seem to all be celebrities of some kind), I think its extremely unlikely that they're of his own work. Also, he's tagging the permissions as 'my soul'... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bidgee2

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Nancy Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like...
1. User:Firemanpb shows up today and makes a bunch of gender-differentiation edits ("firefighter"->"fireman").
2. He is reverted multiple times by User:Bidgee and is eventually indef blocked after multiple warnings by Black Kite.
3. User:Bidgee2 shows up, apparently created before the block but after the final warning, and starts making the same edits.

I suspect Bigdee2 to be a harassment/vandalism account, but I don't see that single edit (so far) as actionable for a SSP nor the name similarity sufficient for a UAA notice, hence me posting here for action at any admin's discretion. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinite blocked by Nancy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The vandal is clearly a return of Firemanpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who even made 2 attacks in Water vole [12][13]. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, PromoProductions (talk · contribs) has just been blocked. Not sure if there's a connection, but it's a new account that also edited the Firefighter page after Bidgee2. Dayewalker (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Same troll. M.O. of sexist and (now) racist edits is easy to catch. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Back again as 71.196.61.53 (talk · contribs) and trying to start something at WP:AN [14]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, now to the COI board [15]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that one.

talk

) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mahalios trying to impose layout change at List of Prime Ministers of Spain

Resolved

 – All three editors (Mahalios, Onlyonetime and the IP) are now blocked for long-term edit-warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if this is the right place to report this, but since Nov 3,

article talk page and on his user talk page. All my requests and offers for a dialog were met with deafening silence and a new reversion. This contrasts with my behaviour: with each reversion I have worked into integrating the content changes from him and another IP user into the article, so that only the layout change would be put on hold until proper discussion took place. On the other hand, he has simply reverted to the same version over and over, without even bothering to write an edit summary - except the first one in which he argues that my previous revert, in which I scolded an IP user for the pretty much the same behaviour, was inappropriate. Summing it up, Mahalios' is not willing to collaborate and has a pretty slant and invicil attitude. I don't know the procedure for these kind of cases, but sicne he has not responded to my messages I doubt mediation would help. What can be done? Habbit (talk

) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enlist other editors! Advice to do this is available at

WP:WARN) and if necessary report them here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been asked for a discussion several times, and even politely warned. There was no response but the most absolute silence. By the way, I suspect that at least one of the following three users is a sockpuppet of the others, because all three follow the _exact_ same edit pattern: extremely wide changes, without a single edit summary, reverting (not stomping) others' changes on sight, etc - Onlyonetime (talk · contribs) Mahalios (talk · contribs) 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs). I don't know the procedure for this kind of cases, but I guess an admin might run CheckUser and, without telling us the actual links found, act on the result. Thanks for the advice, though - this madness is really wearing me out... I mean, if they want the PMs' portraits out, can't they just say it on the talk page? -__- Habbit (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I indef blocked

WP:SSP is also an option, but that is usually needed for more subtle cases. The badness and the obstinacy of all the edits suggests that a vandal classification is justified. Any article these guys have ever touched should be checked for remnants of vandalism. Both IPs involved in this case are from Belgrade, in case that rings any bells from other sock investigations. EdJohnston (talk

) 06:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's please reserve the word "vandal" for people who edit with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. "Disruption-only" is a better term for somebody like this. looie496 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer?

Resolved

 – Articles redirected and deleted respectively, user indefblocked

• I just ran into the contributions of
  Nanotyrannus
  . I checked the rest of this editor's contributions, and found the following new pages:

• Kibara Mortifica, a plant which according to Google shows up only on Wikipedia. Its common name "Alpine Widowveil" also only shows up here;
• La Sos del Rey Catolico, a town in Spain which may or may not exist per Google (my Spanish is rusty), and which is, oddly enough, one of the last places where Alpine Widowveil lives.

I'd appreciate it if someone better versed in plants and Spanish would evaluate these two. I am almost certain that Kibara Mortifica is a hoax, which is why I proposed it for deletion, but I could be wrong. J. Spencer (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Sos+del+Rey+Catolico%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= finds plenty of references to
  Sos del Rey Catolico. The genus Kibara seems to be real. Kibara Mortifica is a hoax. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The town certainly exists, but already has an article -
  Sos_del_Rey_Catolico - which I've redirected to. The plant looks like a hoax to me too. Black Kite
  23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Kibara Mortifica is definatly a hoax. All you get from searches is the Wikipedia article _{(On a completely unrelated note, the title of this would make a wonderful punk band name)} Rgoodermote  23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's certainly an odd day's work - two hoaxes and a duplicate of an existing article. J. Spencer (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've deleted the plant article - no need to keep it around for the full PROD run. Black Kite 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Three hoaxes. his version of the Sos_del_Rey_Catolico article is full of hoaxes and ridiculous statements. The statement about the origin of the name is OUTRAGEOUS. Total hoax made in total bad faith. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indefblocked the user; two hoax articles is clear evidence of deliberate disruption. They can ask to be unblocked if they so desire. -- The Anome (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the name "La Sos del Rey Catolico" does not exist, and it makes no sense in spanish. I'm going to ask for a speedy deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, apparently Sos del Rey Catolico does exist, unless he's hoaxed a bunch of travel guides. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the problem was the "La" before it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, who I am familiar with, initially made an

05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed at your biased accusation here. I only tried to delete some content from Prostitution in South Korea that I considered "copyviolated contents" after googling and suggested the newbie to "rewrite them". Most of his non-violated contents are undeleted by me. However, the newbie ignored that and adding same materials that Comfort women suffered last July caused by Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) and Priorend (talk · contribs). Such material was now deleted for plagiarism, and the newbie directly went to edit the article with same materials. Moreover, you are the one who blocked him with the tool and blamed me for showing "bad faith"? I informed admin, Fut.Perf who has observed the July case, so well, will see.--Caspian blue 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree I should not have blocked the user, and showed a degree of bad faith myself in doing so. I deeply apologize to you for blocking the user you begged to be blocked, Caspian. See, I need to not be involved with this anymore.

Tan | 39

05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I begged you to block the newbie? I reported him/her because of the copyviolation concerns, and I provided you a google result. The final judgment falls to your responsibility. I'm frustrated with your bad faith and such labeling. Here are google results why I thought I should report the newbie to AIV.--Caspian blue 05:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• According to Katharine Moon, a professor of political science at Wellesley College, "Camptown prostitution and related businesses on the Korean Peninsula contributed to nearly 25 percent of the Korean GNP. The Korean government supported the camptown brothels, hoping the industry would boost regional economies.

• The Korean government supported the camptown brothels, hoping the industry would boost regional economies. Joong Ang Daily reported the claims of one such sex worker and other violation including direct copy-paste from http://www.wellesley.edu/

Wait, you reverted him adding language with citations under a claim of copyright violation? He cited his sources and you replaced it with an paragraph unsourced from February. Caspian, what logic is that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

????? I don't know what you're talking about. Because the unsource version does not violate "copyright" policy. So that's why I suggested the newbie to "rewrite" the content.--Caspian blue 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A short quoted section like that isn't a copyright violation, especially when the source is given. By the way the www.wellesley.edu link only shows a generic page and not the quoted sections. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, on the google search for the text that starts with "According to Katharine Moon", the only exact copy of the text is a wikipedia mirror of Comfort women article. That paragraph is a paraphrase of [16](in particular, "debt bondage" appears on page 178). It appears that both his paragraph and the text on that source are taken from articles by the same author Katharine Moon, as in page 270 that document cites a work by him, just like Occidental does. That would be the reason because they are so similar.

At most, User_talk:Occidentalist makes a sloppy work of making clear if he is making a paraphrase or a direct quote. Please take more care when addressing work done by newbies. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note Since it does concern this topic to some degree, I wanted to point out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo. Enigma ^message 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy hasn't really vandalised anything, but he is not contributing to the 'pedia. All he does is repeat 'get a life' on Talk:Midget. I want to scream swear words into his face and slap him. He's that annoying. I have warned him, what, four times? Please, could someone block him and the other accounts he uses:
User:24.33.130.253
User:24.33.131.162
User:66.213.25.12

See here for more details.

Must...take out...anger...*Whacks PC, breaks it*

Oh, sh-

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 12:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edits by any of the IPs listed were a couple of days ago...and the oldest were a couple of months ago. Sorry, but blocking an IP which shows no indication of being stable isn't the ideal solution. If it's really that disruptive then you could ask for protection at [[WP:RFPP|this page], but to be honest the likely response is that there isn't enough recent activity at Talk:Midget to justify protection. _Gb^T/c 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can any help be offered if sysops on Wiki other language abused their power and blocked me over personal issues? Thanks. 158.143.153.244 (talk)# —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

No. We users of the English Wikipedia have no authority over users of other language editions.  Sandstein  14:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So whom should I refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.153.244 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use the

dispute resolution mechanisms instituted in your language edition of Wikipedia.  Sandstein 

14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at the

) 15:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit undone, IP warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He carried on anyway, now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

May I request a page-ban for a

to whitewash them. He is obstructionist, rude, condescending, and I cannot find a single contribution that actually has added content of note.

) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing just a ban from the main Chiropractic page or a more general topic ban? It's not entirely clear to me that either one is warranted but in any case the scope of any restriction should be clear. I's probably suggest a general 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring and encourage use of talk pages as a better way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't in the past few months edited more than just the

talk

) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA. Jehochman ^Talk

04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

? How is AE going to help? He's not subject to any arbitration cases that I'm aware of.

talk

) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

several admins actively watching the article, so starting another ANI or AE thread doesn't really seem necessary. ANI (and AE) are usually used to request the attention of administrators, when they don't seem to be paying attention to an area of dispute. Or in other words, if someone wishes to request a ban, it's probably best to just bring it up directly at Talk:Chiropractic, or to contact one of the admins that's already supervising the page. --Elonka

05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I want someone to look specifically at this account. There is enough going on at

talk

) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, please see

diffs that show policy violations. I believe that case requires notification to users before they get sanctioned. Please check that carefully and adjust your request to reflect any notification requirements. Jehochman ^Talk

06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was a party in that case, and I don't know what the hell you are talking about. We can request sanctions at ANI for behavioral issues. There is nothing in that RfArb that says this is not allowed. I have warned this account multiple times (see the history of his user talk page). Your comments here are completely unclear and unhelpful. If you think AE is the place to go, please refactor it there yourself and stop bullying me.

talk

) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:Pseudoscience enforcement}} TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) made a controversial edit by restoring an original research tag without a valid reason. TheDoctorIsIn should be notified about the sanctions. QuackGuru 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is unresolved. I don't see any reason for removing the tag. QuackGuru 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What QuackGuru calls a "controversial edit" is part of a long-lasting content dispute among multiple editors. I looked through TheDoctorIsIn's recent contribs and, besides the editwarring over a tag which multiple editors are involved in, I see for example an informative talk page post with information such as an expert on the subject might contribute. I don't see any problems requiring a ban of any sort, unless such a ban is applied to all the editors editwarring over the tag. ScienceApologist says above, "I have warned this account multiple times", but besides the notification of this ban discussion, which contains no information as to any reasons for such a ban, I see nothing from ScienceApologist in TheDoctorIsIn's user talk page history since February, and the message at that time related to a page other than Chiropractic. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Serpent132 has been editing the Mukuro Rokudo article, trimming the sections to minimun as it was a FAC. More important, he has been removing information from the lead mentioning it was repeated in other sections. I tried talking to him on his talk page sending info about deletion and reverting edits mentioning WP: Lead and other stuff. However, he has not stopped doing that and in this state is impossible for the article to be GA (is currently a GAC). Im requesting help here because I may also require to be blocked with these edits. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, which really isn't an administrator matter. However, the revert war is of concern, especially as neither editor has been participating at the talkpage. Both editors appear to be well past

good faith communication. --Elonka

01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been started in Talk:Mukuro Rokudo#Edit-warring but Serpent has not responded. Instead, he keeps reverting the edits and has been used this anon account to keep reverting and remove the warning from his talk page. It does not seem it is still good faith.Tintor2 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on things, and if reverts continue, or anyone continues edit-warring without talkpage discussion, I'll block as necessary. --Elonka 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And there has been yet another revert, even after the warnings. By all appearances, Serpent132 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem interested in discussing his or her changes and reversions to the article. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update Elonka as blocked Serpent132 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for revert warring after receiving multiple warnings from different editors and for not discussing his edits on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Serpent132 has yet to edited a single talk page except to remove warnings or notices from his own talk page. If Serpent132 agrees to participate in the discussion about his edits, I would recommend that the block be lifted. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Over a period of more than a year, CARLMART (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly creating unsourced and unverifiable articles on immigrants Hispanophone and Lusophone countries, despite repeated warnings left on his talk page about the importance of using reliable sources. He refuses to discuss this with anyone; in fact, he has never once contributed in the Talk/User talk namespaces in over one year and 1000+ edits on Wikipedia [19][20].

Some of these populations are

, others aren't, but he fills all of these articles with the same vague, plausible-sounding generalisations which turn out to be false upon further investigation:

• A
  neologistic
  group name like "Iranian Mexicans", "Korean Hondurans", etc., which cannot be found in any reliable sources
• A population figure, sometimes inflated by as much as 25x over what reliable sources state
• Claims that the group in question first came as refugees from some revolution or war (in reality, most of themturn out to have come as guest workers)
• A list of religions they allegedly follow (just listing all the religions popular in the country of origin and destination)
• A list of languages they speak (see "Religions")
• A list of cities they allegedly live in (just a list of big cities in the destination country, without any evidence that the migrants live there)
• Often, a bit of original research about surnames and intermarriage and their effect on how society views the population in question. He especially likes to add to articles about Filipinos about how people with one Filipino parent get mistaken for Spaniards, for some reason [21].

Here's the problematic articles I'm aware of that have already been dealt with:

1. WP:PROD
   )
2. WP:PROD
   )
3. Ethnic Chinese in Mozambique (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual [22])
4. Korean Mexicans (rewritten; external links in the new version prove the non-factuality of the original version [23]
   )
5. Koreans in Argentina (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual, since it was a thinly-rewritten version of this UC Davis web page, which he declined to cite [24])
6. Koreans in Peru (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [25])
7. Koreans in Chile (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [26])
8. Koreans in Guatemala (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [27])
9. Japanese Honduran (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Honduran)
10. Iranians in Spain (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [28])
11. Malays in Spain (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malays in Spain)
12. Iranian Mexicans (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Mexicans
13. WP:RS which contradict this article [29][30][31][32]
    )

I'm trying to go through some of his other creations; he keeps creating more and more and I can't keep up. I strongly hope that an administrator can review this and take some appropriate action to prevent him from adding more false statements to Wikipedia. Thanks, cab (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything good coming out of him? Given the number of hoax articles, zero talk page edits and zero user talk page edits, I'm willing to block him until he at least acknowledges the problem. If he cannot even bother to respond to anyone's questions, then he's become more disruptive than useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If people ignore their talk page, and refuse to responde to reasonable requests for discussion, they are being disruptive. A block will at least force him to explain himself, and that is all we want out of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this the user has created over 80 articles, after random sampling a few of those that aren't based on human migration I didn't find one with any sources. Having said that - assuming the articles aren't

) 14:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, I have blocked CARLMART for a month, so as to stop him from creating more articles with dubious content and to induce him to comment on the issues that have been raised about his articles. I do not object to any administrator unblocking him if he reacts appropriately to these concerns.  Sandstein  14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but if it continues, I would support an indefinite block until he responds. If he cannot even bother to respond and request to be unblocked, there's no reason to allow his disruption to continue. We've blocked for editors who make MOS changes without discussion. This should have a much higher bar for reentry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone review edits to this article? Unsourced rumour and speculation keeps being added to who may be taking part in this series which starts in 1wk in the UK. As of now there is no official confirmation of who is taking part. [Official ITV site]

) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a invisible comment telling everyone. If that doesn't work, list it for semi-protection. It's mostly new users who don't know better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - and for doing it!

talk

) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

76.110.173.184 blocked for telling the unpalatable truth in an article?

The site he added info from appears to be a government site, if so it is a

reliable source regardless of whether people want the facts of the matter included in line with the politically correct POV. He shouldn't be blocked for representing reality, although his comment could have been in a more encyclopedic style. Has he made any (other?) racist comments? Sticky Parkin

16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but he didn't cite the source and made a very pointed and broad conclusion from it. For this edit alone, I would concur that he should stay blocked. --Rodhullandemu 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He should be warned or briefly blocked but as a new user he could be given the chance to learn/adopt an encyclopedic style before being permablocked- he's trying to add info he thinks should be added. Sticky Parkin 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New user? See this section above - same person. And more to the point - this edit to my talk. He's right that we can't block the entirety of Comcast dynamic, but we can do our best to keep his offensive POV out of Wikipedia. Incidentally, he synthesised "(blacks) account for only 20% of the population but commit 75% of violent crimes" out of a page which deals purely with homicide rates, not violent crime as a whole, which should tell you how concerned he is with actual facts.Black Kite 16:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He says he has nothing to do with the Promopromotions/other site or bloke. Has a checkuser been done? Sticky Parkin 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) A checkuser is pointless on a dynamic range which covers a whole /12 range block. (b) They're the same user, but why does it matter? They're both blocked for their own edits, not each others. I don't believe that defending such a clearly non-new editor pushing a repeated racist POV is a worthwhile task, but YMMV. Black Kite 16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While the edits were unsourced and unencyclopedic (at their most helpful, cluelessly disruptive), I didn't understand the harsh, untemplated block and talk page deletion until I read in this new thread it was a sock of a known, disruptive editor. Block's ok and understood but at first it wasn't clear what was happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. this makes it clear that they're one and the same. Black Kite 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec's)To Black Kite,

WP:AGF of the reasons why people ask for clarification please. To Sticky Parkin, I also reviewed the website mentioned here as the source and found it did not back the claim, and also concluded that the editor was misrepresenting the information to support a POV (and considered that we were being trolled by the ip), but the post had already been removed when I returned with to add my opinion. In short, someone with a racist POV placed an unreferenced comment in an article and, after being blocked, commented here as an ip - providing a source which did not reflect the claims made - in pursuance of their agenda. The post was removed, presumably for trolling. Not much more to add, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye; I'd already pointed out the links between the two, which is why I was a bit grumpy about it :) Black Kite 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, what he said was he promises to be good, even though he was naughty in the past, I think that's what he's saying, though I'm tired . If so a block is fair enough. [33] I support representing reality is all, over the years I've grown to increasingly despise a false representation of reality made for political purposes. But I agree a

WP:NPOV style is crucial on topics such as that. People shouldn't be blocked for adding facts in an encyclopedic style especially, but then he's not doing that anyway.:) But his edits above we'ren't unsourced, he added a government source, though he added was perhaps a sqewed representation of what it said.Sticky Parkin

16:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; sorry if I was a bit harsh there, but we quite often find that those who at least make an attempt to source their POV edits are more dangerous that standard trolls, because there's a greater chance that their edits might steal past recent changes patrollers. Luckily, this one gave himself away by sticking his POV next to the "sourced" statement. Black Kite 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone who does this [34] should be indeffed. We don't need people like this thank you very much. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all...I have found myself in an edit war on

01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with

reliable sources, but I don't think this is one. However, his edits aren't bad-faith, so you are caught by 3RR. Leave it with me a while. --Rodhullandemu

01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

His response tells me a lot about what we're dealing with here.GJC 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some objective intervention. The user, Tb, and I have been engaged in combative editing of this article for several days. Tb continues to revert text that I have changed and cited without providing any new information to support his claims. Because I am unfamiliar with the procedures to deal with such a problem on Wikipedia, I would appreciate if somebody could view the discussion page and provide some help. Perhaps blocking the user would be in order, but that would only serve to delay the problem. thanks for you input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a

WP:3RR issue for both parties involved. Both taking a step back and discussing would be beneficial, as may be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like neither Tb (talk · contribs) nor 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) had been formally warned about 3RR yet, so I went ahead and put cautions on both of their talkpages, as well as a note at the article talkpage. If either one of them reverts again within the next 24 hours, their account access should be blocked. --Elonka 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) was warned at 22:13, but has not reverted since the warning. --Elonka 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) did another revert at 23:04. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Will Beback. --Elonka 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to give some more history; the anon user here was blocked three times for repeated vandalism (blanking of large bits of text repeatedly); the pages had to be semi-protected for a couple days, and during that period he refused to either use edit summaries, engage in text, or do anything else. He was IPsocking to avoid IP blocks, and even went so far as to blank the IP socking report once. He seems to be willing now to discuss, but even so, I am extremely frustrated by an editor who makes many changes, discusses one, ignores most of my requests for discussion--which you can see go back to the beginning of the vandalism, and now--and continues to insist that the reason the page must say what he wants is because he has the facts, and text of mine which simply says that there is a controversy gets reverted. I would appreciate the help of some neutral voices in the discussion. Tb (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Behavioral problems aside, these changes in the dioceses create content forks. I've started a thread at
  WP:NPOVN#Schismatic dioceses = POV forks to get ideas on how to deal with that problem. Suggestions are welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
  02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicktoons: Globs of Doom

claimed original research

In some ways, this could be viewed as a long-term abuse case, but it is hard to tell from how many contributions are involved.

The involved parties include: Majora999, KensouYagami, and the IP 69.137.144.243. If you look at the IPs contributions, they vary, but include mainly tweaking of spelling/minor fixes, blatant vandalism, and addition of questionable material.

The two users claim the IP is "vandalising" the article by adding

as a playable character, as well as several others that are apparently not playable. They also state that there is no multiplayer mode, but have been unable to provide a source to contradict this. I have been waiting and waiting for this to go away, but it wont, so I would appreciate if an administrator would look into this.

If you need any information, just let me know on User talk:Jock Boy my talk, and I will be watching this page and the article's talk page as well. Thank you. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for two weeks. A number of IPs were edit-warring to add unsourced material and original research. The videogame was only released October 20, and it is hoped that the topic may settle down soon. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone is messing with the templates that show up at the bottom of the page, substituting the N-word and otherwise fooling around. We need help from someone who can quickly track down what's going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's OK now. Thanks, to whoever fixed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody blanked the template after it got vandalized. I restored the template and semi-protected it. If this happens again, the easiest way to find out which templates could have been vandalized is to click "edit this page" and scroll down. There is a list of transcluded templates there, just look for any unprotected or semi-protected ones. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll copy this info to the Obama talk page. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This tool may also help: [35]. Note that there may be a short lag before edits appear, because the tool is using the toolserver database. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And this tool lets you check which templates are unprotected, which can be another way to find vandalism: [36]. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Special:Recentchangeslinked? — Werdna • talk 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just remember to filter it by namespace or you won't see anything useful due to the obscenely large number of "related changes". — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked User:Addbot in the absence of any response to my concerns at User:Addshore's talk page. The bot is making buggy edits and substing templates which are not usually substed, listed in several places as templates which shouldn't be substed, and outside the mandate of the bot's approval at the time it was approved. I will unfortunately not be around to deal with this further at this time, so I'm reporting it here for review and appropriate followup action. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, someone probably messed up AWB's list of templates that should be substed, and since a good number of bots (mine included), draw from that list, anything would be passed onto it. Oh well, good block, I'm sure Addy will have it fixed shortly. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• 128.122.253.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.179.45.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

I'm not sure if a 3rr report is more appropriate. They have been edit warring over

Ayodhya debate

for a few days. They have each accused the other of being a sockpuppet of:

• BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) respectively.

Both of those accounts were banned by the arbitration committee. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar). Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They're also edit warring over the edit war report at

WP:RFPP (oh, the irony). No idea whether either (or both) is socking/banned/bonkers. CIreland (talk

) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole mess started with this addition by User:Backtalking khartoumi, blocking indefinitely as "Hkelkar." Might be some truth to that one at least. I see that nobody has bothered to use the talk page at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The two IPs above have been blocked 72 hours for edit warring, as also

Ayodhya debate. If this doesn't help, semi-protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They also briefly fought over Microcephaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which had to be semi-protected. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the article but it's an entire mess of unsourced garbage. The only decent citation offered is differing version of Britannica. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Microcephaly warring, man do I feel embarrassed at my culture. Anyone who argues the West is prejudicial should head out there and see what real intolerance looks like. Mix in politics to everything and it's just a disaster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute over whether to include

· 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops called me a ridiculous nationalist for citing the source, among other things. See

Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Languages Section for his continuous incivility towards users who disagree with him, accusing everyone of trying to "expunge minorities" etc. He even directed his insults to an outside user (Luka Jačov). BalkanFever

08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And Kekrops is hardly innocent when it comes to offending people, continually putting the words Macedonia, Macedonian and Macedonians in scare quotes to assert that the country, ethnic group and language are not the "real" Macedonia/n/s. That's after his continual use of the offensive term "Skopjan" was taken to ANI a while back. More of his incivility: comparing Macedonia to Nazi Germany (funny how he gets hurt if I call him Hitler in retaliation) and accusing me of ethnic nationalism. And no, he wasn't restoring Greek to the list, he added it, probably to further his nationalist motives, but whatever. I don't have time for senseless bickering with him, so hopefully an admin can

lay down the law. BalkanFever

09:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool it guys. BalkanFever and Kekrops, I know you two are perennial sparring partners in all your national disputes, but at heart you love each other. So c'mon now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

All's fair in love... BalkanFever 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To FP: No, I am not going to have a laugh over this spat like I usually do, nor I am not going to let the insults just go by this time. Being called a "nationalist troll" by BalkanFever is nothing new, but his insults have escalated to an altogether different level. Enough is enough. My father's family fought the Nazis during the occupation, and had their home bombed by the German

his

?

To BF: No one is going to force me to call another people "Macedonians" when that is how I identify. My resistance towards your desire to impose your point of view on me cannot reasonably be construed as incivility. The equivalent would be for me to try to coerce you into using Macedonia only for the Greek region. I use the scare quotes because that's what they call themselves, but I don't have to agree with that self-identification, do I? The "ridiculous nationalist" comment was the result of extreme provocation, and was not directed towards you personally, as I didn't bother to check the edit history before posting it. But I stand by my view that seeking to expunge any references to the Greek and Bulgarian linguistic minorities, which incidentally have been restored by a non-ethnic partisan administrator, is an eminent example of ethnic nationalism. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they did fight against the Nazis. Happy now? BalkanFever 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing that riles me the most about all this is that if I really were a "nationalist troll", I would've certainly opposed the inclusion of "Macedonian" at Greece#Languages from the very outset. Naturally, I've done nothing of the sort. But when I dare to request the bare minimum of reciprocity, and am actually backed up by the sources, I'm an Adolphos. I mean, fuck me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reciprocity has nothing to do with anything. BalkanFever

11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant reciprocal behaviour, not content. That's what the sources are for. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My few words on the matter:

• User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has been stubbornly adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 8 times up till now in the last few days. [37]
• Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong evidence that the language is not spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: European Council [38][39][40], United Nations [41], Britannica encyclopedia [42] , BBC Educational [43], Eupedia [44], none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page.
• The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page [45][46] and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated.
• The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has some bad reputation for using unproper language and racial personal attacks: "Fuck You", "Drop the dead donkey", "That's rather rich coming from a Slav".
• This user has heavily offended
  Republic of Macedonia refering to it as the nazi Griechenfrei republic [47]
  just because we do not happen to agree on adding a language that is just ambiguously reported in a single cherry picked irellevant source, that he by some personal reason is insisting on.
• In the bottom line this admin board report he has made is just a
  WP:GAME
  to cover his disruptive editing and vandalizing.

I hope you do something about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ and his recent (and not so recent) disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the fact that Greek is absent from your sources does not constitute sufficient evidence to support your assertion that there is no Greek linguistic minority in the country. Omission does not constitute denial. As for my

Slav, well, aren't you? "Racial attack"? I don't see it on the list of ethnic slurs. I even qualified the remark by saying that it wasn't intended as a slur, but merely to illustrate the point that you constantly bait Greeks with accusations of a national obsession with the "immutability and continuum of 2500 years of Ancient Hellens", despite being a member of a Slavic ethnic group who calls himself "Alex Makedon"—Alexander and his Macedonians were not a Slavic people. And what's wrong with Drop the Dead Donkey? It was one of the better British comedies of the 90s. I shan't bother replying to the more inane allegations, but the one about my being "alone" is a blatant lie, as a cursory glance at the edit history will confirm. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

· 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Rummaging through edit histories, I've made a rather interesting find. User:Alex Makedon used to be this guy, according to this. And one of the IP's more noxious posts was this, signed Alex Makedon: "Too sad Wikipedia is full of Hell Ass Neonazi wishing bloodshearing, wars and ruin just on etnic-national basis to its neighbouring country." Emphasis mine. I rest my case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Weren't we talking about

related arguments. Even if irellevant i will say a few words on the matters:

1,2 years ago: my noobish second account from my first days on wikipedia is a closed matter in 2007, i still keep linked on my user page "see earlier account Alexander Mak" so all know my "alter ego"

7 months ago: my heavilly provoked comment by the Hellenic Neonazi[49] that were auguring dismembering of Republic of Macedonia and were fueling nationalistic hate among the Albanians in Republic of Macedonia in hope for a new 2001 civil war were in a critical moment for Republic of Macedonia, 5 April 2008 when Greece managed to pospone Republic of Macedonia's NATO access

Again clear attempts to

) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a one-off remark, it's persistent, inflammatory and unwarranted ethnic baiting of the worst kind. I hadn't realized you'd made the outrageous comment I exposed earlier from your proper user account, and had even engaged in a bout of edit-warring when others tried to remove it. It appears you're hell-bent on denying the existence of Greeks in your country, going so far as to proclaim that "No one in Republic of Macedonia clames to be Greek", despite the nation's official census being entirely unambiguous that the opposite is in fact true. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And the insults and intimidation continue... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Alex Makedon is still editing Wikipedia to be honest. In fact I sincerely believe he is a liability to the ethnic Macedonian editors here and they should have acted first.--Avg (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, is anybody going to provide some outside response here? I'm too involved with the various disputes here to take action. Anybody? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut. being too involved didn't stop you from asking for User:Crossthets to be indef banned [50]. In fact recently the blocking admin User:Moreschi was sent evidence for another two users User:MacedonianBoy ([51]) and User:Mactruth [52] with extremely severe violations and nothing has happened. I'm starting to feel weird here.--Avg (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Of course, being "involved" doesn't stop me from asking for somebody to be banned, just like any other user could, whenever I feel like it. What's the issue? In this case, I personally don't feel like pressing for sanctions, because both BalkanFever and Kekrops, despite the nastiness they sometimes slide into, are probably the most intelligent people on both sides of the dispute, and the ones that are actually able to negotiate in a meaningful way. I prefer to get the more clueless ones banned first. – Moreschi seems to be on a wikibreak or something, that's why he didn't get active quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to BalkanFever (my objections have always been only civility-related) but mainly to Alex Makedon. Regarding Moreschi, it's pretty clear from his contributions that he has edited his talk page since the reports, so he chose to ignore them.--Avg (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've involved myself as well. But it seems that Kekrops provoked - his sources are weak, ambiguous, or don't say what he purports. Alex Makedon's responses were and continue to be uncivil, as have BalkanFever's. They all are close on 3rr, (Kekrops closest, but that's only because it is essentially two to one - still doesn't excuse him deleting my warning); they've all baited. As this page falls within the Macedonia arbitration, an admin should review that page, as well as the editors' block logs.

From the Macedonia enforcement logs we find all three:

• BalkanFever (talk · contribs) placed on supervised editing for two months due to today's big edit-war on Macedonians (ethnic group): see here. Note: I came back to this later to add the time-expiry: user did seem to be genuinely trying to help but fanned the flames by accident. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Countries bordering the European Union: see here for details. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}
  18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• WP:MOSMAC: [53] and [54]. User has also been engaging in slow edit-warring recently over the templates in dispute. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}
  10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Revert parole for
  talk · contribs) altered and extended: see here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}
  11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Alex Makedon (talk · contribs) banned from Macedonian + talkpage due to recent disruptive editing. Moreschi (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not, essentially, a content dispute. It is a behavioral issue. At least two of the users are aggressively 'marking territory' whether by using preferred names, or, as in this case, by claiming the existence/non-existence of a group of people in a particular region. The arbitration gives an admin wide discretion in setting sanctions. Please consider how best to use that discretion. Jd2718 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You say I have provoked, attempting to discredit my sources. One of them,

WP:ARBMAC; I recall your rather stubborn assumption of bad faith when I edited Thessaloniki a few months ago to describe it as the "capital of Macedonia, the nation's largest region", a decidedly uncontroversial choice of wording that has stood by consensus since. Your more recent foray into a very minor disagreement between me and BalkanFever pertaining to the perennial Macedonian disambiguation issue simply confirms your involvement. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

· 15:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1. In February of this year I opened a discussion on the Thessaloniki talk page, that led to two consecutive small edits (no edit war) that have stood since. 2. I have challenged Kekrops' sources, appropriately, on the article's talk page,

Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Sources. 3. Kekrops, please strike the unsupported accusation of bad faith. 4. I started my previous comment by writing that I have involved myself; I'm not sure why you need to note the same. Certainly an administrator looking at the behavior of involved parties would want to at least take a glance at mine. Jd2718 (talk

) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My impression that you were assuming bad faith was based on the tone of your language in your initial post

67-kilobyte article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

· 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perspective can be useful. You opened an AN/I thread over an edit war and series of incivil comments, and apparently that single word, "Greek," was the source. You thought it merited admin attention. I agree. Jd2718 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort, thank you very much. I opened this thread only after being likened to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden for wanting to make an edit that would be considered perfectly natural in almost any other country article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are the incivil comments I was referring to. Jd2718 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And I only made those comments after he likened Macedonia to Nazi Germany. BalkanFever 09:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the diff. But after half a day of talk on the talk page, it's blown up again.

Grecoman, and refused to revert himself; now there's a new series of reverts on the article itself (including BalkanFever and Kekrops). Could we get some administrative attention? Jd2718 (talk

) 12:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NikoSilver that Future Perfect's compromise should stay in place until the dispute is resolved. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite three checkusers this month alone, this fool manages to return despite four years of trying to shut him down. I tried to taunt him into answering me via the talk page, but he has yet to apply a single keystroke to a talk page. This account is blocked, but there are five more waiting to be blocked. What is it going to take? At the very least, creation of sub-accounts by new users should be eliminated. He creates an account and then uses it to create several more. He didn't clobber any articles and isn't likely to given his history, but the five remaining socks should still be shut down and perhaps a rangeblock applied after another checkuser is run. I don't mind playing whack-a-vandal, but this is ridiculous. --

) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the subaccounts are blocked. I've never initiated a checkuser, but I've alerted

talk

) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ec. Those five accounts blocked. I don't think that restriction account creation by new accounts would help; it's already capped at 6 per IP. WODUP 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone made another contact with his mum or something? Maybe if we could convince her to watch over her son's behaviour and block or ban him from using the Internet, or Wikipedia. Having her block all Wikimedia-related sites might be the fix if you're really tired of him. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to initiate contact a couple of nights ago using the three early e-mail accounts. All three were kicked back. I'm assuming they simply aren't active anymore. So, whenever this little nincompoop decides he's going to create a slew of Wikipedia accounts, it would seem he's damned well going to. I'm thinking that the recent IP blocks should be extended to include the entire range. Ditto this latest assault. He's managed to keep at it without a single iota of acknowledgement; even a death threat is unlikely to stop him. And no...I am not goingto threaten anyone nor should anyone else. I'm just saying that to emphasize the fact that we're dealing with a remarkably persistent individual who happens to have access to several IPs. Lucky us.  :) --

) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

have we contacted his ISP?--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord knows I've tried. I brought this up to the foundation some time ago. Never heard a word from them. Since a checkuser brings up the IP and we have a possible last name on the account which I won't mention here, it seems like a no-brainer. How do we get started? I think four years of goofs, guys and glowballs is quite enough. --

talk

) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr beat me right to it. We should contact his ISP and have them contact him. I don't remember the last case but I don't think it was even this bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it as well, Ricky.  :) This has got to stop and now. --

) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's

Wikipedia:Abuse reports, so there's some process here (assuming we know the IP address). Has that been tried in the four years? -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You know in extreme cases we should have the complaint pass quickly through arbcom (as a sanity check, just for them to make sure its truly warranted) and then have one of the foundations lawyers or something send off a formal signed letter to the ISPs in question. Nothing threatening, just far more official.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What, under some sort of request for arbitration? It would be a strange way to do it but process-wise, it might work (or encourage them to make sure that Wikipedia emails to ISPs are in better control). On the other hand, it seems like the prior process has involved just random users complaining (which might explain the lack of effectiveness). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with that, so count me in. This may set a precident for present and future serial vandals. I've never filed an RFA so I don't know the procedure. If someone here will take the initiative to do so, I'll not only throw in my support, I'll help deal with the foundation as well. --

) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the abuse reports, they have already discussed who should sent out the reports it doesn't look like they are up for additional bureaucracy. I think it's best to format an abuse report first before approaching arbitration (I would ask at its talk page before going forward as well). I don't know the history. Does anyone know some checkusers with knowledge on the IP addresses? They would could help format the request. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean a formal arbitration request, I just meant we should have a kind of chain of command kind of thing for ISP abuse contact. The reason I mention arbcom people is because the community has decided to entrust them with our most important decisions. Therefore if we're going to ask a foundation lawyer to send a letter (Templated or otherwise) to an ISP as a formal abuse complaint, we should just have it pass through them as a matter of 1 or 2 of them looking at it and going "yes this seems pretty severe" or "no this guy hasn't gone completely whacko yet". and then have them forward it directly to one of the lawyers who could sign it and fire it off.--

Crossmr (talk

) 11:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop a line over to Gogo Dodo and to Alison. They both have first-hand experience. --

talk

) 02:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody please semi-protect User Talk:East718 for a few hours? Anons are attacking it unmercifully. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tiptoety (talk · contribs)
• Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs)

Tiptoety blocked Boodles for two weeks, claiming that he violated his self-imposed 1RR restriction. The "violation" at hand was the reinsertion of info removed by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) over an hour after removing an in-line tag placed by Piotrus (talk · contribs).

Assuming there was 1RR violation, the two week block is extreme. A tag removal followed an hour later by a reinsertion of content is not in the spirit of edit warring.

But more importantly, there was no 1RR violation. Some Background: There is this

- which is the basis for this block - the restrictions were limited to reverts of neutral editors. This is the relevant discussion at ANI:

---

But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Ironically enough, it was Tiptoey that agreed to the "neutral editor" condition. The block of Boodles is based on the assumption that the second revert was a revert of a "neutral editor". However, this is clearly not the case. The condition was established for this very situation, a situation in which one of the alleged tag-teamers reverts to version that is in agreeance with the other tag-teamer. Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) which were the two editors that were reverted by Boodles are accused of tag-teaming. Thus, per the above discussion, they were explicitly excluded from the 1RR restrictions imposed unto Boodles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, there is a huge arbcom, but concerned mostly with other things. Boodlesthecat has edit warred and clearly broken (R1: [55] [56]; R2: [57] [58]) the 1RR restriction (which is why his unblock request has been declined three times today - and since when we allow a user to ask for an unblock three times within three hours anyway? what is it, unblock roulette? - and this is why Tip, who has designed the 1RR in the first place, enforced in the way he did), nobody else has done anything wrong (I have not reverted there, and Poeticbent is not close to 3RR and not under any restriction, and his involvement there, - as the creator of the article - is quite understandable, no conspiracy theories needed to explain it). Not surprisingly, the ArbCom member Kirill has proposed the following findings:

There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any of the off-wiki editing coordination that occurred in this case. I certainly resent the accusations of tag teaming / meatpuppetry; they are unprovable slander in any case, and not something I'd expect from another admin (some may want to brush up on AGF and similar policies, and concentrate on dealing with disruptive users, not defending them - and for who is a disruptive user here, just look at Boodlesthecat's block log). If Brewcrewer wants to look into some serious issues, why not check this BLP report, for example? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus might also want to note that ArbCom member Kirill has also proposed that Piotrus shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice, and particularly in avoiding further involvement in edit-warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I hoped would not happen here - a rehashing of the arbitration case. The only issue here is whether Boodles violated the 1RR restrictions. He did not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction aside, there was clearly edit warring going on beyond or right at the limit of normal policy. The edit warring was not sterile - there was talk page discussion - but none of the parties did the right thing and used self-restraint on the article while discussing to consensus on talk.

Piotr and Poeticbent deserve slaps on the wrist and the usual "Please stop that and don't do it again". Boodles, with significant history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, could legitimately be blocked for it, though I would personally have treated all three equally in the name of fairness.

I see no reason to overturn the block. A 1 RR restriction with some exceptions is not a license to edit-war the exceptions. It's a notification that someone has been edit warring more than usual and is discouraged from doing it much more if at all. Asking to overturn this on the technicality is missing the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A technicality is the only basis for this block. If you look closely at the edit history of the

article you will see that most of Boodles edits were accepted. The edit warring, although not acceptable, fell far short of the 3RR standard. The only way to get a block in was though the 1RR technicality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)

05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He added a controversial para, removed a tag I added to it, and then restored the para after Poeticbent removed it. This is no technicality - this is pure edit warring to one's version, and his edits are far from "accepted" (nobody has reverted to his version).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He made plenty of other edits besides for the reinsertion of a paragraph (that was removed sans discussion). In any case, at most, he's only halfway toward a 3rr. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing his minor edits, and he is on 1RR restriction, so being halfway towards a 3RR... QED, I think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! The 1RR restriction is inapplicable here because none of the editors involved were "neutral" as defined in the 1RR agreement. The only legit way to block him is through 3RR, which he does not meet in this case. It is most blatantly wrong to establish specific rules for people and then just block them anyway despite their abidance with the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under a misconception - 3RR is not an entitlement that one may revert three times before there's a problem. 3RR is a bright line in the sand that you shall not go past this limit, and behavior short of 3RR may well constitute edit warring, which is the practice that we actually block for. People who edit war over and over again may be blocked for edit warring before they reach 3 reverts. Anyone who's been put under a 1RR restriction should know better and just avoid doing it.

We gave the guy very strict and very specific rules regarding reverts. He abides by those very strict rules, and then we block him anyway. That is wrong under any moral standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating myself, but... Edit warring is prohibited and 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times. See

Wikipedia:3RR#Not an entitlement

which specifically states:

The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Please don't reply in all-bold. It is condescending and thus uncivil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The only part that's bold is the quote from policy, and only to distinguish it from my comment. This is used elsewhere. I had to include more of the policy as a quote, as essentially all of that policy section was directly relevant... The size of the bold block is therefore perhaps unfortunately unusually large. But I didn't use bold emphasis other than for typographical reasons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

People who have previously been blocked for edit warring or 3RR violations, especially those under special restrictions such as a 1RR restriction, must not push the limit by edit warring. The behavior is not OK. Whether they specifically violate their additional restrictions or not, the behavior is prohibited. People should not do it on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Side note: Piotr complained on my talk page that I incorrectly characterized his edits in my first comment above. On review, he's correct, he didn't participate in edit warring on the article. He only made one edit after the point that the edit warring began, and that was a harmless wikilink not involved in the back and forth others were doing. My apologies for the mischaracterization... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If he is on 1RR, he can be blocked for it, otherwise we wouldn't bother issuing it in the first place. 1RR are simple creatures: if you revert more than once, you break them. Boody is not to revert on articles I edit more than 1RR (and vice versa), not counting tiny stylistical/MOS changes and other AGF exceptions - of which removing a tag and restoring a controversial para are not. It doesn't matter whom he reverts, or what (per

WP:3RR. Revert is a revert - again, those are pretty simple creatures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He never reverted you more then once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So? He reverted somebody else, 1+1=2. Perhaps you are laboring under a miscomprehension: Boodlesthecat 1RR restriction is not limited to reverting me, I am the one who triggers it: as long as we are editing the same article, we are not to revert anybody more than once. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The "anybody" must be a neutral editor. I am sorry if I was no being clear enough, but the "neutral" aspect is the whole point. The "neutral" condition was established because of the concern (I have no opinion about its legitimacy) that since Polish editors are tag-teaming, a 1RR scheme would result in an unfair disadvantage to Boodles. The "neutral" condition was specificaly created for a situation like this - you add, Boodles reverts, an alleged tag-teamer adds, Boodles revets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken (and consider for a moment that Tip who created this restriction reviewed this case and carried it out). The restriction was created to stop Boodlesthecat from edit warring (see his block record). The word neutral was used without much thought and not defined, and was clarifed below - in the fragment you cite - by Tip himnself as random, which fits the situation better (because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder). If admins involved in 1RR had to review and argue who is neutral and who is not, this would be unenforceable (hence it is never an issue on ANI/3RR). The 1RR restriction had and has nothing to do with any tag team accusations. ArbCom, although not done, indicates (via the proposed finding I cited above) that arbitrators have not found any evidence form Polish editors tag teaming, and I would ask you not to repeat such slanderous, bad faithed accusations. If you have proof that Poeticbent and I are part of a tag team, please present your evidence in the arbcom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I specifically stated earlier that I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations. But whether they are true or not, they were the basis of the "neutral editor condition" in the 1RR agreement - the basis for this block - so we have no choice but to deal with it. Please see the part of the previous ANI discussion that I copy and pasted above. From the discussion and subsequent agreement is it clear that the editors that are part of the tag-team accusations are not considered random and neutral for 1RR purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is putting an argument on its head. Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic: 1) 1RR is designed to prevent edit warring 2) 1RR if applied globally to all reverts by a user prone to edit warring prevents edit warring 3) 1RR if applied to only reverts of one specific user is unlikely to prevent edit warring between the user prone to edit warring and other users. Again: the restriction means we are not supposed to revert anybody on affected articles more than once per day, there is no discussion of "but I thought he was tag teaming with him", which could excuse ALL reverts and make the 1RR restrictions completely pointless. Oh, and don't forget that for your argument to be valid you have to prove I was tag teaming with Poeticbent - and since you said yourself "I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations", what's the point of this discussion? Excuse me, but I am not a fan of wikilawyering over a tiny technicality, when the big picture is obvious (1RR was designed to stop an estabilished edit warrior and was implemented when 1RR was broken, case closed).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Only those that are part of the tag-team accusations, which if I'm not mistaken is around 5 editors and includes Poeticbent , are considered non-neutral for purposes of the 1RR rule. But in response to your general point, I understand that, rules aside, there should never be a spirit of edit-warring. However, in this situation, where we are dealing with an editor who is under an extreme and strict 1RR standard, it is immoral and wrong to use the very strict rule which he agreed to abide by as the basis for his block when he never broke the rule. I am turning in for the night so I won't see any replies. Good night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How come, with all these unsubstantiated ArbCom accusations repeated against me by Brewcrewer in defence of Boodlesthecat above, nobody but Piotrus cared to let me know about this discussion at its final stage. I wrote the article which took days of painstaking effort. Immediately, I was faced with a barrage of attacks that went on for days. Boodlesthecat tried to destroy my 32 KB creation in a maddening spree that began with a request for speedy deletion and claims of copyvio based on a meagre few words from the source. And now, you say I was tag-teaming? Based on what proof? His empty claims? Boodlesthecat has been slandering people for months. And, speaking of 1RR, who is that mysterious neutral editor in this instance, a Martian from planet Mars? How would you feel, if your fresh new article was being defaced with a bunch of loaded messages based in ethno-specific spin? 1RR, 2RR or 3RR, I don't care about Boodlesthecat's agreement reached with Piotrus, or its technicalities. What I care about is a nightmare he's put me through already. --Poeticbent talk 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clear by now that

1. Boodlesthecat did not technically violate his 1RR restriction.
2. If he was blocked simply for edit-warring, then so to should his opponents have been blocked for edit-warring.
3. A two week block is, in any event, an extraordinarily long block.

Can someone please present a rationale why his block should not be lifted at this point? He has already served 30 hours of a technically invalid block. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But he did violate it. He made 2 rather clear reverts of the same content within a ~2 hour period. If you are thinking that he did not violate it because the other party who reverted was not "neutral" enough is not really applicable here. Where is there actual evidence to support the claims that these two users are tag teaming? And whether it was a user who supported Piotru's view or not, it does not make it alright for Boodles to simply revert it. Just because Poeticbent makes a edit/revert does not mean it is a open door for Boodles to revert that edit. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to see what Jayjg's response is to this - merely saying it is technically invalid doesn't make it invalid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying it was technically invalid means that one should give Boodlesthecat more leeway, as he no doubt reverted Poeticbent under the quite accurate view that he was in no way a "neutral third party". I've clarified further on Tiptoety's talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The original conditions that you and Boodles agree upon were based on the accused tag-teamers, not proven tag-teamers. When you made the agreement a month ago there was no proof that they were tag teamers, yet you agreed that alleged non-neutral tag-teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Now you want proof that they are tag teamers?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no that was not my intention. I never specified "accused tag teamers" I just said "neutral third party", so that is clearly open to interpretation. Either way, I have offered to allow a uninvolved admin unblock if they see fit on my talk page, I would appreciate if someone less involved would mind reviewing this. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That might have not been your intention, but what you said was in direct response to Malik Shabazz's concern what he explicitly called "tag team"'s. A most reasonable understanding of the colloquy and its subsequent 1RR agreement is that the accused tag teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Anyway, kudos to you for offering another admin to review this block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And so three admins have reviewed the block after three requests of unblock by Boodlesthecat on his talk, and they upheld it. Further, there is certainly no consensus or even slight majority for unblock here. And given his history of blocks, longer and longer blocks are fully justifiable - particularly as he is not showing any remorse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I wonder if your continued defense of Boodlesthecat is because you think he did nothing wrong - or because you support his content POV? After all, you have often reverted to his version and supported him on talk. At the very least, forgive me for not treating your input here as completly neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If your question is "Do you share Boodlesthecat's concerns that a number of members of the

Portal:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia notice board, supported by User:Piotrus, are busy inserting into a series of articles the victim blaming POV that Polish antisemitism was caused by the Jews themselves, using dubious, revisionist, extremist, and in some cases out-right antisemitic sources, and tag-teaming anyone who attempts to bring the articles into line with policy?", then I would have to answer "Yes, like a number of editors, I am concerned about this." Jayjg ^(talk)

02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire issue here and on Tiptoety's talk page. On the one hand Boodlesthecat was edit warring. On the other hand, so were his opponents, and it is not completely clear whether he broke his 1RR restriction or not. As the blocking admin has said he would not object if an uninvolved admin unblocked, and as Boodlesthecat has already been blocked for 3 days, and indicated he will be more careful in his editing, I am unblocking. I recommend that both sides in this be very careful about edit warring here. Khoikhoi 02:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Khoikhoi, I just hope we are not right back here in a few weeks (though I do not have high hopes) :-/ Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to upload a radio station logo and keep getting "internal errors" that would say something like "Could not rename file "/tmp/phpUk1svS" to "public/1/1a/WHRV-FM_2008.gif"." and even the image database wasn't writeable. I asked on IRC, but they were having a conversation on drugs (no...really), so I bring it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 04:19

Next time, slap them until they give you the techies' IRC chan (irc:wikimedia-tech, If I remember correctly). -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Serious lack of good faith, borderline personal attack on this admin here right after release of 2 recent back-to-back blocks for personal attacks/agf. Could use additional, uninvolved admin help on this. It's a long edit, but saying I advocate punitive blocks is what I'm referring to. Toddst1 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the longest edit I've seen [59] but close enough (about 2/3). — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are educational, and this editor doesn't seem to have learnt WP norms yet. Verbal chat 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see longwinded

wikilawyering whilst blocked, which I take as a strong hint there will be more worrisome edits when the block is up in a day. Gwen Gale (talk

) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• See the more or less wide open offer to unblock which I made 5 days ago. It went unanswered. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone explain the oblique reference to

WP:TROLL? I am confused (perhaps too easily?) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is, he's trying to say calling someone a troll with a cite to the soft-linked Meta essay

WP:TROUT (which, by the bye, is clearly marked with a humour tag). Gwen Gale (talk

) 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen's assessment of wikilawyering. How to handle? Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Either lengthen the block for lack of acknowledgement and ongoing wikilawyering about it or let the block lift and see what happens. I find myself leaning slightly more towards letting the block end, keeping a keen watch and if any more PAs stir up, blocking indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, so long as it is a "last chance". Perhaps forcing user adoption might be an option to help them? Verbal chat 16:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be that, I think. As for adoption/mentoring, though it's almost always brought up in a helpful way, like Verbal has done, I've seldom seen it have much sway on outcomes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the last chance / final warning. I will annotate the user's talk page to reflect this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching an obviously-experienced new account engage in borderline trolling at the Village Pump.

Does anyone happen to know who

) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is Jvolkblum, look at his sock categories and you'll see why. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure on that one - the edits have been scattered in various places, though rarely beneficial from what I've seen. The name does bring to mind Jvolkblum, but the edits don't. And the user's userpage says they're 11 years old. It does smell funny, all told, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Posting (trolling) at VPP, RefDesk/Misc and various user talk pages? My money is on this fellow. CIreland (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone has taken issue with edits Jayjg has made to this article. This IP address has cross-posted in several areas a lengthy complaint about bias in the article, etc. Can someone take a look, as this may be a sock of ModObjective? Thanks in advance! TN‑X-Man 14:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I shouldn't say sock. It is possibly ModObjective editing anonymously. TN‑X-Man 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked... I remember reading this rant somewhere. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am following up with FT2 (he acted on it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As do I, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Anyways, thanks for the response. TN‑X-Man 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone learned my password from knowledge, and has so far edited 2 Wikipedia articles. I've already gotten 2 messages. One for vandalism and another for unconstructiveness. These two articles were Comcast and Chris Pirillo. I do not know if the person is going to continue to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osxdude (talk • contribs) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Change your password NOW! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, of course, but he may have his cookies on. -- Osxdude (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Log out and back in. Logging out anywhere should log you out everywhere. (That's how it works for me, anyway.) -- Vary Talk 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) (Who almost didn't remember to log back in after testing this.)

Also remember that you are generally held responsible for anything done on your account; that's why it's important to create secure passwords. -- Vary Talk 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also change your email address, just in case he may have access to your email too, he might be able to use the forgot password link. Also check your computer for keyloggers.

) 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to do an emergency checkuser to the affected account to see what IPs are using it and block the IP that has snagged the password? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 03:26

I don't think the checkuser policy permits that. Compromised accounts are usually blocked until it is confirmed that the rightful owner has control over it.

) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that could be done, but I thought I would throw that out there. Hopefully OSXDude has control of it by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 03:39

Um, I don't see why we couldn't use checkuser that way. What part of the checkuser policy would it violate? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's both a valid and a sensible use of Checkuser. I'm not so much concerned about blocking the underlying IP (though that may be a good idea) as finding out if the user has compromised other accounts or is employing other socks. From Wikipedia:CheckUser:

CheckUser is a tool allowed to be used...for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential disruption and abuse.

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project.

It looks to me like this case fits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromised accounts that have been used to vandalise or whatever have been checkusered in the past. There's at least a couple of cases I can think of where the accounts were compromised by other editors and we only caught the guilty party by checkuser. And of course it also helps alleviate any suspicion about the account owner. Sarah 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then would you mind doing a checkuser on Osxdude's account, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:15

I'm just an ordinary admin and don't have checkuser rights. Rlevse or one of the other checkusers might comment in this section again, otherwise we'll have to ask them to consider running a check. Sarah 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I will, after dinner here, list Osxdude's account for a checkuser. If someone doesn't beat me to it :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:38

• I posted the Request for Checkuser on RCU just a couple minutes ago. Link: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Osxdude - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 10, 2008 @ 23:55
  • Results of Checkuser: "Unfortunately Osxdude has almost no recent edits. I can confirm that the 4 edits around 02:00 on 10 Nov were made from a different location than the most recent edits at 03:11 and 03:19, but I have no way to know which (if either) is the correct account owner. Thatcher 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 01:17

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If an admin gets a second, there's some messy stuff over at the Landon1980 (talk · contribs) brought up an old issue [60] which was answered and then closed. He has reopened it multiple times [61] [62] [63] [64] against the wishes of numerous other editors, who have also referred to him in some negative terms, which didn't help the situation. Landon1980 refuses to discuss matters on his talk page [65] [66], and is edit warring to reopen the original discussion, and to also make his own comments. I'm not taking a side here, but everything that's going on is very disruptive on a pretty big talk page. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC) It's the trolling technique called the "endless loop": Harping on the same thing over and over, after it's been answered, and driving everyone to distraction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I archived the discussion. J.delanoygabsadds 03:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Calling someone a troll who is infuriated about being called a troll also tends to be distracting. I'm looking into it, but looks like it would take more time than I can spare at moment.--Tznkai (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC) And THAT'S the problem, and the reason I brought it here. It's a mess. Thanks to J.delanoy for handling it. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Also note the user's belligerence when someone tries to talk to him on his talk page. (Already mentioned by Dayewalker, but this chain of hostile edit summaries is interesting): [67] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Apparently I was too subtle: don't call him a troll, don't nag him about it. Leave him alone Leave him alone, continuing to attempt to talk to him at this point is only going to disrupt things further.--Tznkai (talk) Oh, and I make no comment as to the merits or lacktheroef of Landon1980. Putting out the current fire, dealing with the rest later.--Tznkai (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC) All I ask is for the matter to be thoroughly looked into before any actions are taken. I do not feel I was trolling, yes I mad esome comments that I shouldn't have. I was/am a little worked up over the issue and a little upset that my legitimate, good faith concerns about that neutrality of the article are erased. I apologize for any bad behavior on my part. I'm not here to cause problems. I'm going to stay away from the issue for now. However, just because it is in the FAQ's it should not mean editors cannot discuss it. I merely asked for neutral ground. Again I apologize for my comments. I tried my best to stick to the content and not the contributor and everything was in good faith. I feel the issue keeps being raised because a section on it isn't allowed on the talk page. How could a new consensus ever emerge if the editor is reverted immediately and marked up as "past discussion" There were ongoing comments from a few editors in the thread that was closed prematurely. Landon1980 (talk ) 04:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I havn't looked into the details, but what I gather is this: it was discussed before and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it going anywhere, and it still doesn't look like it. While I believe that closing things just because they've been discussed before is ludicrous, so is repeatedly bringing up the subject again. I think the best solution right now is for everyone to walk away and come back after a night or two of good sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I certainly don't think my edits were rollback worthy, that edit was most certainly not vandalism. Landon1980 (talk ) 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) There's 350K+ of discussion content in just over 100 discussion threads that survived the bot's 5-day bot cutoff, of which 22, more or less, are complaints about calling Obama "African American" and/or proposing to call him "biracial" in light of his mixed black/white ancestry. This is a classic perennial proposal - nearly always made in good faith with some solid reasoning and good arguments behind it, but ultimately one that has not and will not gain consensus. I won't explain here because that's a content question, but it does reflect the newly invigorated dialog in America about race. Most of the editors quickly realize the article will not change, but occasionally we get someone who for whatever reason thinks this is a huge travesty and will not let it go. Landon1980 is the latest such editor, and he has slung around accusations of racism, re-opened closed discussions, made personal attacks on editors, etc., out of a conviction that calling Obama "African American" is racist. In addition we have redundant perennial proposals having to do with Obama's name (middle name "Hussein", suffix "II"), religion, place of birth, accuracy of "President Elect" designation, calling him by the "Junior" senator title, and a few other things that escape me. Plus non-perennial but nevertheless redundant discussions on things like which picture to use. After trying quite a few other things, I've found that the best thing to do is to simply combine all the discussions about the exact same thing into a single topic heading, close the ones that go stale or are resolved, and let the others continue for as long as people want to keep talking - but close when discussions having no chance of resulting in a change to the article grow uncivil or disruptive. I think 2-4 non-admins tending to the talk page in this way can keep things in order. We don't have a big crisis on our hands, just a need for people to pitch in. Occasionally we will have a flare-up where administrative action may be necessary. Landon1980 looks like a borderline case - he/she may grow frustrated and go away without help. But if the disruption continues a block / topic ban is in order. You can't come to an article probation page and repeatedly call all the editors there racist after multiple warnings to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Btw, if this comment isn't a better case for WP:AGF what is?[68] We are dealing with race, one of the most contentious, important issues in the United States. It's totally understandable that we have differences and strong passions. Patience, and trying to understand a sincere editor's objections, will get us very far. We should try to keep the article itself stable so that the off-wiki world doesn't see a strobe-light of revert edits. But we can all take a deep breath and accept some necessary unease and anxiety in our internal discussion on how to approach these big issues. Wikidemon (talk ) 07:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Yet calling me troll, idiotic, boy, prick, stupid, etc., is ok? Does the fact that 22 different discussions were raised not say something for the neutrality of the article? Most of the previous discussions were suggesting "first African American" be replaced with "first bi-racial" and my proposal was different. Myself and dozens of other editors have raised that same concern. On a daily basis someone asks why the lead cannot be more neutral. Yes, I was a bit uncivil, but no one can deny I was not provoked and teased, and that others were not being uncivil as well. I opened a new thread I remained extremely civil and laid out my proposal and why I thought it was necessary and it was closed. When I try and discuss the issue my edits are reverted with the summary "rv troll." If I can't discuss it on the talk page then where? Not just me, dozens of users are reverted by the same small group of editors. Is my proppsal, or a discussion on the talk page regarding the issue somehow harmful to the project? An admin has told me I cannot discuss the issue on the talk page, so where am I to discuss it? I have a feeling that if you combined all the previous threads and large number of editors involved consensus may be different. I simply don't get why neutrality does not apply to the article. I am very offeneded by being repeatedly called a troll and my edits even being rolled back as such. Hundreds of sources say Obama is bi-racial. My concerns of the lead sentence needing to be neutral do not constitute trolling. Look at the thread J Delanoy closed and tell me how it was some how harmful. Other involved editors were not even given time to comment. How could consensus ever change if the matter is a prohibited topic of discussion. This article draws a lot of attention and new editors are reverted immediately and sent to the FAQ's by the exact same group of editors. Landon1980 (talk ) 07:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with Landon. If they are going to close and consolidate the same topics, point people up (with a link to the right thread since the thread names are a mess too) and archive as soon as possible, to keep the page under control. Keep multiple versions with little to no response all the time make it impossible for anyone to follow. However, the repeated "we are not discussing that" and comments like "It also saves them from looking like an idiot. But too late for that." are also not appropriate. I imagine this may be one of the main article that gets new users wandering in and it looks extremely clickish. I'm going to archive some clearly closed sections to try to get the page under control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, Landon's behavior was truly disruptive. That something is a WP:RFC, which I am pretty sure would yield the same result, that for now, given the terminology and sentiments of our times, that Obama's ethnicity is described as African-American. But at least we could have one, conclusive discussion on the subject. As I pointed out there are 20+ active threads on the talk page about the very same thing. Raising it 20 times in 4 days is not the way to resolve the matter. Wikidemon (talk ) 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Something as sensitive as race should be dealt with in a neutral fashion. Hundreds of sources either say he is bi-racial or that his mother was white and father was black. Dozens of without a doubt reliable sources say he is bi-racial. According to Landon1980 (talk ) 08:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Landon1980, I closed the thread due to the lack of good faith on both sides. Its difficult, but its best to reread comments in a manner that supposes reasoned thought even if flawed. In any case, the thread had become laden with bad faith accusations, so warranted closing, cause really, editors should not have to wade though muck to get to the issues. Unfortunately, after the closure, you then posted this comment, which I had to remove twice. Modocc (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Yet it's inappropriate to close the thread when you appeared to be on the other side of the dispute. And there were several valid reasonings in that section, brought up by several people. I can say with confidence, that nobody bothered to even respond to my own arguments. Seeing that section quick-archived is disheartening. Must I start an RfC on that talk, of all? Everyme 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The comment that you unfortunately had to remove was about the article and the talk page. There were no personal attacks in that comment, I was addressing being attacked personally. You even go as far as call me racist on the noticeboard? It is not acceptable to take it upon yourself to close an ongoing discussion that many editors are involved in, especially when you are one of those editors. Landon1980 (talk ) 14:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I didn't call you anything and you know it. Thank you for confirming that you do not even believe your own rhetoric. There was no racist incivility and there was nothing to get upset about. As for closing a major disruption, that is not my duty, but I stand by it. --Modocc (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) You are correct, not your duty. You were an involved party that so happened to disagree with the opposing side. If on the noticeboard "racist incivility" was not intended for my comments than who were you referring to? Landon1980 (talk ) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I was referring to your repeated accusations that comments on the thread were racist. Whether or not that was true is pretty much beside the point, since your accusations were disruptive. --Modocc (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC) What about the section that only contained my proposal? Everyone that kept closing the discussion was involved in it. The talk page is being haldled very poorly and something must be done. In the last month roughly 100-150 people have expressed concerns about the lead sentence and it's neutrality. One by one these people are told consensus is different and to see the FAQ's. Where are the 200 people that oppose this? Consensus is obviously so overwhelming that I'm not even allowed to discuss the issue so where are these editors? I wonder if consensus has been properly gained. The same editors that oppose the lead being neutral remove all the discussions and make it impossible to see what consensus is. Take the last 4 or 5 days for example. Over 20 different threads have been started, so there you have at least 20 different editors. What I want to know is where the 40-50+ people are that oppose the lead being more neutral is. From what I've seen the threads are closed so quickly and everyhthing is such a mess that no one could possibly no what consensus is. The same 4-5 editors compare themselves to the opposing side a few at a time and call it consensus. My proposal was removed after it was not even an hour old by an admin and I was told I was not welcome to discuss it. Yesterday alone as many people agreed with me than opposed, yet the section was closed before other involved parties could even comment. How was my proposal harmful? All uncivil remarks had ceased. A couple straw men have been built above. I called no one racist for calling him African American. I said the statements "one drop cancels out white" " he is half black therefore he is black not white end of story" and other similar were racist. I feel that the admin acted very hastily without even looking into the situation before closing my thread. Landon1980 (talk ) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) "How was my proposal harmful? All uncivil remarks had ceased." That is absolutely not true. I had to refactor your last thread after Bugs had posted a response to it. As for racism accusations on the thread I closed, I'll provide diffs if need be later today, but I just woke up and need to start my day. A good one I hope. Modocc (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I don't mind, go ahead and add diffs to mr racist comments. The last thread that was closed contained nothing but my proposal. The comment you removed and labeled personal attacks were most certainly not personal attacks and contained info about the neutrality of the article. When you add the diffs of racism be sure and be fair, add personal attacks from both sides and the other remarks I said were racist. Landon1980 (talk ) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC) For the record, the rationale for my removal was given with my first attempt at removing the obvious disruption. After it was put back, I described it here as a personal attack tirade which was in reference to your lengthy one-sided complaint against personal attacks. I thought that what I meant would be clear, and I had already had given my reason; not that it mattered that much, but I could have just repeated myself I suppose cause my position had not changed. To be clear, threads are removed or closed when they are inappropriate, such as with soapboxing. Modocc (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I took the admin's advice and had a night's sleep. Reading the above additions in defiance of that good advice, to me it still looks like trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that is quite enough out of all of you (kudos to Bugs for going to bed though). Trouts all around for personal attacks and incivility, and anyone interested in settling the content dispute should do something productive over here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious backlog in

23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd case here. Not only do we have this account, but five more numbered "AndrewWeaver1" through "AndrewWeaver5." That sort of multiple account creation tends to set off alarm bells in my head. --

) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While strange, not against policy that I know of so far. For convenience:

• AndrewWeaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AndrewWeaver1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AndrewWeaver2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AndrewWeaver3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  )
• AndrewWeaver5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Be a really good idea to keeep an eye on that. That just screams 'sock farm'. HalfShadow 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're just 'red' herrings, to distract you from his real socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or someone having a bit of fun with the account creation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or someone who knows they're going to be editing on multiple accounts (public terminals, semi-automated work you don't want clogging your history etc) but wants to ensure they're easily identified as being from the same editor…

talk

) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you do anything; we should just keep an eye on them, that's all. As the saying goes: 'It isn't paranoia if you're right.' And I'd rather be wrong and be sure I was wrong. I mean certainly we should assume good faith, but on the other hand...HalfShadow 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this morning

• November 11, 2008 @ 06:56

It looks like the history of WHFS was moved to WJZ-FM. Is this correct? --Carnildo (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is and that was my mistake. I didn't see that until it was pointed out to me. I don't have WJZ-FM on my watchlist. I do now :S You can mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 07:47

Can we please

assume I have a small clue of what I'm doing with page moves next time? JPG-GR (talk

) 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please IP 71.36.41.93

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours

talk

) 08:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here, I gave this anonymous editor his/her last warning. See my usertalk for where he/she has crossed the line and deserves to be blocked. --DerRichter (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably you should file a report with

WP:AIV when someone vandalises after a final warning. I've reported the IP. X MarX the Spot (talk

) 08:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Banned user (alternately banned by both Jimbo and Cary Bass) is back again. He's tagged my page with nonsense,[69], has posted on Jimbo's several times,[70] and appears to be on that IP for some time now. Might ferret out more of him from that IP, if he has other accounts. He also tagged me on meta (where he is also blocked), as he appears irked that I've blocked him from communicating with me via Wikipedia Review and for calling him out on his general B.S. and faux martyrdom there.

) 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now now, assume good faith; someone else could have a fixation on "pre-Hammurabic tribal cultures"... --NE2, WR lurker 21:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! --David Shankbone 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't we all have that fixation?

-t BMW c-

11:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that this is Moulton (how could it not be?!). No socks apparent. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this anti-Islam comment in my watchlist today, I did a little poking around and

found some strongly hateful anti-gay comments coming from User:Lestrade at Talk:Raymond Burr and Talk:Emily Dickinson and Talk:Mario and the Magician and Talk:Christopher Lee and Talk:G. H. Hardy. (There are possibly many more, I only spent 10 minutes searching after seeing the first one: enough to establish that it was a pattern that I could bring here.)

I don't know what process to submit this kind of behavior to, and I don't really want to think about it right now. Hopefully someone here can deal with the whatever lasting impact he might have made. Ugh. I need a shower. (Please just move the thread if I've posted in the wrong place. I can follow pagehistory trails. Thanks.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ick. Block. Forever. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ick yes, but those comments are (save the first) all months old. If this user is an active current problem, please provide some newer diffs. I agree that an admin with some time should warn them, but not clear if they're a serious active ongoing problem or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen this guy around on occasion, but I don't think a block is warranted - after all, many of the comments did point to actual article problems, such as poorly-sourced or speculative information, and he hasn't been editing article content to reflect his views. The fact that he ascribes this to a "gay conspiracy" is divisive and could create conflict; he should be warned to avoid this in the future, but his actual effect on article content will hopefully be positive. Dcoetzee 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it was a while since he made the comments. I know he's not overtly or consistently disruptive. I know most of his contributions thus far have been constructive. I know blocks should be prophylactic not punitive. Nevertheless such edits predict his inevitable banning. Mark my words. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

just my two cets, what bit of advice that iw ouwld offer you is that its usually better to block someone when they becomine a distruption rather than before they do. the natur eof wikipedia means that most damage is temporary and eaisly reversible by either regular users or oversight by people wiht special adminsitrative privileges. its better to forgive adiviseive conment made several months ago rather than trying to start a new dispute now. tahats my advice though, so dont take it as policy by any means. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone notified him of this thread? Maybe he's reformed. It seems like the best thing to do would be to talk with him about it, let him know that that behavior is inappropriate, thank him for stopping, etc. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ja. Todd-someone-or-other has clued him in. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He should not be banned. His anti-gay comments are so ridiculous that it is actually a good thing tolerate this. It helps to discredit the ideas he is arguing in favor for. If you systematically ban such people then they claim to be victims of "censorship by liberal websites". You get a situation where reliable information is seen to be unreliable by these people, simply because it is on such a website. This effect already exists, but you make it much worse if anti-gay activists can point to censorship.

) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well let's not over-egg the pudding here, Count. Truth be told I'm not overcome with a "Ach! Ban teh Bigot!!" sentiment here. His silly views, in and of themselves don't really faze me. I'm thinking about the inevitable disruption he's gonna cause. It's for that reason I say shit-can him now, because it seems the most efficient course of action. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of his comments are helpful. Others such as this one are just soapboxing. If it becomes too disruptive we can block but I don't see a good reason to do so at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quiddity, I'm assuming you meant "strongly hateful" in the PC sense. This guy's actually (thus far) quite mild as anti-gay soapboxer kooks go. He's mostly just ignorantly soapboxing; he hasn't threatened or specifically attacked anyone, he isn't spamming talk pages or POV pushing in articlespace...easier just to ignore him, really. If he becomes a more serious nuisance someone will probably indef him. I'm sure he'll be unlikely to be missed. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I say leave him until he digs a hole for himself; having an opinion you don't like isn't a blockable offense. Having an opinion you don't like and stating that opinion in a offensive or disruptive manner, though... HalfShadow 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here arguing for a speedy block need to keep their own intolerance in check and review the block policies. While he should tone down his rhetoric, he is right about poorly sourced and weasel-tinged speculation. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen him around on talk pages and a lot of the time it seems he's trying to get a rise out of other users. Any comments and opinion-mongering not related to improving the article should simply be removed per

Folantin (talk

) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah, Lestrade is one of our finest contributors in the much-neglected realm of philosophy articles, and I agree with HalfShadows comments above - expressing an opinion is not a blockable offence, and unless the user is being incivil or personally attacking others (for which I have seen scant evidence), punitive measures would only be a transparent imposition of mainstream values. I really wonder who the intolerant ones are here. the skomorokh 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

People keep warning him about this but he simply removes it from his talk page. And he has made some personal attacks! Such as here and his text is often calling people 'gays' which, in his opinion, is a personal attack. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm just overreacting, but since I prefer to err on the side of caution, this particular naming convention kind of looks like a

) 05:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another just popped up:

talk

) 05:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• If it is him this either means that our rangeblocks on his ISP were not large enough (and they are big already) to stop him or he's just making an account at the library and logging in at home. Either way, we are more reliant on bellsouth actually having a working abuse report line. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

At least both accounts as of this moment are inactive. May just have been a false alarm on my part. And brother, do I ever agree on that last comment! --

) 08:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! If they do prove to be Bambifan101 socks, perhaps we should consider an {{anonblock}} for his local library next ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a

, I come here with this issue:

User:Johnfos/pages.

I'm very happy this person is adding so much content to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a lot of the biographies, organizations, and especially books this guy is adding to Wikipedia are not passing the notability game. I have nominated a slew of them for deletion, but I think a more systematic approach might be better. Some of the books he has written articles about ARE notable. I am of the opinion that most of them aren't. However, I've only gotten through half the list and would appreciate it if an administrator with deletion capabilities would go through and see if any of them should be speedied.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place. I'm really not sure what to do with all this. We don't want to scare off contributors, but we don't want to turn Wikipedia into something it's

.

Help.

) 11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably each article you've listed for consideration at AfD will be dealt with on it's merits. Over there. At AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do. There is a

be as active as he is in trying to advance cold fusion here on Wikipedia? What should we do about it?

talk

) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is he doing some advertising, astroturfing or such? If not, COI in mind, experts are welcome to contribute on subjects of their interest (and expertise). If an expert contributes to a subject he is an expert on, it's not a problem as long as he adheres to NPOV, V and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely

talk

) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Pcarbonn stands to benefit or not from the content of the

talk

) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I propose to block the account indefinetly as a single purpose account with a conflict of interests pushing a marginal theory. Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am not objecting, not knowing enough about this case, but I will not support: POV pushing is allowed (per NPOV, editors are expected to have a POV). Moderating one's POV is of course recommended :) Is he being disruptive? Edit warring, harassing others...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the history of cold fusion is extremely contentious. Most of the people who are not cold fusion advocates editing that page thinks he is problematic and should be removed. An example would be this comment by

talk

) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that

talk

) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think blocking is a bit premature. There is some history that might stand to be reviewed first, I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage people to please review the history. I have a very hard time getting anyone willing to do this. Lar, do you want to review it for us? I'm not a big fan of people asking for a "review" and then not being willing to do it themselves.

talk

) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by

WP:AE is the appropriate place to go. The way you get an administrator to review the history is if you post a list of policies violated with a few sample diffs. Jehochman ^Talk

05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Goddamn it, why can't we review it here? If I file a Pseudoscience claim, I am going to have to argue for proper jurisdiction over there since cold fusion is probably pathological science and not pseudoscience. I'm tired of being subjected to the bureaucratic runaround. I've been complaining about this for a long time and I just want someone to look over it carefully. There seem to be some outsiders here who are willing to do this. I've provided diffs here. Isn't that enough?

talk

) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You already filed a report at

WP:COIN. Could you link to that please. There are administrators who patrol that board. In what way is this not forum shopping? If you need more admins, post a request asking for help. Don't start a new discussion. Jehochman ^Talk

06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the

talk

) 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn is certainly relevant. And the time-line on his userpage would seem to provide his version of the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That timeline in his userpage is interesting. I found this line September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. to be particularly so. Somehow Pcarbonn feels it's acceptable for someone who's financially invested in a particular POV for an article, or an "expert" to edit it - but not this guy? After reviewing quite a few of Pcarbonn's contributions, he's clearly an SPA and one with a substantial conflict in editing as there is the possibility of real personal gain by inserting his POV in the article. Looking at the substance of the material he's added to the article, he does appear to strongly push a particular viewpoint and solely insert content favorable to that view. I'm pretty confused by the previous COI threads where editors said "well, as long as he plays by the rules" - since when is long term POV pushing directly related to one's own interests "playing by the rules"? I see no reason that Pcarbonn should be editing any article related to cold fusion. Shell ^babelfish 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, to expand, the "financial investment" is something which troubles me greatly but for some reason didn't fly on COI. I don't know why. I had another cold fusion advocate angrily retort that my evidence that he had a financial stake in cold fusion was basically made out of whole-cloth (

talk

) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]So topic ban him. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of SA are baseless. I don't have any share in MEMS Instruments. MEMS Instruments has no interest in cold fusion, and SA has not provided any evidence to the contrary. In any case, SA has not demonstrated any wrong behavior of my part. I have always provided reliable sources in support of my edits, and I have written for the enemy. This is a content dispute, and several other editors have the same opinion as mine. Content dispute are not resolved by ejecting users, but by abiding to WP policies and mediation. These policies have worked in the past, and I have always respected them. I'm ready to go to mediation again if needed to resolve this content dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the accusation of Single purpose account, Sa must have not looked. I invented the To-do list mechanism, and I have written 2 user scripts recently [72][73]. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Shanahan, I objected about him writing 4 paragraphs about his own papers on cold fusion. I did not object to his contributing to other parts of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Clear COI, POV editing, and an uncivil attitude. It'll also show whether he's an SPA or not. Verbal chat 10:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose
  WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy and in any case doesn't indicate that SPA's aren't allowed. Pcarbonn does not edit tendentiously, but rather seeks consensus on the talk page and cites reliable sources. That SA happens to disagree with Pcarbonn's POV is not sufficient to disqualify him from editing the page. Ronnotel (talk
  ) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I disapprove of ScienceApologist's use of Wikipedia's procedural tactics to impose his point of view and censor others', because he has also tried to use them on me. I strongly support his efforts, for example, on homeopathy, but in the case of cold fusion the peer-reviewed scientific literature is clear: There is still a controversy and it is entirely premature to scrub the article (and its introduction) of subject matter which varies from ScienceApologist's absolutist tendencies.
  talk
  ) 20:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This user has been banned as a sockpuppet. See
    talk
    ) 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not votes for banning. Please stop.

12:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, can you explain what difference it makes whether this shows up on AE or here?

talk

) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

speculating on the real world identity and activities of other editors. If there is actual disruption, please go to WP:AE with diffs in hand and make your request. That board is watched by administrators with the most experience in these matters. You'll get the most accurate result there with the least fuss. Jehochman ^Talk

13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. I encourage everybody to have a hard look at the harrassment behavior of SA towards me. How come that he is the only one to come after me ? I have been judged, and cleared, about possible COI. There is a principle in law that someone not be judged several times for the same issue. It should apply on WP too. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to officially "speculate" that when User:Pcarbonn writes Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle he is not lying about his identity. So... do I get blocked for outing an individual now? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn is an aggressive PoV pushing editor who acts uncivilly. In a recent post PCarbonn mentions that some of his edits had been made because of a 'need' to harass SA. Wikipedia does not need editors who feel the need to harass those who disagree with them. --Noren (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is requested here? If you want a block for harassment, post diffs. If you want a topic ban, your best bet is to use the arbitration case. I don't see a community topic ban materializing. Sleuthing and making remarks about editors' real world activities are discouraged. Normally a COI case happens when an editor writes about themselves or their company. Writing in a biased way about a subject, such as cold fusion, can be dealt with as a violation of NPOV. It is not COI. Therefore, talk about identity is not helpful. In the present case, I have not seen a sufficient weight of diffs to support a block or ban. They might exist, but those advocating for sanctions need to dig them up. Don't come here with conclusory assertions, please. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a reasonable community ban discussion on-going here. Since a recent rfc just said that Cold Fusion does not equal Pseudoscience, I think it would be a slap in the face to tell the community it was wrong and decide to set sanctions under that case anyways. If you don't want to participate in this discussion or look through the contribs yourself, that's up to you, but please stop trying to derail the discussion or move it elsewhere. Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear, I would strongly support a topic ban and suggest starting it at 6 months - this gives him time to show he's not here only for that purpose and to better learn how NPOV works. Shell ^babelfish 19:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a far more reasonable and balanced discussion if we were also considering whether

talk

) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if SA had brought up an NPOV or SPA issue on a COI noticeboard (alphabet soup!) he probably would have rightly been told that wasn't the correct venue. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That is essentially what happened. Shell, can you link to the RFC that said Cold Fusion is not Pseudoscience. If SA had come here and disclosed the COIN thread we already had, and pointed out the RFC that says this topic isn't under pseudoscience, I would not have objected. It also would have been good form to post diffs of the poor conduct at the outset. Perhaps we should close this thread and start over with all the relevant facts at

WP:AN. If you read the header, you will see that is the recommended place for ban discussions. Stuff on ANI tends to get quickly archived. AN is slower moving, better for that sort of discussion. Jehochman ^Talk

05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the RfC on CF as pseudoscience. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, the relevant link is

06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that mediation resulted in Cold Fusion being presented as a valid scientific controversy (see here. My edits are perfectly in line with the results of the mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I support a block on Pcarbonn for the reasons mentioned by SA and Verbal.--OMCV (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Executive summary

A request was made to look into the situation of a particular user,

. He does not do any work on Wikipedia outside of cold fusion.

Some questioned whether this was the right venue to discuss sanctions on this particular editor. Consensus seems to be that this is as appropriate a venue as any.

) 04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you, or somebody else, please post a concise list of diffs showing what you are asserting? Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the most significant diff is that between Wikipedia and Britannica on the topic of Cold Fusion. If that doesn't concern admins here, I'm not sure what will ... Vesal (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in losing my sysop access for blocking or banning somebody on a whim. We need

evidence to show that a sanction is needed. Take a look at User talk:Water Ionizer Research as an example of how to present evidence. Jehochman ^Talk

18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. Indeed, Wikipedia is not an

ochlocracy. Pcarbonn (talk

) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, unlike Pcarbonn here, I don't have a vested interest in this topic to spend hours assembling evidence. I wonder what drives ScienceApologist to even bother trying to make Wikipedia more in line with reputable reference works; but I admire his efforts. Vesal (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

diffs just from November

I could provide more, but I'm not made of time. Notice too, that there is a lot of evidence in my opening statement. Note that these all add up to considerable evidence that

is going on at cold fusion by Pcarbonn.

Misusing

talk pages

by pontificating

1. [74] (Note that this diff also includes comments to the effect that Google Scholar should not be used to judge the prominence of a cold fusion promoter since he wrote a book that received a favorable review from the fringe
   Journal of Scientific Exploration
   . Yikes!)
2. [75]

Sourcing to NewEnergyTimes (where he was published congratulating himself on getting Wikipedia to promote cold fusion) after consensus was it is not reliable

1. [76]

Falsely characterizing sources

1. As government reports: [77]
2. as supporting the existence of a "scientific controversy" [78]
3. claiming references say scientists don't reject cold fusion when references in the article clearly say that: [79]
4. claiming a differing level of acceptance than what is verified: [80]

Misusing

WP:WEASEL

by means of Wikilawyering

insisting 2/3 isn't really a "majority".

1. [81]

Violation of

WP:UNDUE

1. [82]

) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the above evidence. I get it, but I am not sure how many observers here will agree. Shall we temporarily ban Pcarbonn from editing Cold fusion?

Also, is there an old version of this article which is much better quality than the current version? Is there any chance of conducting a content

requests for comment and reverting back to a superior version? Jehochman ^Talk

04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer an indefinite ban of Pcarbonn from all articles related to cold fusion and keep that indefinitely. As to the other issue the article was at one point at FA. We could revert back to that version. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems logical, though we can't resolve that sort of content issue here. It would need to be discussed at the article talk page. I recommend a good discussion with a documented consensus. That way you greatly reduce the chance of edit warring. Perhaps Pcarbonn could be banned from cold fusion indefinitely. The editing does seem

neutral point of view. Jehochman ^Talk

04:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We've done the reverting back to the FA version multiple times. The problem is that the FA version is, at this point, out-of-date (though not to the extent that many of the cold fusion promoters think it is). I think we should let the editors who are at the article see what they can do with what's currently there. I have some ideas and I know other editors there do as well. The FA version is a good jumping off point, but it's not well-referenced and there are some additional events that we should be discussing.

talk

) 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to organize a FA drive, and then we'll see which accounts, if any, try to stonewall or violate content policies. I and others here can help resolve those sorts of problems. As for Pcarbonn, I hope some other administrator will make a decision. My hands are full at the moment. Jehochman Talk 06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's do that. I think a good way to start is by archiving all the current talk pages because they are full of circular argumentation and a lot of off-topic speculation. I've been unable to focus on much past the lead of the article for the last two months. I have to say that the lead is just about as good as it needs to be at this point. Two new popular-level books on the subject have just been published. One is skeptical and one is by a New Scientist tabloid writer. I think there may be an opportunity here to reposition the article as a fair description of the general ideas and principles and avoid the pedantic listing of cold fusion groups and back-and-forth regarding their calorimetry experiments. We need to regain control of the content from a reader's perspective instead of the current confrontational perspective.

) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman pointed out above that the best place for a ban discussion is at
  WP:AN. I'll start a thread there, linking back to this one. I agree that multiple editors should be enlisted to help improve Cold fusion and I'll help out with that if I can. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK
  15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to reply to SA's criticism:

• Misusing
  talk pages
  by pontificating. That hardly justifies a topic ban.
• Sourcing to New Energy Times: the URL was given for the convenience of readers. The article I reference actually comes from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, Surface Coating & Technologies.
• characterizing a paper as a government report. The diff does not support that.
• characterizing a source as supporting the existence of a controversy. SA has been constantly in denial of the well documented fact that the DOE 2004 panel concluded: "The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field"
• "claiming references say scientists don't reject cold fusion when references in the article clearly say that". The reference say that scientists are skeptical, not that they reject the claim. Skepticism is a valid scientific attitude, rejection can only be done when something is falsified. Unlike polywater, This has not been the case with cold fusion. Again, the source do not say it has been rejected.
• "claiming a differing level of acceptance than what is verified:" The level of acceptance can be determined by looking at the most reliable sources. I have provided plenty. SA has not provided any sources with the same
  parity of reliability. Half the DOE panel was somewhat convinced by the evidence of excess heat, and 1/3 by the evidence of nuclear reactions. SA has regularly denied this basic fact
  , claiming that it is POV-pushing.
• "insisting 2/3 is not a majority". I did not say that. I said that the 1/3 deserved a place in the lead.

Violation of WP:Undue. Again, the majority view was already presented in the lead ("In 2004, the US DOE organized another review panel which[...]found that the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions had not been demonstrated."). The 1/3 significant minority deserved a place too.

Please don't be swayed by SA's aggressive, but unjustified, stance. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we close this thread. It has grown quite long, which will discourage uninvolved editors from participating. SheffieldSteel has said they will review matters and consider starting a ban discussion at

15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad hand account?

Resolved

 – All socks identified and blocked

. I am appealing the decision to close this sockpuppetry case and want an uninvolved administrator to consider the question of whether we can have bad hand accounts such as this. In particular, I'll note that one of people in the discussion who quixotically did not believe there was anything wrong with this account usage wrote: "Agreed. To 'remain unsullied by potential wikidrama' is not a good reason, but to 'remain unsullied by potential real-world drama' is a good reason." I concur. Since the user is not indicating that it is real-world drama they are trying to avoid, I believe that this particular user should either identify their other Wikipedia account or go back to using just it. Another user put it well: "I think this account should be deleted but no actions taken against IwRnHaA core account since he appears to be very honest." Such a solution would be very agreeable to me as well.

I'll note that I was admonished, in particular, not to engage in this type of activity by arbcom who stated, in part, "Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade... user accountability... is strictly forbidden." I believe that this is exactly what this account is for, and I find it extremely unfair that this justification was taken to be legitimate.

Additional problems, as I see it:

1. There is no guarantee that this person is not contributing to cold fusion under another account since we do not know what the identity of the other account is.
2. There is a concerted effort on the part of various cold fusion advocates to protect this activity as legitimate (in particular
   consensus
   on that page which brought the sockpuppetry case to a premature end.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

) 05:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, diffs would be useful if there's a concern that this account is violating policy. On the other, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the use of alternate accounts in an active and contentious dispute. The idea that using an alternate account in such circumstances reduces wikidrama is ridiculous; it creates wikidrama. A desire to keep one's main account "unsullied by wikidrama" sounds semantically equivalent to "avoiding scrutiny". I recognize that this is a largely unsettled gray area of policy, but in the case of active disputes I feel strongly that people should be using their main accounts if they wish to participate. This is a can of worms we should not allow to open. MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the exact content issues, but just based on sockpuppetry policy, I'm not seeing anything of concern here. What

WP:SOCK#LEGIT. As long as there are no reasonable concerns of block evasion, or using multiple accounts on the same article, it's fine. Just don't cross the streams. --Elonka

07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, in direct contradiction to the arbcom-outlined principle I quoted above. To be sure, I used precisely the same defense you are outlining here and the arbcom decided that it was better to have consolidated accounts to avoid any hint of impropriety. I can see their point. If we allow segregation of accounts in this fashion it will be very hard to prove when sockpuppetry has gone "crossed streams".

talk

) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with MastCell that "avoiding scrutiny" seems to be a valid concern. Using a sock in a contentious area during a dispute also seems problematic, as does this user being involved in protecting some users and in disagreements with SA - which dos suggest block evasion. IMO main accounts should be used for contributing, and alternate accounts for admin/bot like services which are clearly labelled as such. I also find SAs argument immediately above compelling. Verbal chat 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,

WP:SOCK#LEGIT. --Elonka

07:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Referring to me in the third-person, misrepresenting an arbcom decision with respect to me ("However, that is an unusual situation, because of other history from that one user." references claims that are nowhere to be found in the arbcom decision or deliberations), and bringing up checkuser seems to me to indicate that either Elonka is way out of her league in dealing with this matter or is simply nursing her ever-evolving vendetta against me. I really wish she wouldn't inject herself into discussions where I'm involved. If you check her contributions, you'll see that she seems to be preferentially active in discussions that involve me. I would appreciate it if she butt out. Should I ask for an injunction?

talk

) 07:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I also take the view that using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny of a main account is not acceptable in controversial areas that are subject to arbcom restrictions. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive and I'd say we do now have a pretty clear view that using a sock to avoid controversy attaching to your main account is not acceptable if you are engaging in editing in a controversial arena. What, for example, if the sockmaster were standing for Arbcom or adminship and wanted to hide their activity in a controversial area? That would be completely unacceptable.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

07:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with comments here saying that using a sock account for editing contentious topics is inappropriate. IIRC, the exemption that allows multiple accounts was placed there partly to allow for people to edit "embarrassing topics" like

List of sex positions without it reflecting on their main account or their real names. The ArbCom has endorsed the proposition that socks should not be used for editing policy pages or proposals for policy changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. I'll just point out that there are topics that are "embarrassing" and contentious at the same time. A few LGBT-related articles have resulted in topic bans for certain editors. VG ☎ 09:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• There seems a pretty clear consensus that this account is not being used in an appropriate way and that practise (if nor written policy) no longer supports the use of alternative accounts in controversial areas just to keep the contribution of the main account uncontroversial. As such I have blocked this account but took care to disable the autoblock. Open to discussion as always. If the owner of the blocked account wishes to contribute I'd appreciate their owning up to the edits.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  10:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with this block. I have to disagree with Elonka - whilst the account may well be being used per
  WP:AGF, but on such contentious articles (and with contentious views), we have to be far more careful. Black Kite
  10:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now we need to make sure that

WP:SOCK represents practice and community opinion, which in this case needs clarification. (I support this block, btw). Verbal chat

10:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The user
  is requesting unblock. I would decline it, but feel it is best not to having commented above. A thought - whoever deals with the unblock could ask this account to email them from their main account, and then check that the main account is not being used to edit cold fusion topics. If this is the case, they could be unblocked. Black Kite
  18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I really, really don't know about this block. I looked over the user's contribution history a little, and most of the edits seem reasonable to me. We do not block people for having alternate accounts, we block them for using them inappropriately. No evidence has been posted that suggests this is going on, other than the user's up-front admission that they have another account. If this user is POV pushing then maybe a block is in order. But I see no specific evidence about that being presented by anyone here. It seems to me that if we could not have blocked this user if they hadn't been up-front about this being an alternate account, then we should not penalize them for being honest. And I certainly do not approve of the idea that we should start blocking accounts just for being opinionated

WP:SPAs in contentious areas. As much as they're a pain, this is supposed to be an open project. Mangojuice^talk

19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is what constitutes "inappropriate" use of an alternate account; I recognize this is a gray area. Using an alternate account to edit "controversial", probationed topics without attaching any controversy to one's main account seems improper, to me. This is the definition of avoiding scrutiny. If the edits are completely in line with Wikipedia policy, then why the problem with using one's main account? This smacks of trying to keep the main account's rep squeaky-clean, perhaps in the interest of seeking office, while also asserting one's viewpoint on a controversial topic under ArbCom probation. You can't have your cake and eat it too; that to me is the essence of

WP:SOCK. MastCell ^Talk

19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As grey areas go, this one is pretty dark. Maintaining a separate account is generally pretty questionable to me, and I believe that the areas laid out as legitimate need to be very, very narrowly interpreted, and the interpretation of the descriptions of unacceptable uses need to be correspondingly broad. This one is an effort not to taint a main account with the efforts put forth on battleground topics. That certainly comes under the umbrella of avoiding scrutiny in my mind.

I would suggest making all of the nationalist and pseudoscience articles explicit sock-free zones. Choose a date for implementation, and from that date forward, only one account per person can edit anywhere in the zone, and using multiple accounts to edit would resulting in blocking of all.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The description at

WP:SOCK under "Avoiding scrutiny" is quite clear to me: "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Is someone alleging that this user has a history of POV pushing on other accounts? If so, show me a history of POV pushing on this one -- some real diffs, please. If someone is alleging that this user is using multiple accounts on overlapping articles to create a false impression of popularity of an opinion, then Thatcher's comment rules that out, but again, if someone could be specific about any evidence I would be much happier. Is this account involved in any kind of disruption? If so, please show the evidence. I categorically reject the idea that merely editing controversial subjects is so suspicious that any use of alternate accounts is automatically inappropriate. Users ought to be allowed to have openly declared alternative accounts for controversial areas, so long as they do not use those accounts to disrupt Wikipedia, or to do what would be prohibited for one account to do. POV pushing is a kind of disruption, so I feel we don't need to cut this particular account a lot of slack. But it bothers me a lot that no evidence has been presented about POV pushing. Mangojuice^talk

20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems to have at least two other accounts, and they have edited overlapping articles and talk pages, although IwRnHaA does not overlap the other two. He also has IP edits to a topic frequented by a banned user, which I hesitate to disclose at this point without more information on the banned user's old IPs, which I do not have but may be able to obtain. This should probably be listed at WP:RFCU for follow-up. Thatcher 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Based on this, I have marked the unblock as reviewed. The block is preventive of disruption, specifically engaging in a dispute while evading scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher's comment makes the block more reasonable on its face, but I think the "Wikilawyering is not helpful" comment in the unblock wasn't quite on. What was he/she supposed to argue in an unblock request? An assertion that his use of the account was within policy, and a request to see the ArbCom case noted, isn't really wikilawyering as I usually think of it - and is really the only unblock avenue to take other than repudiation of past conduct.

^T

20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As SA feels the need to name me personally as an "advocate" for cold fusion, I'd like to respond by pointing that I've made a grand total of seven edits in the past *year* to the article page, and not that many more to the talk page. My interest in this page has less to do with cold fusion as a science (or psuedoscience, as the case may be) than in opposing SA's despicable behavior (for which he was blocked on one occasion, and oversighted in another). Apparently no brush is too broad that he won't try to use it, including the use of smear by innuendo for any who dares to insist that he adheres the same policies that everyone else does. Has he no sense of decency? Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this block. When blocking users we need to be rigorous (yes, even bureaucratic) because we must protect users against unfair blocks. What should happen here:

1. Evidence is assembled at
   diffs
   .
2. A checkuser request can be run, if there is sufficient cause.
3. Once all the related accounts are identified, appropriate blocks can be placed.

There is no rush to block a user right away. It is more important to be correct, and do a thorough job. I suggest following up with steps 2 and 3. This thread should be closed. Follow up can happen at WP:RFCU, per Thatcher. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add a link to the RFCU/SSP discussion, for completeness, if one has started or when it starts, per Jehochman and Thatcher. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to SSP in SA's opening statement.

(ec)I'm curious why you find this block problematic? Its quite clear that policy as written no-longer reflects what we do but since written policy often lags behind the practical application there is no problem with that. There has been no damage to the main account's reputation as I took care to ensure they wouldn't get caught in an autoblock and we still don't know who it is. All that has happened is that a fairly wide consensus of experienced and trusted users has emerged from discussion of the situation and said, actually we don't want you to use the account in that way and taken action to enforce that. The action seems to have wide support and wasn't imposed in a reckless or arbitrary way. Frankly this is no different to blocking a malfunctioning bot. I'd appreciate clarification of where the problem with the block is.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My experience with these things is that the community has one standard, and ArbCom has another. I was involved in an arbitration case where somebody was forced to resign her adminship for making a sock puppetry block that turned out to be wrong. As a result, I have become more careful that most admins. It is my personal policy not to block anybody for sock puppetry until after a

WP:SOCK should be updated if the community feels that blocks in these situations are appropriate. Editors should be able to read the policy and get an accurate idea of the standards to which they will be held. Blocking is a serious action that should not take users by surprise. Jehochman ^Talk

21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I understand now. I read your comments the other way. I remember the case you are referring to but in this case this was an acknowledged alternate account so blocking it really seemed to me to be no more troubling then blocking a bot. I did realise that there could be trouble if we ended up outing the main account by accidently autoblocking it but Thather's comments certainly suggest that there may be more to this.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if there is more to this, I will be very glad that SA decided to file an appeal instead of dropping the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am looking forward to the results of the CheckUser. However, to be clear, I am opposed to the indef block of

talk · contribs). There was no history of disruption from this account. Instead, s/he was upfront that it was an alternate account.[85] If IwRnHaA had lied and said he wasn't an alternate account, would we have blocked at this point? I do not think so, as there is no indication here of any policy violations whatsoever. It appears that we indef blocked someone for being honest.  :/ --Elonka

23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. Skinwalker (talk

) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Based on Thatcher's comment above, it appears we have blocked someone who was being dishonest (multiple accounts, including overlapping edits to articles and talk pages on other accounts), but not necessarily with this particular account. From what I understand, this account may actually be the 'good hand' rather than the 'bad hand', but in any case the editor appears to be editing abusively.

Elonka, I'm concerned that perhaps your past history with ScienceApologist might be colouring your approach here. It may be wise for you not to dive into situations concerning SA unless the matter directly involves you and/or administrative actions you've taken with respect to SA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I see that most of the overlaps are at

Lithium-sulphur_battery, which has zero posts on the talk page, so it seems uncontroversial. Is this a crank article?. Sorry, I'm not familiar with that area. There are some more overlaps at Plug-in hybrid, but that's a FA it's hard for me figure out what's going on. Did he abused the voting process? On the other hand, one of the accounts did edit sexuality related articles, which is exactly the kind of isolation that Will_Beback mentioned. I can easily point you to an AfD-only account I've seen, which votes keep all the time, but (s)he's not doing any real disruption. Is this behavior off-limits now? Can I ask for a RCFU for that AfD-only account just to tie it to the main account(s)? VG ☎

00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See [86], [87], and [88]. This guy's about as banned as it gets. Skinwalker (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He, he, this guy needs to get a (real) life. Anyway, I left a note about

Lithium-sulphur_battery at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry; the article may need a closer look. VG ☎

01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case the block could certainly have waited. On the other hand, I don't think that a blanket admonition to rely on checkuser is the best advice. Checkuser is a confirmatory tool, and it's prone to false negatives as well as false positives. Case in point: I was absolutely sure that this guy was a sock of a specific banned user. However, the checkuser request I filed came back unrelated. Being a new and naive admin at the time, I trusted the checkuser result over my intuition. Finally, though, I couldn't ignore it: this was obviously a sock. So I took the plunge, blocked the account despite the unrelated checkuser, and posted it to AN/I, fully expecting to be shat upon given the prevailing attitudes on this noticeboard. Fortunately for me, Dmcdevit repeated the checkuser at AN/I and confirmed my suspicion. The take-home message is that checkuser is one tool for identifying abusive accounts, albeit a useful one. Administrative intuition or judgement is often as useful, and sometimes more useful. I agree with Jehochman that the checkuser was essential for rounding up the other socks, but my point is that checkuser is a complement to, not a substitute for, sound administrative judgement. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have started a discussion at
  Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Explicit numeric limits and controversial areas for anyone that cares to discuss modifying our sock policies to better accommodate this kind of case.—Kww(talk
  ) 03:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

French-speaking admin needed

Resolved

 – resolé mes amingoloids, le silliness est deleted

--Dweller (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review Jason the French and other edits by its creator. I strongly suspect vandalism, but my French is simply nowhere near good enough to be sure. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's high-school (or middle school) level "stream of thought" creative writing in awful French. I've deleted the article and left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to attention the user Boxstaa (talk · contribs). This user is consistently adding unsourced material, often original research to articles. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. They have also created several categories that are over categorizing, such as: Category:Bands named after places, Category:Mondegreens, and Category:Spanglish songs.

I have a very strong suspicion that this is the same person as Roadstaa (talk · contribs). The names are very similar and Roadstaa has a long history of adding original research and creating original research articles. Roadstaa also created at least one category which was deleted. Roadstaa has done an extensive amount of dubious page moves, and Boxstaa has already had one page move reverted. I would have filed a sock puppet report but Roadstaa has not edited since Boxstaa was created (two days after Roadstaa's last edit).

I'm not sure what should be done about this user. I'm assuming good faith, but I think this user is causing more problems than they are helping. swaq 17:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon should be blocked because I put a reasonable discussion in talk:Barack Obama and it was removed. I made it more polite sounding and asked people not to remove it. Wikidemon removed it.

Removal of discussion from article talk pages is not permitted. There is a danger when it's done with Obama that censorship may be an issue. If you disagree with the discussion of changing the article, just say so, don't remove it. Removal is disruptive because it blocks discussion.

Disruption is blockable. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions are telling. Please don't think that starting a section called "presidential lies?" at the

reliable sources that actually back up any assertion and don't be deliberately provocative. — Scientizzle

16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Barack Obama page is for discussion of the article, not for attacks on Barack Obama. Wikidemon was right to remove it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(I was not notified of this discussion) I deleted it because it was primarily an attack on other editors, and it was impossible to separate that from any nugget of a proposal for the article. In doing so I advised the IP that they were welcome to make any constructive suggestion for improving the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the IP editor started a new thread that also begins with a personal attack, this time on me,[89] which I've had to refactor twice now to stick to the proposal. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong to remove these personal attacks and I'll stop, but on the Obama talk page one has to be fairly firm lest it turn into a free-for-all (see above discussion, for example). Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack. He's saying that his comments were removed, and giving the names of the users which did it. I'm not going to revert your reversion of my reversion of your refactoring, since I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't agree with your actions. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be a very high threshold for editing other people's contributions on talk pages, and this doesn't even come close to crossing the threshold. looie496 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. here is a case in point from an article on my watch list. Complaints about other editors have no place on article talk pages, particularly not Barack Obama, which is on article probation. Singling specific editors out like that is a personal attack, and deleting the attack is not editing a talk page comment - it does not change the substance of the proposal one bit. The other option is to delete or close the thread entirely, which would only incite the editor further.Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you are also making a personal attack, since you're singling out a specific editor. I think you need to recognize the distinction between "attack" and "criticism". We get to criticize; we have to criticize. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wikidemon, but you're being oversensitive. This is not a personal attack and does not justify removal or refactoring as done here. The comment about you was undeniably true, non-offensive, and relevant. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sensitive, firm. I'm not exactly shedding tears over the computer from the insult. The IP editor had made three increasingly disruptive attempts in a row to start the same discussion,[90][91][92] harangued one of the regular editors,[93] and started the lame complaint above before finally saying it in a way that was almost acceptable.[94] That's pretty close to wearing out the welcome. What I deleted was editor-on-editor sniping, phrased as a process request to not delete the discussion. The request got honored - the discussion is ongoing right now. There is absolutely no reason to also preserve a moot, inapt complaint about other editors on the talk page. Spend some time patrolling the Obama article and you'll see why we need to keep the discussion on track and not use the talk page to cry censorship.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What insult? Yes, you are right in objecting (and even removing) to the anon's edits; but doing them under the rubric of "personal attacks" is not helpful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken as a string of successive edits, the anon in short order accused people of editing in bad faith, censorship, being POV pushers, vandalism, and sanitizing the Obama article all because they objected to his pointing out Obama's "lies." You may be right on a technicality that the specific edit was intrinsically some other form of incivility rather than a personal attack - but it's all about the same. Editors who start off so tendentiously on that article usually cause a flame out. Telling them early, firmly, that it is okay to make good faith proposals but not to do battle with other editors, can do some good.Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a horrible suspicion that come inauguration day we're going to see a whole host of "nigga stole my country" style crap, combining the worst excesses of wingnut drivel and redneck bigotry. Maybe this will be the article that pushes us over into the German flagged revisions system. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm the IP editor. I have become more and more polite. However, Wikidemon's actions should not be supported. Just because someone has friends on wikipedia or is an administrator, doesn't give them the right to delete reasonable comments that they don't like. Only comments like "obama is a muslim" can be deleted. All other suggestions for article improvment must stay.

The article is frankly terrible. There is missing important information, some removed by editors who live there and some fluff. We need to look at other encyclopedias and TV documentaries to see what they have. They have some information which is a little negative but negative information is not permitted here. It is quickly deleted. That's bad. I'm not out to smear Obama, in fact I voted for him, but we must neutrally report him, not be his public relations firm.

Wikidemon must be blocked for about 12 hours or a day. Otherwise, I will interpret it as permission to delete one or two talk page comments which I oppose. At the least, a warning should be placed by an administrator on Wikidemon's page. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ultimatum is unwelcome, and will be roundly ignored. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Exactly, Jpg. IP, please don't make threats to disrupt

to make a point. Dayewalker (talk

) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon's deleted other talk page comments, like the one by Neurolenis. This is disruptive. I am giving up because people are not fair. At the very least, an administrator should politely warn Wikidemon not to delete talk page comments. I will say no more about this but appeal to people's fairness to act nicely and don't play favorites. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to voice your opinion. You're looking for Usenet, it's over there. ----> Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting comments is one thing, but I would like to request that other people's talk page comments never be revised except to fix formatting problems or add signatures. When I read a talk page comment, I want to be confident that I'm reading what the author wrote, not somebody else's idea of what they should have written. looie496 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Robot programs filling in missing signatures is an accepted practice. Re-aligning indentions is considered OK as long as it does not deceive. But altering the content is strictly verboten. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has done that. Discussions have been closed, archived and deleted, headings retitled, redundant material consolidated or deleted, and less often, offensive comments (blatant incivilities, accusations, racist rants, etc.) have been stricken or redacted). Many non-admin editors and some admins do that, many times per day, on the Obama talk page by way of keeping order. There are few close cases. It's mostly blatant stuff. Usually the offending editor goes away or calms down. Occasionally they start edit warring or upping the stakes, and usually get blocked quickly. Every once in a while one of the disruptive editors finds a meta-page like this one and files a complaint. Standard article patrol stuff. Wikidemon (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that personal attacks or BLP violations are also subject to removal or censoring, though not manipulation that alters the content meaningfully. More generally, anything that does not further improvement of the article is a candidate for removal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New problem, same article talk page

I don't know what Wikidemon did but a similar thing happened to me.

I made comments about improving the article. It was completely neutral. It asked whether we should keep the political positions section static or adjust it for inevitable changes in positions (all presidents change some positions).

This is clearly not anti-Obama. Yet is was removed. An IP removed it.

Obama is clearly controversial but article talk pages shouldn't be removed especially mine which asks simply policy questions on how to deal with the article.

I make a motion that the talk page of the article be placed under special probation of blocking any editor that removes article talk page comments. The only exception would be clear and unmistakable vandalism. If it is not clear vandalism, then the deleted must be blocked. ImNotObama (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your time would be better served providing links to the accusations you're making. If I recall, you three times started a section titled "Presidential lies".

^{11 →Review!}

03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, not that one, but still.

^{11 →Review!}

03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ImNotObama is a brand new account that, as its first edit tested the terms of article probation (by haranguing editors as a group and accusing them of ulterior/POV motives) in favor of

Godwin's Law[95] and has twice started a pointless vote. Conducting the vote on article length and on "eliminat[ing] all crap"[96] is the account's sole activity here so far. The first time it was summarily deleted, apparently by an IP account. The second one is active now but will probably be closed. Also, the attempt to tag this thread "unresolved" seems disruptive - I would remove it but inasmuch as it's a complaint against me (however bogus) I'll refrain. Wikidemon (talk

) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note - ImNotObama turns out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Added for the record after archiving - Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued problem

One big problem is Wikidemon's attitude and refusal to admit that he is the problem. When that other Obama editor complained, Wikidemon simply attacks him by saying he's a new editor and uses Godwin's Law.

That other user seems to be talking about article length. This is a valid topic of discussion.

Wikidemon is not assuming good faith and attacking users. What's of more concern is that valid discussion on Obama's talk page is being removed. This is disruptive.

Administrators should decide the following:

If you don't like the discussion, you may remove it.

1. Oppose74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the discussion, you should either ignore it or express your opinion in a calm manner and not remove comments.

1. Support74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If I am attacked further, this just shows that there is something fishy going on with Obama. If people act calmly and rationally, then this shows that Wikipedia is good in this kind of matter. Are there any reasonable administrators around or has Wikipedia degenerated? 74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot one:

Editors that

continually refuse to accept that consensus is not going their way

should be given a final warning and then blocked for disruption.

1. --
   barneca (talk
   ) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also forgotten by some: Threats are against the spirit of Wikipedia. The discussion and vote above should receive the complete support of all administrators. If it doesn't, we really have a problem because it shows that deletion of valid discussion is ok, as long as you are an administrator.

The sane way to resolve this would be for an administrator to simply say "Deletion of comments in the article talk page should normally not be done. Please try to work with each other". Instead, many are attacking me. This doesn't make Wikipedia look good. With this comment, I will no longer participate in this discussion because it is clear to me that some administrators do not participate in good customer service or practice a friendly manner. That's too bad for Wikipedia and for themselves, but that's life. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tired of this, short block for continued disruption, IP hopping. Make do on your comments that you will "no longer participate" (as you stated previously once before) and stop canvassing various talk pages and forums. seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That was lame. I might not agree with the guy, but posting here about a perceived problem isn't disruption, and IP hopping is not blockable (dynamic IP's). Arkon (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing for consensus here. He was given a final notice, which he disregarded and then continued to canvass. There is no 'perceived problem' on our end; only to editors that

plug their ears and refuse to accept consensus or canvass until they receive acceptable answer. seicer | talk | contribs

17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the phrase "Wikidemon's attitude and refusal to admit that he is the problem" is certainly more than uncivil, and is not conducive to solving an issue.

-t BMW c-

22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading DYK

The DYK about Obama

... that U.S. president-elect Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech (pictured) from behind 2 inches (51 mm) of bulletproof glass?

is very misleading and should be amended or taken down ASAP. I've improved accuracy to verifiable fact in this edit. Moreover, the hook is a barely concealed copyvio of the Daily Mail source. Says there: "[...] Barack Obama's victory speech was delivered from behind two-inch thick bullet proof glass." Please act quickly. Everyme 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW,

WP:ERRORS is the place to raise issues with main page showcased content. Can an admin respond please? the skomorokh

13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not on the main page any longer, but it's noteworthy that the user who was credited with the DYK reverted to an inaccurate version. Apparently, he didn't study the cited sources too closely. Also, I'd like to know who passed that DYK. Everyme 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

talk · contribs) modified and approved the hook in this edit. the skomorokh

15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Politzer is not an admin and didn't select the hook for the mainpage. It really upsets me though. Info like this, guaranteed to earn the article several thousand hits, should be double and triple checked. Everyme 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors select hooks, admins move them to the next updates. I'm not quite sure what your problem with this hook is, as it matches the wording of the refs rather closely. Verifiability vs. truth or selective use of sources? the skomorokh 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review please

The {{

) 18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

rDNS is pr-out-f136.google.com. Forward and reverse lookups match. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{

sharedip}} isn't supposed to mean it's an open proxy, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼

19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No but in this case it's explicit. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the Google wireless transcoder proxy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_cottage is taken from http://newjerseyhistorichomesforsale.com/OakCottageHistory.html ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

At least I think it's a copyvio. Sorry. Let me look into it more...ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the offending text. I should have just done that in the first place. Nothing to see here folks, move along. RESOLVED Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

) 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --

barneca (talk

) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone compare this with the deleted LOLENE and see if it needs to be nuked? Speedy tag removed by article creator - notability asserted but not proved. Exxolon (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not identical, but, awful damn close. Several paragraphs match word for word. I'll leave this to another admin, however. SQL^{Query me!} 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NM, it's been nuked. SQL^{Query me!} 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting using the

William Burroughs cut'n'paste method does not make it any less a recreation of a previously deleted article. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been recreated already. SQL^{Query me!} 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I nuked it again and salted it, but I'm going to undelete it and send to AfD, because - as I didn't realise at the time - it was speedied the first time, not AfD'd, and therefore shouldn't really be G4'd. Black Kite 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, I see a future argument about someone being a "recreationist"

-t BMW c-

22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'll make a difference from the usual things I get called ;) Black Kite 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, the original JOLENE was A7'ed, and I speedied as a recreation without looking at the "after discussion" language at the end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A section near the end of the article on

has agreed with the inclusion of the tag. Each deletion includes an edit summery that is not true. User:JGHowes displayed displeasure with the tag, since not all of the references in the section have a verifiability problem. I then placed an appropriate ^{[unreliable source?]} tag on only the citations in question. I did so here,[[106]]. That too was reverted here [[107]], and continuing to claim that I am the only one who wants this although the talk page says differant. My intention was to make other users aware that a discussion is ongoing, but it seems that one user does not want that to happen. On the talk page I have been accused of being, and I quote Fucking arrogant and rude[[108]] for placing the tag on the section. Even if I am wrong about the information, We should at least be able to place a tag on a section so that others will be aware of a discussion. Can anyone help?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jojhutton actually seeks to remove the entire section that discusses the (well-cited) conspiracy theories that Booth somehow escaped justice.

Joj first tried to have any mention of the conspiracy theory purged from the Lead (edit-warring in that effort for almost a week). When that failed to find consensus, (s)he then turned to trying to have the section itself removed - ie., no section, no need for the Lead to mention it.

Jojhutton has repeatedly tagged the section noting (in edit summary) that a "verifiability check" is ongoing - a quick check of the user's history indicate no such check existing. When asked to provide a link to this "check"; (s)he finally posted to the RS Noticeboard days later, There, his arguments claiming lack of verifiability have been dismissed by two different editors (neither of them myself). It should be pointed out that the verifiability tag was placed in a section containing verifiabl citations, and lots of them.

Jojhutton's excessive tagging of the section indicate a singular purpose to have the section removed. He misinterprets Wikipedia verifiability policy, despite numerous attempts by myself and others to help him/her get up to speed.

He has no consensus for the removal of the section, and the tagging is an attempt to end-run that consensus. He is not - as he has claimed here and elsewhere - 'notifying folk of ongoing discussion'; a simple 'dispute' section tag would address that. That suggestion, as well as that of seeking out sources that explicitly address and contrast the escape theories were repeatedly ignored.

As to the 'fucking arrogant and rude' comment, I should point out that it came from my sheer frustration at having the user ignore good advice from many other editors and continuing to tag the section in an effort to remove the section. Even the kindest of the editors in the article discussion call his attempts to remove the section a "gambit". I found it to be

spade a spade

. I did in fact apologize for the outburst, but not for the transparent nature of the tagging. The user has less than 2k edits, and likely not yet truly aware that (s)he is not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Jojhutton may very well have thought that gaming the system was an appropriate tactic (which makes me sincerely doubt the "newness" of this user).

Lastly, the only person who feels there is a "controversy" with the Booth Escaped section is in fact this user, and this user alone. There is no consensus for either the section's removal or tagging. Maybe this noticeboard can do what the article discussion and the RS noticeboard have clearly been unable to accomplish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne is again misrepresenting the facts. I said the information is being checked for verfiability here [[109]], and I placed the notice here [[110]]. Less than 24 hours later, hardly days later as Arcayne claims. Sorry, but editing wikipedia is not my full time job, so I waited until I had ample time to make a report. As to the two editors who have dismissed my opinion, One is

WP:Undue weight. Arcayne and JGHowes responded to that request by actually making the section longer. That is when I began to scrutinize the sources. My argument is that anything can be sourced, but those sources must meet the criteria for inclusion. Sources based on unreliable facts by biased authors have no place on wikipedia. Arcayne argues that as long as it is sourced, it doesn't matter who says it or why. I tend to take a more realistic view of source material and look at who is making the accuations, especially when it comes to Fringe theories.. My full argument can be found on the talk page, as I do not wish to keep repeating myself.--Jojhutton (talk

) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of your post is incorrect, Jojhutton. To begin with, you said in your edit summary for the linked edit: "the sources have been nominated for a verifiability check". Yet, no such thing was done. Or at least, not for at least two days. If you meant you were searching on your own, then you should have left the material be and come back when you actually had info. We aren't here to wait on your schedule. Wikipedia moves with a pace independent from your own.

As well, thanks for admitting that you wanted to purge the section, and were using tags towards that end. We here call that "gaming the system."

Secondly, I and others suggested different tags, though, as noted before, none would have been best - you are equating the verifiability of the material provided in the cited material with our verifiability policy. They are two different things, as was pointed out t you at least four different times. You aren't a suitable evaluative source to contradict the info presented in a notable, verifiable source.

Thirdly, when it comes to sourced, notable material, it doesn't matter who or why they said/wrote what they did. That they did is the notable event. You need to arrive - and quickly - at the realization and understanding that evaluating why someone makes a citable statement is original research. Your evaluation - as the sole voice of opposition to the current consensus - isn't usable. I understand that hurts your pride, but you need to suck it up. Ask some questions when you are getting reverted, instead of thinking we are all morons who don't appreciate your touted insight into Booth. You may have been here as another user before, but it doesn't appear that you have learned how to actually work with folk. Precisely what compromise had you suggested?

As has been said before, your energies are better directed at adding material that presents a more balanced section (and thereby a better article). Filing an ANI to complain about your incorrect tags getting reverted is hardly an effort in that direction, now is it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only did he survive, he went on to work for Alexander Graham Bell, helping to develop the Telephone Booth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That store merged with one of Ice-T's companies, and is now known as "T-Booth".

-t BMW c-

18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear there's a small company about to release a gadget called the iBooth, which plays back Shakespeare plays done up like they were on the US east coast during the 1860s. I think stateside and European teens will canny flock to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And then it was bought out by the Toothy Inc. dentistry corporation, which changed the name to Toothy Boothy: Assassinations, good acting and dandy root canal all in one visit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Root canals are so cool, but my heart goes aflitter at the (wistful) thought of being able to hear John Booth do

Romeo Montague. Gwen Gale (talk

) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that both jojhutton and Arcayne continue to edit war over this. As I am an involved editor in this instance, it is requested that another admin intervene.  JGHowes  ^talk

Actually, i'd chosen to disengage from Joj some hours ago, as the tenor of his edit summaries has grown a bit too aggressive and attacky. Until the lad/lass calms down, things would only get worse by interacting with him/her. And I would cetainly not define keeping the article from becoming a battleground to be 'edit-warring'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All sources must meet the RS standard. If not, then the source is not suitable and can not be used. If content can not be supported by a RS it should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what I have been trying to say, but somehow Arcayne thinks that I am too new to add a tag. He is only upset, because I don't see things his way. I am the only one actually using wikipedia policy to make a point. Arcayne just wants the section to stay the way it is, and I don't know why.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Yet again. Maybe if you actually read the reasons why you have been incorrect, it might dawn upon you that some of us are (or in my case, were) trying to help you along. You want the section removed, and - for the reasons stated above and elsewhere - think that your personal opinion of the authors cited counts as a "verifiability check". It does not. You are not a part of the verifiability equation that Wikipedia uses. I wish you would learn this, because if you are unable to, you are going to butt heads with a great many other editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of argument, I am not, by myself, able to determine whether or not the sources are verifiable. That is why I continued to place a tag on the section, so that the citations can be looked at by other editors. Without the tag, readers will just think that the sources meet the condition for verifiability. At least with the tag, other editors will have a chance to voice their opinions, but I guess we will never know now, since it has been reverted several times. I even asked the editor who doesn't want the tag, what his impression of the sources are. I am still waiting for a response.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: you placed the incorrect tag on the article section, not seeking to draw folk to the discussion, but instead to water down the section by calling the cited info "unverified".

As for my response in that page, I (and others) answered your inquiry at least twice. That you didn't like the answer cannot be blamed upon us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, are you really sure that stalking my edits (1) is the best way to make your point? You never posted to Fitna (film) before today. Hmmm. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not the unverified tag, but the unreliable tag.[[112]]. Is Arcayne really the best judge of my intentions, since he has misquoted me several times as it is?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has misquoted you, except perhaps for yourself, Jojhutton. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for a content/sourcing dispute between the two of you. Why not get input from other editors on the talk page instead? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I never brought it here, Gwen; I was just making sure that bad info about me wasn't sitting around uncontested. As for the article discussion, that's what I've been all about. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I was only getting at, if it were me, I'd ask for more input on the talk page. Also, lacking a consensus to have them in the main article, following Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources, there would be nothing untowards about skiving off the more speculative sources to something like John Wilkes Booth (escape speculation) and putting it in the see also section. 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get more input on the talk page, but Arcayne would not allow it. That is why I brought it here, because he kept removing a tag that I placed on the section.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Focus, please. The wrong tag was removed. I thought it had been said once or twice before this...Anyway,yes, some input in the article discussion would be splendid. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford has reverted a sourced statement three times simply because he does not like it on Rush Limbaugh. The first time he didn't even give an explanation.[113]. The second time he didn't dispute the information, he simply stated he didn't like the person making it.[114] The third time he once again did revert claiming the L.A. Times does not fact check.[115] Limbaugh has claimed Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, yet there is absolutely no evidence of that. In their print edition, A Section, the L.A. Times examined that statement by Limbaugh, saying there was absolutely no basis for his making such a statement. I put this under the appropriate section, with the source to the L.A. Times article, with a rationale, and Bedford has revert three times, edit warring with no valid reason based in any policy or guideline, and with no discussion - despite my bring it up with him on his talk page. I ask for a short block of Bedford for edit-warring since he is a former admin who should know better than to edit-war to remove sourced content. --David Shankbone 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

David, you are the one showing ILIKEIT. I haven't broken #RR yet, and don't intend to. I read the article earlier this morning, so I knew all about it. It's an opinion piece, that the writer hoped people would take as fact, which you did. Now that I didn't back down on you,. you try to intimidate me. You didn't even try going to the talk page.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the ill-formatted section heading for neutrality. the skomorokh 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, doesn't belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, it's edit-warring, which is an admin issue. The L.A. Times fact checks opinion pieces. Regardless, you aren't disputing that there is no factual basis for Limbaugh to claim Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, you are simply stating that a respected writer reporting that Limbaugh has no basis to make a claim doesn't like Rush Limbaugh. I broached you on your Talk page, and you didn't bother to go to ANY talk page. One does not have to revert 4 times to run afoul of 3RR; regardless, you are edit-warring to keep out factual information - that neither Obama nor ANYONE in his campaign has ever mentioned taking over 401Ks, and Limbaugh claiming that they will - that you simply do not like. You can't provide any sources to back yourself up, so you simply dispute the source, which whether you like it or not, is a reliable source. --David Shankbone 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, they're talking about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen; this is a content dispute because users are edit-warring over whether a particular piece of content ought to be included. Both Bedford and David Shankbone have been edit-warring, and there has been no talkpage discussion. I'm posting this to

WP:BLPN. The article may need protecting and warned editors may need to be blocked - in future, but for now no admin involvement is needed. the skomorokh

19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely. As a former admin, User:Bedford should not just be reverting without explanation to remove content that is factual and sourced. That he reverted three times, despite my approaching him on his Talk page, makes him the edit warrior. This is not how issues are meant to be handled. In the end, Limbaugh is claiming Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, and there is absolutely no basis for that assertion. I put this under this "accuracy" section on his article. Bedford is edit-warring to keep it out. That's an admin issue, especially since he is an experienced user who should know better. --David Shankbone 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion now at Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Obama_and_401Ks. Close and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could give both editors a 1 days rest so that they could read the news, find current updates on the topic, re-think the statement about the LA Times and its op-ed pieces, and come back tomorrow as awesome, team-building editors :-)

-t BMW c-

20:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an abusive way to use blocks, pure and simple. Especially when there is no source to say Democrats/Obama will take away 401(k)s except for conservative commentators. But threatening blocks because there is a dispute is not only poor form, it's dangerous for the viability of the site. --David Shankbone 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't allowed. Y'all are going back and forth a bit too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The emotion is deafening, I've yet to see NPoV wording from either "side." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would never suggest a block due to a "dispute". To suggest that I am leans horribly towards

-t BMW c-

21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've bookmarked your diffs for when you run for admin. I find your loose advocacy of blocks to be problematic, and not what most editors want in an admin. Have a nice day. --David Shankbone 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds markedly like a threat to me; that is, publicly noting the intention of keeping a record of contentious comments/actions for future use, with an intent to chill the perceptions of the other party. Don't we, uh, issue warnings and blocks for the likes of that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to this curious guideline/policy? Specifically, the part that says we block people for stating that when we disagree with how they propose blocks to be use, we say we will not support them for admin? Please...it would make fascinating reading. --David Shankbone 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you believe

Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats to be curious? LessHeard vanU (talk

) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you think I feel injured by Bwilkins? That's a pretty broad reading of

WP:HARASS? --David Shankbone

22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain. While I will endeavour to keep my language neutral in future, I should advise you that I do not care for your eagerness to play victim when it suits you and yet resort to threatening language in other interactions. You may not care to have me point it out, so perhaps it would be best if you didn't indulge in such actions and then I would not feel the need to comment. And who are these "many people"? Lastly (from me in this matter, anyway) is that I often comment at discussions at the admin noticeboards; there is nothing special in me saying stuff here. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm letting you know now that you were part of an e-mail discussion between myself, Jimmy Wales and several arbitrators where you pursuit of me and your harassment of me were discussed. Your personal attacks. Your constant refrain of "block him! block him!" and your trolling my talk page. Back off LessHeard, or this is going to end up before ArbCom and I'm a hair away from bringing it there. There's thousands of admins, and you have demonstrated extraordinary personal animus and pursuit of me, and it will be addressed if you don't quit. That's not a threat, it's a promise. Your harassment needs to end now. --David Shankbone 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As ever, I invite review of my actions and contributions - and I will edit how and where I feel my abilities are of benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I have not (certainly not recently, and rarely if ever in the past) edited your talkpage and I do not have it watchlisted; I am sanguine regarding your claims of harassment and would be prepared to discuss my very limited interactions with any third party who felt it necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been edit warring and are at the edge of 3rr at Rush Limbaugh. Bwilkins warned you about that and now I'm warning you too. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your second warning noted, Gwen. You're welcome to warn a third time even though nothing has changed since your first. --David Shankbone 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh lies all the time. What's special about this particular lie? P.S. I would put Limbaugh's page on my watch list except my computer might get infected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Must confess; this made me laugh out loud: http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/11/09/strange-logic-on-wikipedia--rush-limbaugh-barack-obama-and-the-democrats-taking-your-401k.aspx?ref=rss --Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to fuel the fire? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shankbone, first - kudos for looking up my user page and seeing the "administrator someday" userbox. Always good to know that people feel the need investigate me (means I'm doing something right). Thanks also for trying to use it against me. My original comment, although unfortunately misunderstood by you (even we journalists can occasionally be unclear), can be paraphrased as "perhaps both editors need a very short block due to the edit warring and ensuing disruption". I'm not sure how you could have ever read that as me recommending a block because of a dispute - if you looked more closely at my userpage, you would have clearly seen that I spend a lot of time in

-t BMW c-

12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a rule against linking attack sites here? No, wait, that's only when it's Wikipedia Review. --B (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I honestly don't know what to think here.. well, that would be a lie. As far as I can tell, this user appears to think that WP is like myspace, despite the many times I have warned him using TW that such a thing is against policy.

As far as I can tell, to this day, this user has not made one useful contribution. As far as I can tell, about 95% of his contributions have been to his own userspace. The other contributions could hardly be labeled as such. His contributions aren't too large, and it hardly takes up the space of a page(from viewing at 500 edits a time). Opinions on this matter? This user is obviously not here to help the project. He seems to be treating WP like a blog.—

12:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. This has been going on for awhile now. If he doesn't do a 180 pronto, I'd suggest giving him a lengthy timeout.--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well he just blanked that warning as well as notification of the discussion. He doesn't appear to be here doing anything construction so I would recommend an administrator block him and see if that gets his attention.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanking would be tacit acceptance of the warning. If he re-violates, give him a little rest. Let's

-t BMW c-

00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess what he just did? He reverted his blanking of his user page.—

Improve

00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

userpage, not talkpage.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.—

Improve

00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

or, it could be an attempt to bury the warning so he doesn't have to look at it. I can blank a page without reading it or caring whats on it. This person has been blanking talk page comments since august. He also blanked his user page at the same time as that warning but came back 7 hours later and unblanked his user page to restore the problem edits. I don't see any evidence of "getting it".--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I feel the same.—

Improve

00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to do anything?—

Improve

02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Patience... he's not out blowing up articles, so if it takes a bit, its not too terrible.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But he is using WP as a blog.—

Improve

03:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so if it takes someone a few hours or something to get around to it, its not the end of the encyclopedia. To this point he's only restored some content, if he starts doing a lot more I imagine he will be blocked a lot faster.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your time and the clarification.—

Improve

04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

) )

If this isn't

) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• If this is ArbCom exercising its authority to overturn Jimbo decisions per Wikipedia:Project_Leader#Limitations, it really must make it publicly clear it is doing so. There are 1,600 admins here and all of them can't be counted on to know the latest political banter in the backroom. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes; if there's good reason not to block them and to ignore the ban by Jimbo, sure - no problem, but we can't be expected to know this without being told. And by "good reason" all I mean is arbcom saying so - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Americanlinguist wasn't confirmed by checkuser, he outed himself. It's a kind of productive trolling where he creates throwaway socks, writes some very high-quality content, and then reveals himself in order to "force" us to re-block him. Last time this was discussed here, the consensus was that nobody felt an urge to feed the troll and play his game, by doing him the favour of blocking him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  I suspect that's pretty much the case. When someone writes up a trolling plan on the theory that Wikipedia's rules are a suicide pact and then tries to put it into action, it's often useful to ignore the idiocy, treat it as Calvinball and get on with writing an encyclopedia (c.f. [116]). Not that there would be anything wrong with such a block, it's just not something anyone should overly concern themselves with enacting - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  In fact, it's not a "suspicion" that this is his trolling plan, he said so quite openly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand Jimbo was involved in chatting with him recently about keeping this account unblocked, what I mean is arbcom's not acting on their own (as if they'd do anything as dynamic as that. :) ) But don't quote me on this one. :) Sticky Parkin 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So why don't we just block the accounts and stop him from editing his talk page? He's banned, AFAIK, so I don't think avoiding sturm and drang is a good reason to not block him. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• At a guess, it's because he was banned for wasting everyone's time, and Jimbo is capable of accepting an assurance that such a problem won't happen again. And although he's occasionally wrong to believe this, he's also often right. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. From the thread above I only gathered that he was banned but is making socks in order to show that we ban good contributors...and we were not blocking the socks in order to avoid trouble. If some negotiation is going on, that's cool. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• He was banned for creating unacceptable levels of drama. Comparing Wikipedia to book-burning by the Spanish Inquisition, as I recall, was the final straw. Maybe after thinking about it he has decided that Wikipedia is only like the Italian Inquisition. looie496 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, he was blocked for creating unacceptable amounts of drama. He was banned by Jimbo later for related reasons. I was party to the original discussion, which is why I chimed in here w/ questions. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on

), which is inserting the exact same material and references.

For comparison, this edit [117] was from PT's last IP, this edit [118] is from the new user JosephTatum. This IP and several others led to admin protection of the page here. [119]

Admin attention would be appreciated. I've removed them once, but I thought I should come here for admins since this seems pretty obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Over the past week, Thprfssnl (talk · contribs) has been locked in the fiercest of noble struggles on the Nihilism article. His mission: to add a blurb about the "portrayal" of nihilism in The Big Lebowski - a portrayal that, while memorable, has about as much value in an article about nihilism as that episode where Bugs Bunny dresses up like a police officer to fool Elmer Fudd would in the article on police. He has been reverted by three separate editors - myself included - and four, if this obvious sockpuppet (more on this in a minute) counts. In addition to the broad personal attacks in that last diff, he has been using sockpuppets to push his cause (and one of those sockpuppets courtesy blanked his talk page - a practice which he has a habit of doing. So much for communication). Other highlights include destroying the holy sanctity of my red-linked username (check his deleted contributions - and would an admin be so kind as to post a copy of my "vandalized" user page to User:Badger_Drink/sandbox for my own perusal?), personal attacks such as this (previously linked), and occasional vandalism in his undying effort to make sure that people of the world know that The Big Lebowski featured a comically simplistic group of "nihilists" in its plot. The rest of his edits seem to be mainly soccer European-football related, a topic with which I am nearly complete in my ignorance of - though the edits seem to be mostly minor Wiki-gnome work. Badger Drink (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page for you. Taking a look at the edits now, from what I've seen so far of this user, I'm not all that impressed (and seriously, destroying the holy sanctity of your redlinked name should be a hangable offense). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I've issued the user with a level 4im warning for personal attacks and vandalism (the user was also warned here, but removed the warning from their talk page. The user has not edited since.) Given the history of edit warring and poor behaviour, I've a feeling that the user will not be able to help themself and will be blocked sooner rather than later. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I have blocked the following two IPs for re-adding the same material to Nihilism, after a final warning. They are quite clearly the same user:

• 68.238.218.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.126.68.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Further eyes on the article would be welcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I have also blocked the original user for vandalism after final warning, using IP accounts to avoid 3RR and using deceptive edit summaries, not to mention the incivility and other transgressions mentioned above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Would someone who knows about these things please look into a range-block of Middle East Technical University, Ankara IP addresses: e.g.

12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be done now. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta.

Bencherlite^Talk

12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomad2u001

Nomad2u001 (talk · contribs)

I don't claim to understand this user's issues, but I've reached the limits of reasonable patience.

The editor's only activity during the last couple of weeks has been to repeatedly delete a couple of general sentences without explanation at Physician assistant#Taiwan, and to substitute a sentence that promotes the training program a "the private Fooyin University". After repeated demands, he once provided a weak source, which he now dislikes and deletes it if anyone includes it.

He has also repeatedly deleted a couple of sentences from the history that refer to another (United States) university, as well as other paragraphs from the history.

He uses no edit summaries. To get any sort of response from him (other than having him promptly engage in an edit war), I've had to leave several messages on his talk page. He finally replied briefly, basically to say that he doesn't like the source he originally provided. When I asked for more information, he blanked the entire talk page for the article.

This person has been warned an amazing (14?) number of times (see this page for a reconstruction of what his user talk page would look like if he didn't promptly delete all warnings) and he just doesn't get it. Does this sort of long-term edit warring justify a block? Alternatively, can I get some extra eyes at Physician assistant, so that the people there aren't trying to deal with this by themselves? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the brief comments, the language used, and the repeated references to a Taiwanese university, I'd say that this user is perhaps not that good with English, and that there may be cultural issues preventing the message from being understood properly. With that said, we obviously can't have users going around edit warring and removing content. With that said, I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was some other source on the topic to support the alternative wording of the sentence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I think I'd be happy with any decent sources, but the edit warring has got to stop. We have no proof that the program at Fooyin University even exists (the source says that in 2005 it was "in development"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Their talk page is undergoing heavy vandalism from multiple IPs, who i am certain is the same person. How would i check this or could someone?

• 41.246.107.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.112.41.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.113.165.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.162.1.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.167.225.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.160.171.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.247.9.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 161.52.14.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.118.248.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.115.7.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Also, have i missed anyone? Simply south (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight has sprotected the page for a while. Unless these accounts move to another target I think we should ignore them, and let Luna Santin deal with it how they please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just another distributed attack from 4chan.

Revert, Block Semiprotect, and Ignore --Enric Naval (talk

) 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

couldn't we have a step in there that has some kind of tactical action... it might discourage further attacks..--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Does "tactical action" involve carpet-bombing 4chan's servers? (If so, I'll get the marshmallows.) Beyond that, I don't see it being possible to do much against a distributed attack by IPs being driven in here from a page that's being read by millions of people worldwide. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is where the

abuse filter would really come in handy. We could set it to automatically block IPs for 24 hours if they try saving a page with that content, and every time the instigator comes up with a new phrase, we could write another filter. J.delanoy^gabs_adds

17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Until the abuse filter comes to be, revert and ignore (it's been my experience that semiprotecting user talk pages only gives them impetus to harass somebody else), and then after the fact remove the revisions. 4chan depends mainly on specific revisions and once those are gone they have no steam for future attacks. To fully deny them, delete the revisions specifically reverting them as well.

Oop. Thanks for the help, everyone. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone look at this? Apparently, someone has interwoven information about a particular, unrelated church in with the information about the subject, and I haven't the time to unravel it now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 62.158.108.0/24 for a bit; see the various personal abuse and "you can't block me, I'll continue vandalizing forever" threats from this block. They reappeared outside this /24 shorlty afterwards, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.158.76.7 I've now also rangeblocked the new /24, which seems to have stopped them for the moment.

If that does not discourage them, I suggest softblocking the relevant /16 next. -- The Anome (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairly quiet range (probably more active on de). Still, it has a few helpful users; I'd recommend keeping any blocks on the /16 shortish and definitely soft. Probable matches for our new friend, going back to October:

1. 62.158.76.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2. 62.158.87.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
3. 62.158.108.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
4. 62.158.124.39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
5. 62.158.87.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
6. 62.158.119.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
7. 62.158.113.57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
8. 62.158.100.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
9. 62.158.117.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
10. 62.158.82.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) maybe
11. 62.158.78.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) probably?
12. 62.158.75.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) maybe

As you can see, they don't seem to be confined within any particular subset of the larger range. It's not a lot of activity from this vandal, but for the past day or two has been just about the only activity on the range, to give you some idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One User:Archangel1 is continually blanking the above page, because he feels it is not well sourced. Can an administrator please explain to him that that's not how the deletion process works? --Tavrian 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored previous version, Level 2 warning to user. Now, please properly source the article: starting... NOW! (starts stopwatch)

-t BMW c-

00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User has deleted content from

List of special forces units ‎with a summary of English refs required, not foreign) - someone needs to explain to them that we are absolutely allowed to cite to non-english sources and for articles/information on non-english entities they may well be the best choice. Exxolon (talk

) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been a fairly long standing series of discussions about the use of cite requests, things have just now come to a head. He tends to remove requests he doesn't like. What's prompted this has been predominantly around Pathfinder Platoon which is a bit of a pet of his as a former Parachute Regiment soldier attached to the recce force. Overnight he's also trashed that article as well as the Special Boat Service article, in what appears to be retribution for my reinstatement of a handful of citation requests.

He's been made aware of the policy and guidance, and this is merely his approach to interpreting them.

ALR (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has a history of deleting material he doesn't like without engaging in discussion beforehand. He deleted most of the

List of special forces units article back in August and edit-warred endlessly with editors who added and re-added cited material on the grounds that the sources didn't meet his standards. He was warned for this behavior ([120]), and settled down to productive editing, but is now back to the same behavior. I'd block him for this disruptive behavior, but was involved in the SF article dispute so I won't do so as this may be seen as unfair. Nick-D (talk

) 07:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talkpage directing him to

WP:NONENG, which specifies that while it is preferable for sources to be in the English language, it is by no means required. Hopefully that will help out some. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me}

) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Not entirely convinced it had the desired effect considering the hissy fit that's going on now. :)

ALR (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's really too bad, especially as I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of removing unsourced content (which, to be fair, a lot of it is). It's just that rampaging around like the proverbial bull in a china shop is not the best way to achieve this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I'd be more sympathetic if there had been any effort to do these things in the past. The issue with the SBS article is that the sources I have are all protectively marked, so not reliable in wikifairyland. OK they're only RESTRICTED, but the principle applies.

fwiw I've lost interest in providing some guidance, this is the second time he's gone on a retribution spree. But then from experience I've not come to expect much more from the inmates at Colchester.

ALR (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He is, of course, putting {{fact}} tags everywhere ... one single edit at a time.

-t BMW c-

12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

addendum: I reverted to the pre-fact tags, and repeated the references template at the top of the page. At least 2 editors (including myself) have done some quick and dirty research to add some references - I'm not even a military buff, and I had no probs finding refs. I would consider additional tagging/blanking by Archangel1 to be disruptive, and would ask for immediate admin action should it happen. Thanks in advance

-t BMW c-

23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by editor with possible conflict of interest at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Fru23 (talk · contribs)began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affiliated with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned for edit-warring. As an aside, Fru23 (talk · contribs) seems to pretty clearly be a sock, but whatever. Either he'll go to the talk page and work things out (as the article does have some room for improvement), or he'll ignore the warning, continue edit-warring, and end up blocked. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please initiate an RFCU on this new editor? I haven't the time currently, but given that the article has been a POV target in the past I think it's fair to assume this may be either a banned editor returning to cause more disruption, or a sockpuppet of an already-established editor with an agenda to service. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Right now, a RFCU would only be fishing unfortunately. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation at

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Other admins are welcome to lift or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the user is an employee of Bill O'Reilly; admitted such on IRC. [roux » x] 21:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling why he would be deleting the stuff about Hornbeck, since that stuff is what O'Reilly said and O'Reilly did make a reasonable case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Fru23 has made possibly disruptive edits of the same nature on some other articles, deleting entire sections again (akin to the warning template for censorship), for trivial or incorrect reasons. Some oversight over those would be nice too. I've gone ahead and reverted most of the ones that represent overt deletion when using the fact tag, or waiting for discussion could be more contributive to be safe.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At

posted two templates to the top of the Article page: {{essay-like}} and {{peacock}}.

On the Template instructions, editors using the Template are instructed to:

Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.

roux did not add such an item to the Article's Talk page. I then left a note on roux's Talk page, inviting him to discuss criticism and improvements, and told him that I was removing the Templates for the time being.

roux then joined me at Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds, and after initial general criticism, offered two specific critiques. One of them I explained was mistaken, the other I agreed was on point and I immediately implemented a change to the Article. I offered to continue working on the Article with his general criticism in mind as well as continuing to respond to any future specific criticisms. In addition, I emphasized that roux is always entitled to edit the Article directly for improvement.

However, I did ask that the Templates be left off while we were continuing the discussion, as they are intrusive and not conducive to collegial editing.

Next, Laval added 2 (two) Templates to the top of Bethmanns and Rothschilds: one, an AfD Template nominating the Article for deletion, and (2) an {{essay}} Template demanding improvements in the Article. I removed one of the two Templates, namely the {{essay}} Template, and informed Laval on his Talk page of the reason, namely that the two Templates are at odds with each other. He responded that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of the AfD process". (I note that even though the Template suggested to Laval that he "Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Bethmanns and Rothschilds}} on their talk page(s)", he did not do so.)

Now roux has filed a

on me asking for administrator intervention. Again, neither roux nor Laval notified me of this report, I had to find it by going through roux's "user contributions". roux also added a 3RR Warning to my Talk page.

Individually, none of these actions by roux and Laval may rise to the level of a rules violation. However, I feel that they are not conducive to collegial editing, and I would welcome suggestions on how to deal with this situation. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed tags from an article without actually addressing the issues. Laval replaced them, you removed them again. I warned you about the potential 3RR violation as required. I offered only two specific critiques because I didn't really feel like going through the entire essay line by line and pointing out what was wrong. I would add that other editors have also agreed that the article is filled with OR and POV and reads like an essay. The 3RR report was in aid of a) me not simply reverting your removal of the tags, despite them being completely appropriate and accurate, and b) having an admin point out to you that what you were doing was wrong. I've done nothing wrong here. [roux » x] 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also asking for a block on

) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those type of editors who feels that tags were invented for a reason. Although they tend to look gaudy on the article pages, they are an essential part of the editing process. How else would other editors know that there is a problem? The tags are what helps fix the potential problem, even if editors do not agree with them. Tags should though, be used in good faith and not be used to make a disruption. I see your point about the two editors though. In the meantime, the tags should stay until the issue is resolved, otherwise why have tags.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally hate tags because they make a page look so horrible. I feel that they should only be used if there is a very clear understanding of what needs to be done in order to get a tag removed. The "essay" tag is particularly obnoxious. How can an editor ever figure out what to do about it? looie496 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I am not at all opposed to the use of improvement tags. I've used them myself, for example diff. But it is important to post an explanation at the same time to the Talk page so that other editors will know what you are criticizing and how they can fix it. (Other improvement tags such as "Unreferenced" are self-explanatory.) What I am objecting to is the discourtesy exhibited by roux and Laval, their tag teaming to produce 3RR, and the insistence by roux on getting an admin take action against me even after his 3RR report got a "no violation" response from an admin.

(If I may go off on a bit of a tangent, improvement tags are like cattle prods, they are designed to get attention and to prompt corrective action. Once that action is under way, the tags can be removed. In fact, at de:Historikerstreit I got good results even after the main author removed my improvement tag. Instead of putting the tag right back, I reiterated my request on the Talk page, and sure enough, the other editor then made the requested improvement.)

Admins: will Miog1974 be blocked?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. Tags shouldn't be removed until the reason for the tag is resolved. There was no tag-teaming, and I will ask you one more time to stop making those accusations--I don't really know or even like Laval. I very clearly did not ask for an admin to take action against you, I asked for an admin to talk to you because our attempts to get through to you weren't getting anywhere. I really would appreciate some honesty when people talk about me, this is getting ridiculous. [roux » x] 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the implication that I'm socking? Yeah, no. I invite any Checkuser to please scan my IP and confirm that the only sock I use is this one, openly declared, which I haven't even used in a while. Seriously, please do this. I am sick to death of bad-faith accusations being thrown at me. [roux » x] 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, honesty is important. That would include not making demonstrably false claims such as "You removed tags from an article without actually addressing the issues," above. Likewise, not claiming falsely that I implied that roux is socking.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you remove all the peacock words from the article? No. Did you rewrite the article so it doesn't read like an essay? No. So yes, you did remove the tags without actually addressing the issues. And yes, you did imply that either I or Laval was socking. Please leave me alone and stop accusing me of things I haven't done, is that perfectly, absolutely, crystal clear? I hope it is. [roux » x] 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The rebellious one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to posting lengthy conspiracy theories on the Jewish Iluminati [121] [122] [123]. This wouldn't be the end of the world, except that on his user page he claims to be Bryan Brandenburg, and links to his external blog (which is a well-spring of crazy). The page also mentions several family members, and there's personal information posted about his alleged ex-wife.

I don't see anything productive coming out of this user, and would recommend a block and deletion of his user page. Thanks. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus. I've blanked it pending deletion. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you’re talking about the userpage, it was deleted by one admin, the user was blocked by another admin, and I put in a request to have the userpage

^talk

03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit is worrisome [124] as it reveals the subject's personal details (as a direct violation of this). Would anyone care to revert/oversight, considering that the subject is a semi-notable public figure? (Anyone interested see here as well) --Flewis^(talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits and given the user a 3RR warning. It's clear that the person's address should not be linked as it is but you guys should discuss whether the "undisclosed child" accusations meet

WP:BLP. Seeing so many reversions on a page with empty talk is troubling. Oren0 (talk

) 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user appropriate messages, and responded to a thread that he left on my talk page. "Empty talk" - care to specify?--Flewis^(talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of preference I guess, but I don't see why there should be so many reversions when Talk:Richard Polanco has nothing on it. Another editor who has this page on his/her watchlist might not know there was a discussion on your talk page about the inclusion of material and that's how edit wars continue. Oren0 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The reversion that has now occurred was OK per

WP:BLP ("Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons"), but oversight is not required. It's publicly available information about a public figure, after all.  Sandstein 

05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User Seeyou

• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:Seeyou

Seeyou is a

with a poor command of English who tends to ignore consensus, disrupt articles and their talk pages, and assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him/her.

Most recently, Seeyou has decided to ignore the consensus from a month-old [125] RfC (which was a re-visitation of a previous discussion), and restore the disputed information [126], claiming that the conclusion from the discussions what that the information should be kept [127]. Since then, Seeyou has been edit-warring over the information, overlooking the objections to it being kept that were made November 8th [128] [129]. --

) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While a second RfC/U for Seeyou has been discussed, I think it would be better if an admin would step in and consider a block or ban. --

) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just making a drive-by suggestion, but if the RFC/U has apparently failed, what about trying formal

MuZemike (talk

) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its been to mediation 4 times, I know at least once when I failed as a medcab mediator to resolve it. MBisanz ^talk 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not a particularly useful process for dealing with a tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou is escalating the situation with continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and misrepresentation [130] [131].

As an alternative to a block, I think it would be helpful to find out what Seeyou's native language is, then find an editor fluent in it to ask Seeyou basic questions about Seeyou's ability to understand the policies and guidelines that Seeyou repeatedly violates. --

) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One more suggestion (then I will "butt out" of this discussion), but if all other avenues of

) 08:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support arbitration at this point, as my experience is that Seeyou uses RFM and MedCab as his own personal attack dogs. I filed an RFC/U against him and got an MedCab against me in response, so I'm done assuming good faith with him. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RfCs and Mediation have repeatedly failed with this user: [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]. This user has also attempted to introduce a POV fork when his edits to the BM article were rebuffed: [138]. Three requests for arbitration (two by me, one by Seeyou) have been declined: [139], [140], [141]. I cannot see a way forward beyond a block or ban. Famousdog (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This was archived before it was replied to, so I'm reposting it:

I'd like to bring to attention the user Boxstaa (talk · contribs). This user is consistently adding unsourced material, often original research to articles. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. They have also created several categories that are over categorizing, such as: Category:Bands named after places, Category:Mondegreens, and Category:Spanglish songs.

I have a very strong suspicion that this is the same person as Roadstaa (talk · contribs). The names are very similar and Roadstaa has a long history of adding original research and creating original research articles. Roadstaa also created at least one category which was deleted. Roadstaa has done an extensive amount of dubious page moves, and Boxstaa has already had one page move reverted. I would have filed a sock puppet report but Roadstaa has not edited since Boxstaa was created (two days after Roadstaa's last edit).

I'm not sure what should be done about this user. I'm assuming good faith, but I think this user is causing more problems than they are helping.

Since I initially posted this Boxstaa has created the category Songs about poverty. I also found my old incident report on Roadstaa's AfD behavior for a bit more history. swaq 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to comment? swaq 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone pls comment on User:Sarvagnya's comments during my interaction with him today. Here it is, last paragraph. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks.

It is not an isolated incident. Pls see this edit summary. rm unsourced bullcrap.. cite the nonsense if you want to bring it back.

He was also recently warned by User:Hersfold during his interaction with User:Fowler&fowler. Please see here.

I would appreciate some input on this. It just makes working with him difficult. Thanks a lot.

00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm what? Someone said my name (or something close to it; I fixed the link above. User:Hersford is in fact one of my doppelgangers.)

For better context, the "bullcrap" edit summary was partially what led to the previous block I placed. I would note that the incivility in edit summaries does appear to have slacked off.

a/c

) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry for the typo.

What up?

15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to request a ban be placed on Universalsuffrage for his continued derailment and soap boxing in the September 11th Talk Pages. His latest exploits can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#How_is_it_known_that_passengers_were_actually_killed_with_boxcutters_when_there_are_no_witnesses.3F

He has been warned, banned for 24 hours, and still continues this disruptive behavior. I am requesting a pertinent topic ban, since he has said on more than one occasion he is 'Done with Wikipedia'. --Tarage (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the request. Should it be taken up at the arb enforcement notice board? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to block (for longer than 24 hours this time, obviously) for repeating the BLP violation - the allegation that the "US Solicitor General lied" is sourced to a court transcript, and if the court had made any such finding, I'm sure many newspapers would have mentioned it. Ryulong beat me to it with an indef. No objection. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the indefinite block of Universalsuffrage. He was disrupting Wikipedia. I think he is a sock of someone. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser won't help since records are not kept that long, but I have a strong hunch from Universalsuffrage's writing style, edit summary usage, and how he's "always wondered about me", that this is Lovelight. Lovelight was subject to a community ban in late April 2007 [142], after an RFC. I also see similarities in Quantumentanglement who edited in December 2007 before being indefinitely blocked, and Tachyonbursts who came along when the 9/11 arbcom case was underway this past April, and was put under a topic ban. I also note that Tachyonbursts and Lovelight edited logged out on a few occasions, and the IP addresses geolocated to the same place. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Lovelight and Tachyonbursts did edit logged out, checkuser might help, though it's a moot point since Universalsuffrage's behavior alone more than warrants a block. --Aude (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes; good block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should close this. If he creates another sock to cause disruption, we can easily spot him. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I found evidence in the 9/11 talk page history that makes me 99.9% sure this is Lovelight and Tachyonbursts, though per privacy reasons, I'm reluctant to repost ip addresses on ANI, even for a banned user. Fine to mark this resolved. --Aude (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite moot; if he's the banned user, his "contributions" to the talk page could be removed. If not, then it may not be appropriate to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing them, particularly regarding Mr. Olson from the current article talk page, as well as Tachyonbursts/anon edits about the same thing from Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_40#Solicitor_General_Lies_about_Phone_Call. For full disclosure, Tachyonbursts' topic ban was only through the end of May, though I say it be made indefinite. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that Lovelight had the right to appeal his community ban to arbcom, but declined to do so at the time. --Aude (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote a very informative article on the siege of fort meigs and some users are deleting it without a discussion, or even when I said I will change it later on. Its a very well-written article... Can you help at all??? InternetHero (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, they aren't deleting the article so much as removing your additional text. Second, this is a content dispute and so doesn't belong here. Third, when you say "I'll fix it in a couple of weeks", don't be surprised if others don't appreciate having to fix your work later (or are willing to just wait for you to get around to fixing it). Instead of trying to triple the size of the article, work with other people on how to best use your source before you start off reverting them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Internethero's talk page, I'm surprised he's complaining here. He's reverting a good version for one which reads like a short story.

talk

) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yo, can someone put "Hollaback Girl" on a username blacklist already? [143] Her accounts do not seem to be bot-listed at

05:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for this. It is really becoming tiresome.—

Improve

06:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, even though this might prevent account creation with that specific meme, the user would just choose something else. Would it be possible to have it auto-block any ip that tries to make an account with that meme, or perhaps put the IP in a category specific to this user?—

Improve

06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user's sole purpose is to change founded to co-founded on Jimbo's user page. Is it possible that this text can be blacklisted?—

Improve

06:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a bot could be set up to automatically revert edits by non-autoconfirmed users to User:Jimbo Wales that altered the text "founder". It would be inadvisable to put it on a project-wide blacklist though. the skomorokh 06:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to limit a blacklist to a page or group of pages?—

Improve

06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be technically precise here; by requesting that "Hollaback Girl" be put on a "username blacklist", I was requesting that

WP:AIV whenever a user account is created that matches a certain string (in this case "hollaback girl" or components thereof); what you're proposing is something else entirely, I think. the skomorokh

06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. I was wondering how alerts were modified.—

Improve

06:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:ABFIL. The tools to combat exactly this sort of problem have been added to MediaWiki by the Devs. They should "go live" at English Wikipedia in a testing (i.e. log only) mode by the end of the year, and if that goes well, should become fully active a few months after that. This stands to be the biggest abuse and vandalism tool we have seen in a LONG time at Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to keep blocking the user? Can a rangeblock be used if a CheckUser finds the offending IPs? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo is not founder but co-founder of wikipedia is simply a fact isn't it? :) Sticky Parkin 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's Jimbo's page; he can describe himself how he likes. Saves others the trouble. --Rodhullandemu 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As above,

User:Jimbo reflects Jimbo's point of view. WilyD

18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I too look forward to ABFIL, flagged revisions etc., but am I wrong in saying that we have bots report usernames to UAA or AIV that are similar to those used by banned users? Is this not a case where that would be appropriate? the skomorokh 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Romanian editors keep removing a

) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin intervened, so if there won't be any objections to the present solution, this is probably resolved. Squash Racket (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question for the administrators, if you please. I am planning on attending Wikimania next in year Buenos Aires, Argentina (although I really dont' like Argentina its relatively close to my hometown in Brasil). However, I was worried that my friend, who claims to be "blocked" or "banned" from wikipedia might be not allowed to go -- or even worse, that he would be subject to harrassment or even violence by the other wikipedians attending. So what would happen if a well-known past vandal or troll (like willie on wheels) would show up at a Wikimania event? Thank you. Brawlinz (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's okay as long as your "friend" gets a little badge from Jimbo saying it's okay to attend, and as long as he wears it at all times. To request a badge, post here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania should be like its online raison de etre, free and open to the public. I didn't know you had to be "picked" to go, like a convention... Brawlinz (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have him wear bloodied and torn clothing, and apply makeup so that he will appear to be sporting bruises and gouges. That way, it will be assumed he has already been beaten up, so there will be less need to do it a second time. P.S. Why would a banned user go to the convention, other than to engage in the same kind of activity that got him banned in the first place? It would be like Dr. Kevorkian attending a Right to Life convention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimania for banned users is being held

Tan | 39

16:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any issue; it's not like the blocked user list is shared with the Wikimania event staff. Just don't brag about being banned and nobody will care. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your friend may, of course, be banned from the Cash Bar. Then again, eventually so might everyone else.

-t BMW c-

16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what Charles Boyer (and Pepe Le Pew) said? "Come wiz me to zee Cash Bar"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He was playing a character named Pepe le Moko. The film was Algiers. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What if my friend was someone that Jim Wales banned personally? Like User:Peter Damian. (just an example that I pulled off the list of banned users). Would everyone at the convention be cool with him? And what is the atmosphere like -- Is it a big party type thing? Brawlinz (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'Your friend' might be asked to leave if he was making the same sort of nuisance of himself as caused him to be banned in the first place. If he keeps a low profile, why would anyone recognize him? Use some common sense. I'm closing this thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Brawlinz is a sock of

talk · contribs). Thatcher

19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit"

Has "junk edit" become a technical term in Wikipedia? If so, what is its meaning? If not, is its usage - to refer to another contributor's edits, without giving reasons - a violation of etiquette? Feketekave (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whether it's junk or not. Hope that helps. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. We are not talking about vandalism, but about an edit that was argued for in the talk page. The revert did not address the issue. (This was a second revert, with "rv junk edit" as a comment.) Feketekave (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit incivil imho. Have you tried reporting it to

WP:WQA ? Sticky Parkin

00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think you shouldn't have to ask whether or not something offends you (i.e. I know it when I see it). At any rate, that does sound like a jab at whoever made the edit. John Reaves 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

At first blush it sounds incivil. But I would hesitate to make a definitive statement without being aware of the full context. (I've seen far too many situations where 'An admin told me you shouldn't do that!' is used as a bludgeon in an editing dispute.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA? Since when do we advise people to run to noticeboards before even discussing it with the person in question first? Whoever that is, this report is lacking any diffs so we're left guessing at what incident Feketekave is actually referring to.--Atlan (talk

) 00:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Hm, a diff might be helpful. But honestly, I am not sure what administrative action is being sought here. Tiptoety ^talk 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See the recent article of Boris Pasternak, the corresponding talk page, and the talk page of User:Galassi. This is not at the top of my list of interests, but the language struck me; I'd like to know what to do in this kind of circumstance.

So, should I go to

) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. His talk page seems to show that he has also used the term "junk edit" in other contexts; I have nothing to do with them, but you may find them of interest. (I haven't cared to examine them.) Feketekave (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say a "junk edit" is not necessarily descriptive of the editor who made it. If I changed a "good word" for a "weasel word", it could be considered a "junk edit". If I fluffed an article for fluffing sake, it would be a junk edit. So, believe it or not, as Baseball Bugs said - it all depends on the quality of the edit, and not the quality of the editor overall. No need for WQA (as much as I like the work over there), just a need for good quality edits.

-t BMW c-

01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

However, the alleged "junk edit" - good or not, I cannot tell myself - was argued for in the talk page, and the revert was not. If the term had not already been clearly dismissive, it was so in its context - or at least that is how I perceived it. Should I have made a third edit, to be reverted again? Feketekave (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit" may be entirely appropriate for IP vandalism of the usual sort, but should never be used for edits that have been discussed on the talk page. In that context, it's uncivil for sure. looie496 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any discussion on the talk page where it was argued "into a Jewish family" should be removed from the article. Could you point me to it?--Atlan (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Feketekave was clearly acting on the basis of the "Conversion of Pasternak's father" thread. He/she had raised doubts about the accuracy of the statement in the article, which nobody responded to. Were you unaware of that? looie496 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I made that flippant comment is that the complainant gave no specifics - and I'm still not seeing it. I went to the pages he specified, and I'm not seeing it. A diff is needed here, to minimize the chasing of wild geese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit" can often imply a tiny, minor edit of utterly no consequence - for instance, here on AN/I, a junk edit may be made to extend the "archive deadline" for a thread that, while currently untrafficked, is still active. Perhaps "null edit" would be a more accurate term, but honestly, even if this was meant as a euphemism for "crap edit", must we take offense? Sometimes it seems like people are just itching to find something - anything! - to take offense at. Like some sort of passive aggressive power trip or something. Badger Drink (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, extending the life of an obscure thread in WP:ANI. Like I just did. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Be it as it may be, I am still waiting for advice as to the way to act. What we have is both a term to which we seem to agree that somebody could reasonably take offense, as well as dismissive editing. Am I supposed to simply revert my edit, waiting for an opposing case to be made in the talk page? Would that not start an edit war? Feketekave (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the terminology, and proceed as if were a polite edit summary. Only if it becomes a habit of the editor concerned to use dismissive language need it be brought to

WP:WQA. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll IP

trollish

comments.

• [144] - note Anyone who advocates an article which PRAISES ANY FORM OF NAZISM/ARYAN PRIDE IS A NAZI
• [145]

Please see the talk page of this IP. On November 2 and November 10, this IP was warned two times for making personal attacks. Also see the bock log [146], was blocked on November 2 for personal attack. I do not see any positive contribution from this IP. Should this IP be warned once more? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked and given my rationale at the ip's talkpage (User talk:58.107.179.146#Blocked for 72 hours). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. He's just here to be a PITA. endorse this action fully... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP should have been blocked for a week. Previously, it was blocked three times, twice for vandalism and once for harassment.[147] AdjustShift (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, this user keeps using a very large signature, and it has been discussed in the past(the first time this user's username appeared on this board) that it was too large, and should be kept small. That was the consensus.

I see a pattern here, let me clarify. This is the third time the sig of this user has been called to attention, what happens is, he's warned about it being to big. So he makes it small. Time passes. He makes it big again, and it's brought AN/I again. He makes it small after being alerted, time passes, he makes it big again.

I see a failure to get it, if you know what I mean. This user does not understand that the requested change must be permanent. I don't know why this could be the case, or maybe he thinks that others would forget about him after awhile, either way, something needs to be done about this.—

06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if the user hasn't been constantly changing his signature, he has recently admitted that he is still using a font size of 3 when so and so meets so and so. For reference, the consensus that his signature needs to be reduced in size, and stay that way, can be found here.—

Improve

07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, consensus was far from clear from that ANI discussion (it was assumed that he would be friendly enough to actually reduce it and keep it reduced), so this will be different. I just find it annoying and if he's playing games about reducing it, I say a final warning and make it clear that he cannot just be playing fast and loose with the rules. It's too early (and probably too stupid a reason) for a block right now, but I'm guessing he at least responds here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What precisely should this warning constitute?—

Improve

08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A note on their talkpage, referencing this discussion, and words to the effect of "Please therefore reduce the size of your signature, and do not again alter it. Should this matter be raised again it is likely that you will be sanctioned."? Keep it friendly and short (the comment, not the sig!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I use what you just said as the warning/quote you?—

Improve

22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, per this, it appears he still doesn't get it, and doesn't plan to stop any time soon.—

Improve

01:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Several editors at

and leaving warnings on his talk page about his conduct. It doesn't seem as if anyone is getting across. The issue is becoming increasingly worse.

It started at first with some bad faith comments here and here.

He then refuses to accept to consensus, shows bad faith again, and seems to assume control of the article.

He then makes a threat against another editor before he decides to violate wp:own again, admits to sock puppetry before insulting and editor. There's more wp:own and he even insults someone who is asking him to join the project. There's one more insult and another assertion of owning the article, and then his reply to my request that he abide by

.

If we could have the appropriate admin intervention here, it would be appreciated. If I'm overreacting please let me know.  Hazardous Matt  13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you've been astonishingly patient under the circumstances. I also see no mainspace contributions at all - this person is quite possibly here solely to

WP:CIVIL adhered to on returning from the block, the next one will be indefinite. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk

14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. I would probably have made it
  ^talk
  15:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure that the user will ever be able to make positive contributions, especially considering his astonishingly poor spelling: weither (whether), makeing (making), your (you’re), loseing (losing) And those are just from the first diff above. —

^talk

15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I did initially select 1 week (after considering indef!), but when I went to click the button I thought maybe I was being a little harsh. However, as you think so too, I've extended it to 1 week. Thanks for your advice ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser may be needed here, as here he says there is "a total of 10 user account to my computer,". Might be worth "seeing" just which accounts these are... D.M.N. (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would amount to a fishing expedition. Anyway, as the user has been pretty much sticking to one page, any socks should be obvious. —

^talk

16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can be used to prevent disruption, and someone threatening to evade a block is clearly a disruption. I checked the account and it would seem the user is lying about having more than one account. --Deskana (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)