Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive495

The discussion over the

17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a subject more

unworthy of edit warring--Tznkai (talk

) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. My bias may be the reason here, but the whole section looks like it deserves blanking, the application of a wet trout, and possibly even talk page protection. Please, another admin, chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, my thoughts exactly. I looked, I hit "edit" thinking that I had something to contribute, and then slowly backed away. It's very hard to imagine anything good coming out of that "discussion."

If only a tenth of the effort that's gone into that would be put into coding an autoformat option that doesn't require wikilinks, we'd be past this by now. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've blanked the whole RFC and used a big ugly {{notice}} to get their attention. I've received a fair complaint about that action. That is my attempt to solve the problem, and if it doesn't work, I have no better ideas that I am capable of fulfilling.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not take action (I am an involved editor) but seriously some admin action is needed (if not a form of larger mediation). The situation (besides all the various arguments since the "DA is deprecated" addition around August 2008) is that several editors (including myself) were pushing to get an RFC to completely settle the issue if the "DA is deprecated" part as well as other issues that result when Lightbot et al strip dates from articles. The RFC was developed via community draft and was close to being made live when User:Tony1 put up his own RFC on the main page which, while more to the point, has a very different tone and direction to it. Now personally, I feel that the RFC that was being worked on was going to be much better in the long run to achieve stable consensus for several issues and that Tony's wording is in disagreement with how the scenario developed, but given that people have responded, and it is an RFC (something that hasn't been seen there yet on the issue), I feel we might as well let it run, as we'll still get the answer to if "DA is deprecated" has consensus.

Now, what's been happening after that is that various editors, who see Tony's RFC language as being a problem (in the vein that it would be like an elected official writing up the official ballot for his reelection), have edited it as well as initiated talk page discussion of various accusations, with has been met with similarly borderline un

civil responses. I don't think any side is clearly acting in the best good faith here, but beyond watching for edit warring, there's not much more that can really be done here that doesn't invoke mediation. --MASEM

20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, more like the author of disputed legislation writing the arguments for a referendum which would negate it, but the analogy seems somewhat apt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I've reverted Arthur Rubin's addition of a nested template in the RfC that he opposes, since it had the unforeseen effect of removing this from the list of active RfCs. I left him a note on his talkpage to clarify my reasons (see diff). Just an unfortunate accident I'm sure, but it might happen again if a different editor tries to modify the RfC template, so I thought I'd note it here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't think Tony's RfC was done properly, nor the questions posed in a manner which could produce an undisputed result, but I didn't intend to delete it from the RfC list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have us one

) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. This is the second one of these today, there was also User:BuxtonStephen earlier--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to block

) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Tan | 39

00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who did they impersonate? I want to know if I should be trying to be just like them too :-P

►BMW◄

00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:StephenBuxton, user and talk copy pasted--Jac16888 (talk

) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user twice replaced pages with the IP "134.240.241.2" (see here and here). 134.240.241.2 (talk · contribs) was the subject of the above resolved thread Anonymous vandals gaming the system. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• An edit by
  talk · contribs) is the user who started that AN/I thread. —Snigbrook
  00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, have reblocked the ip with no account creation, [4]--Jac16888 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the block worked properly, it still appears to be anon only. —Snigbrook 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn damn damn. Ok, it took me three attempts, but I've got it now I think, [5]. Wow, that was stupid of me--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. I believe we haven't seen the last of this one...he'll be back soon.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, you know when you are doing something right, when you inspire vandals enough to imitate you and they try to emulate your actions. Quite flattering really, being a role model :-) Seriously though, I've checked my contributions, and I can't see anything in there that I haven't done. To be on the safe side, I'll change my password. Thanks for letting me know!

talk

) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help,

) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one at talk. Whack-a-fake-Buxton time, I guess. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack.

Tan | 39

22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, let's save "URGENT" for truly urgent things. Impersonating an admin, while wrong, isn't going to cause any damage. John Reaves 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On

) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update...

WP:AIV.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)

) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Were I not involved, I would have blocked this infant back to the preschool from which she claims to have escaped. This is easily one of the most duplicitous, un-helpful users I've ever encountered. Three editors--myself, Elbutler, and barneca---have counseled this user on her behaviour (see her talk page); she's had one short block already; nothing has changed, except maybe for the worse--and she has ab-so-fecking-lutely no intent of acquiring a clue. The edits she's made outside her user page, user talk, or other peoples' user-talk, are...I would say they're 90% unproductive. She says she's 6 years old. If she is six years old, I am an Emperor penguin. Then, today, she added this to her user page: [6]. Needless to say, I'm too involved to block, but I submit that if ever there was a user we could do without, this is her. GJC 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as I've watched him for a while. The claim to be American is also false (use of "favourite" repeated in today's edits is a telltale sign).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that spelling is a very reliable judge of nationality, as I know several Americans that choose to honour their British heritage by utilising en-uk. However I should point out that the IP listed below (154.20.40.205) resolves to the Canadian ISP Telus. And of course the second definition on the American dab page says "an inhabitant ... of the Western Hemisphere," so it would not technically be false for a Canadian national to describe themselves as being American. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true, after all we describe Canada as being the 51st state! 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this ANI report but I blocked her after noticing the userpage edits on my watchlist. I put the account on my watchlist some weeks back when I became aware of the user pestering Elbutler and Gladys. I think s/he's been given plenty of warnings and had lots of advice and assistance from some incredibly patient editors and admins but continues making a pest of themselves. We are either being played games with or being used as a childcare facility and either way I feel the disruptive behaviour far outweighs the minimal mainspace contributions. I feel this user is a serial, chronic pest and so I blocked him/her and I recommend we preferably keep them blocked but at least until there's some indication that the games and disruption are finished. Sarah 04:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

She was also using IP 154.20.40.205, which she admitted on my talkpage. [7]. Not sure what we want to do about that, if anything--I'm happy enough having the named user out of the way. Thanks!GJC 06:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but on re-reading it, this edit could be construed as a legal threat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean

This is not the place to publish information that is in breach of the Data Protection Act of Great Britain.

Isn't that as simple as 'ware the BLP, or "obey the 9th commandment"? Now pointing them to WP:BLP to supply them with new verbs, and how better to caution might be reasonable. Shenme (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's intended as intimidation, and it references a legal entity, so it pretty much qualifies as a legal threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- it sounds like an

WP:NLT; the guideline exists to prevent the chilling effects of using legal threats and "legal advice" (i.e., thinly veiled threats) from interrupting the improvement of the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threat, asked them to retract and acknowledge the policy on their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't dispute that naming this or that law as "why you are in the wrong" (in danger?) is potentially chilling, and meant so. The editor is apparently in peril of COI as being the subject himself. In light of that, it is not unreasonable to have some sympathy for them as the object of attack by means of the BNP tar+feather. What I meant is that three different warnings in combination with efforts by the same editor that to expand the perceived attack, might not have the most helpful, certainly when seen with the wrong version results.

Hex and Scott MacDonald have cleaned up much that was fluff, and have mentioned the BLP and other concerns on the talk page. 'twould be nice if someone made some suggestions to the editor, who has not edited in some hours. Ah, too late, blocked minutes ago for the pile-on effect. Context anyone? Shenme (talk

) 03:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good gosh. Referencing a law is not a legal threat. Saying you think something is defamation isn't a legal threat. Saying you think something is libellous isn't a legal threat. Saying you're going to do something about it is a legal threat. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The wording of it sounds threatening, though. Maybe not to everyone, but it certainly looked to me like a threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've got to agree here. There's a big difference between "I think this is potentially libelous" and "This is libelous. Libel is illegal. Do not reinsert that libel." The comment here was an invocation of a law to hammer home a position, and that's exactly what the prohibition against legal threats is meant to prevent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Important comment: When people make implicit legal threats, before jumping in with a banhammer take a look at the context. Let me fill this in. The person apparently making the threat is a relatively obscure composer, who maybe just about merits an article, who has been "outed" by one single low-grade UK newspaper as a member of the far-right BNP. No other UK paper has shown any (as yet) any interest in that allegation (Google news only brings up the one story from one source - not even AP cares), and it has nothing to do with the chap's marginal notability. However, Pigsonthewing has been insisting that this negative allegation must be published in our encyclopedia against the subject's wishes. I removed the offending material under BLP, and now pigs is here trying to get him blocked. This is a variation on the

) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• The legal threat is unacceptable, no matter the "wishes" of the article's subject. The issue would seem to be the reliability of sources. That's a legitimate issue to raise, and it's the approach that the article's subject should have taken. There is no "context" in which making legal threats is acceptable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt he understands the relevant Wikipedia policies. To me, it doesn't read like an "I will sue you" message. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) No doubt that the legal threat was unacceptable--but considering the circumstances, maybe GWH should have given Mr. Glover a chance to better explain what was going on and retract the legal threat rather than drop the banhammer (though I won't wheel war). I'm going to direct Mr. Glover to OTRS.
    96
    13:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless his talk page was blocked also, the blocked user is free to explain and to retract. If he can read plain English, then he should now know what the issue is. And if he can't, he shouldn't be editing the English wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The "legal threat" (which is pretty much on a par with writing that Wikipedia isn't the place to post information that violates copyright law — which is not only not a legal threat but in fact official Wikipedia policy) is an editor who isn't experienced with Wikipedia (as per the observations of xyr style of referencing) trying to get people to stop turning a biography into a scarlet letter. Stating that an inexperienced editor should be blocked from editing Wikipedia when all that xe has been doing is trying to prevent being lambasted by a Wikipedia biography is an appalling lack of judgement on your part, Baseball Bugs. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, Uncle G. When the subject of an article has a legitimate complaint, we don't whack them over the head with policies they more than likely don't know--we try to help them. Now what they do when we give them that help is another ball game ...

96

13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As above, It's time to point to

) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could get back to us after you get your keyboard repaired. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you weren't joking (*grin*), I took it as an attempt to be gender neutral. Too hard to read, IMHO -- I'll still go with s/he and his/her.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you pronounce Xe with a Greek "chi" sound, it still comes out "He", only with a guttural "H". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a legal threat. It's an incorrect invocation of policy--WP does not necessarily respect that act or similar provisions in other countries, but operates under the law of the US & the State of Florida, and our own positions on BLP. It does seems the material is no in accord with our BLP policy if the newspaper mentioned is the only source. A legal threat is a threat to sue, or to report otherwise for legal action, and nothing less than that, unless the implication is obvious--I do not think it was here. We should be free to state an opinion, correct or not correct, that certain matter may be in violation of some legislation, Blocking is heavy handed interpretation of policy , with the effect of discouraging people from calling our attention to BLP violation. DGG (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked. Agree with Jpgordon, DGG and others, this wasn't a legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward (talk · contribs) I am reporting User:Thumperward for constant Hypocracy and personal attacks.

on the following

• Template talk:FOSS
• Template_talk:Linux
• Template_talk:Mobile_operating_systems
• Template_talk:Mobile_operating_systems#Categorization method

Through all these template, he keeps making excuses for Template are not directories. When he is the only users having this problem.

And I would note that keep things to yourself. My scope toward that arguements is none of template are not directories at all and I never plan on intending it to be that way. Placing the right "topics" to present a better navigation is not a directory that is totally Chris own Original Research instances and should be blocked. Whenever I am involved in the template, as shown before he makes his own personal conflict gets in the way before allowing other to have a chance to contribute on anything. That is not the way how we do things at Wikipedia. If he has a problem with my editing, he should of use my User talk page, which he never did. ^{notes 1}

Topics clearly serve a better navigation, since a lot of Wikipedia article have (History, Implementations, examples and references) which focus on the study and expertise of topics rather than posting only notable products and being bias. I am not sure is he trying to advertise everything he likes by the philosophy of "it must be this way." A good example would be placing only IE, Firefopx and Chrome on a browser template just because they own majority of the industry market share. However, this doesn't make the fact Opera aren't notable and he doesn't even think before he acts. In Template:Sun Microsystems, he claims his own method are more correct, when he is inable to show any understanding of the topic at all such as workstations processors and later on he created the Template:Sun Hardware ignoring community consensus or agreement knowing the problem already exists.

Regarding Template: Sun Microsystems (3 template are involved)

• Template: Sun Microsystems
• Template: Solaris
• Template: Java

Intro --> Now (repeating a bit, sorry) The problem arises, when increase number of links are placed at template. Chris made Template:Sun hardware ignoring community consensus and later on when I proposed 3 template Contributed at Revision as of 04:00, 9 October 2008 he and the community still tries to evade my proposal at all knowing that he and I had already had conflicts in 2 of the template before. I question his action accounts for any creditabiltiy and responsibility for he so-called "claims of turning template to directories"

Note: I really don't care how the template turns out to be, since I am not planning on any further involvement, even though I said I will create a version 2. But if the community is still choosing to ignoring everything than might as well delete the template.

^{notes 1} Other User such as George were willing to talk, but Chris choose to let his own immaturity get in his way. As to that how is that my problem on the previous WP:ANI.

I do apologize the personal attacks I made on Template:Linux today (Nov 24, 2008), because I am getting sick and tired of his immature actions constantly getting in the way of others. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• A comment. Chris's talk page is on ym watchlist, so I've seen more than a few of your interactions there. At least on his talk page (I can't speak about other areas), Chris is polite and calm. You two appear to be engaged in a long running content dispute and the particulars of that dispute are not likely to be solved on AN/I. Further, accusations like yours need to be supported by specific diffs of wrongful behavior, not general hand waving. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 is the offending party here - see for example this edit where he violates

WP:AGF

against Thumperward and myself for no good reason. Had he not insulted me there, I would block him for a month or longer for the insults to Chris, but I believe I'm in a conflict of interest over it as he's going after me too.

He's been repeatedly warned and blocked before for abusive editing. Much is now deleted off his talk page, but he's had ample warnings to stop.

Uninvolved admin requested to review and take appropriate action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAICS, all of Thumperward's comments on the abovementioned templates seem to me to be entirely reasonable. If he's sounding increasingly irritable of late, that comes as no great surprise, given Ramu50's behaviour. As for Template_talk:Sun Microsystems, Thumperward received no serious objections to his proposal to create Template:Sun hardware from any other users (including myself), and it wasn't obvious if Ramu50's comment was an objection or not. Ramu50's proposed template was pasted into the talk page (along with two others for different navboxes) without any kind of explanation that it was intended as a request for comments. Letdorf (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

And so far as I can see, he is the ONLY Wikipedian users right now that uses constant excuses and making false claims on me. I have quite a lot of conficts in Wikipedia, but majority are already resolved. However, Chris himself choose to stick with the old story and be immature forever and his mental problem is mine problems to be deal with, a lot of crap your really got there.

Also to you Georgewilliamherbert stop making false claims once again, you made several personal attack me on personally on Template:Database and Template:Parallel Computing without focusing on the main problem, so you as an adminstrator started the violation and you as the same choose not to resolve the situation. Need I need to remind you that Racial Discrimination is not an acceptable actions of Wikipedia.

For Sun Microsystems template I am not going on any further, but a word of clearing what actually happen I think maybe in dire need. I was against the Template:Sun Hardware all the time, but since majority of the involved users choose not follow any of the guidelines, I abandon my decision and choose not to be involved with the Template anymore, even though I am still trying to work on a new version of Sun Microsystems template. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've got it all in that one - accusations of racism, accusing another editor of having mental problems. Looking at the history, I'm amazed at Thumper's politeness with your nonsense. Why you have decided to shine a spotlight on your behaviour is beyond me - but don't worry, I'm sure your interactions with other editors will get all the attention then need. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And so far again and again, ALL of you guys are teaming up because of your inability of acceptance or choosing to ignore totally what I just said before about how I believe article should be organized.

And let me ask you Did Chris did any of the following

• Went to my talk for resolution since he is against my edits

not once

• Did he stop from his hypocracy of twisting the talks submitted at Template:Sun Microystems

obviously not

You people load of crap and always trying to make a better image of yourself, really shows your innate lack of attitude care for Wikipedia at all, no wonder all of your contributions are all over the place, instead of having the passion to stick with one topics and be persistent. What a joke you guys really dramatize the situation. What are you trying to prove that you are better than anyone else and you only your "mental community" matters like Hitler. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely we must have a rule where we can close a thread when the person making the complaint "godwin's"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not close this your thread, their constant evasion needs to be stop. Their constant actions of ignoring the truth and always walking away whenever their have commit an incident they don't want to admit needs to be stop. Not that I want to be involve with, but apparently they have let that matter interefere from Wikipedia policy. As to question this, if this is not your own mental problem, perhaps you guy should make a promise to correct that defects.

If this is the way how Wikipedian users choose to do things, than by all means I'll go with it and we'll see who will last longer, keep it up with your uncivil actions and ignoring me, so-called "adminstrators." --Ramu50 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to represent your version of the "truth." And read

WP:NPA: That's twice you've made aspersions against editor's mental abilities. Continuing to spout insults, especially on the admin notice board, is likely to get you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I didn't edit for 3 hours, my internet just crashed. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Devil Goddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just admitted in an unblock request that she/he was Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I denied an initial unblock request due to an apparent duck test similarity and the user refusing to deny that they were Skoojal; they subsequently admitted it and have asked to be unblocked now that they're open about it.

I was somewhat concerned about Devil Goddess' edits before Will Beback blocked her/him. However, they were not seriously abusive. There was clearly block evasion, but also perhaps a sincere attempt to edit in a largely constructive manner, albeit with the same viewpoint as before.

It would be good to have another uninvolved admin review the second unblock request, in light of the totality of their edit history and their honest admission now that they're Skoojal. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continually reverting against consensus on Obama and Biden articles. Downzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Those are semi-protected, but user came on in July, did a few edits, and then nothing until today. My guess is it's a "sleeper" account. Needs a block to stop disruption. [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my caution[9] and continued to edit war,[10] after calling Wikipedia WP:V policy "asenine"[11] despite notification of possible block, WP:V, WP:EW, and other policies. I don't know if he needs a block or just a good talking-to. We've had 20-30 discussions, and a consensus, on this topic. Even though this is a non-POV technicality he needs to know he can't just edit war because he thinks he alone knows the

WP:TRUTH about whether Obama is a president-elect or not. Wikidemon (talk

) 09:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it as trolling, since he came from out of nowhere and "zeroed down" (get it?) on this pair of articles, then disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I do like this quote, which could be a classic: "'Edit against consensus...' is asinine. The truth shall reign over any 'consensus' that is incorrect." Of course, there's always the chance he decided to go read the policy manual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And it may be just a naming coincidence, but User:Zsero was also arguing against calling Obama the President-elect (as were a couple of others, I should point out) and was generally belligerent, though being established for a couple of years. Zsero got a 2-day block on the 17th, due in part to edit warring over Ketchup, of all things. He made 3 edits right after his block expired, and has not edited since, at least not under that name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back now, arguing on the Obama talk page, but so far has not tried to disrupt the article again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, his constant endless-loop reasoning sounds more and more like User:Zsero. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He has now taken this to a neutrality dispute page. [12] At least he's stopped reverting consensus in the articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The phraseology is sounding more and more like User:Zsero. I'm citing policy and he's challenging "my" argument, i.e. personalizing it somehow. In the case of Zsero, it was an endless loop over whether Senator Obama "had to" resign. [13] And his arguing tactic was the same: That the constitution says thus-and-so, therefore all the media are wrong and should be disregarded - and that "I" have failed to disprove his argument, therefore he's right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin just give Downzero a friendly block for a couple days to spin his wheels. I think that's all it takes, it's really just a 3RR matter... or rather, a 1RR matter since the article is on probation. This isn't really a case where a lot of discussion is needed for a block that is an unambiguous page violation (never mind tone, demeanor, puppet possibilities, it's simply too many reverts). 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now forum-shopping, having also posted at the Third Opinion page. [14] I advised him that he's running the risk of a block for the 1RR violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting similarity, besides the attitude, is the unusual tendency of both them to leave 2 spaces (or more) between sentences. Most wikipedians leave one space. Just a style oddity that caught my eye. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They took away the Third Opinion entry on the grounds that it was misused, i.e. it's not a dispute between just 2 editors. [15] Gee, I love talking to myself. I could do this all night. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to you, Bugs! Actually, I came here to raise that point - I removed it on procedural grounds as there were numerous editors involved. For full disclosure I'll state I have previously been involved with one of them (

propaganda_deeds

11:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm so lonely. I'm not sure if Zsero and Downzero are lonely, i.e. I'm not sure if they're joined at the hip or if they're just one guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That guy is really on a tear. Now he's posted at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try as characterizing me as a troll. This is clearly an issue between two editors, despite the 3O to the contrary. Let's leave the insults to real trolls and take this issue to mediation. I never heard of this other guy until you posted up about him, and I typically edit without logging in, thus why my contributions list was short before today, when I HAD to log in, in order to edit a protected page. Downzero (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like Zsero, you try to make it me-against-you, when in reality it's verifiable sources and consensus of many users against you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Downzero claimed to have read the archives, yet he claims to have never heard of Zsero, whose name is prominent in the archives, this for example [16] so something does not computer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like pretty clear

pointy disruptive abuse of process. It's a mystery why anyone would socpuppet on such an unimportant technical edit to the encyclopedia. The editor has opened this trivial non-issue in a dozen forums, is belligerent, and showing no signs of stopping. We should roll back all the reports and get an authoritative warning, and if that does not work a block. Wikidemon (talk

) 11:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I make no claim of sockpuppetry. I merely observed the similarities. It could be coincidental. In any case, the ball in his court now, as to whether to waste more time with this bogus issue, or to back away from it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know about that other guy. I do know that I read much of the archive, but not all, because it spans many dozens of pages.

I was hoping this dispute would be resolved civilly, but you have hid behind the status quo and refused to debate despite both of us having verifiable evidence for our positions. It is unfortunate for the sake of the encyclopedia that it has come to this and that no consensus can exist that encompasses legal and constitutional reasoning as well as pragmatic usage of terms. Downzero (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already resolved, you just don't like the answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the constitution does not define the term "President-elect". The way it's used is, in fact, totally pragmatic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Downzero on this. Constitutionally recognized title or not, the Electoral college has bucked the popular vote before, there's a SCOTUS discussion on Obama's citizenship (laughable as that is), and we should be reporting the most factual stuff, not hte media hyping of the new ratings booster. Media outlets have to sell ad space, we don't. we can be circumspect. No one doubts he'll be the next president, but we can be respectful of the process. ThuranX (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time there was an issue with the electoral college was 1876, and there is no issue about Obama's citizenship. "President-elect" is defined to include the "apparent" winner, so there's no issue with that either. Zero's fundamental argument about the constitution made the assumption that "President-elect" is a constitutionally-defined term. It isn't. His argument, even if sincere, is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

checking the history of those "two" editors, I can hear ducks going quack quack. Have we got enough for a CU report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but they might not take it, as the editor's disruption has mostly been on talk pages once he stopped reverting the article, and it's only on this one topic. But I'm not sure what the thresholds are, for evidence, and for acceptance of the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, he's back, continuing to flog this dead horse. I think it's time for a checkuser, however that might be requested. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. Hold the phone. Even if he's sockpuppeteering, he hasn't done it in such a way that violates any rules, that I can see. He's just a pest, a disruption. That's the issue here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff [17] clearly states his position - that Obama is not entitled to be called President-elect yet. That's in defiance of everything he's been shown, so he's either incredibly dense or he's just trolling. In any case, he's been advised by others to cease and desist, and hasn't edited since, so hopefully that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Slowthy

I put this as a sub-section, as it is following a remarkably similar pattern. Slowthy had not edited since July (and only 7 edits from Jan-July), then pops right in 5 months later now with an immaculately wiki-formatted "Obama is a Muslim" section. Spidey-sense indicates a collective intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any direct connection with Zero, but it looks like Slowthy has been working on this stuff for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of reading that essay. It's a typical conspiracy theory approach - Obama "should have" behaved a certain way in certain circumstances, and because he apparently didn't, therefore that supports the premise. And anything he does that looks Christian somehow affirms the premise, because Muslims are supposedly trained to deny their faith. Totally bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me of this McCarthy-era joke. How do you know if someone is a Communist? Simple. Just ask him. If he says "No", he's a Communist, because Communists lie. And if he says "Yes", he's a Communist, because they're stupid enough to admit it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Slowthy's edit inserted a more-or-less direct copy of material from the delightful Conservapedia article on Obama - hence the detailed, if not exactly accurate, citations and so forth. If you haven't read the Conservapedia article, I highly recommend it. I've warned him and notified him of the article probation. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As with Zero, he disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I don't think I want to go to the conservapedia site - it might infect my computer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a block of Dr. Anymouse per the activities below:

• accusing editors of sockpuppetry
• rude edit summary
• refactoring someone else's edits
• uncivil comments including calling a good faith editor "blabdot"

Violations of

16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you see the splinter in another editor's eye, but not the beam in yours? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Further personal attacks that go to your behavior as outlined in the next section. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this user's talk page contributions, their tone and style is highly patronising which to my mind is very

WP:UNCIVIL. The ridiculous sockpuppetry accusations and talk of "crusades" should also be reviewed in terms of civility and personal attack guidelines. I'd support a short educational block, and hopefully behaviour will improve. I'd also advise them to leave the single article they edit alone for a while and get some experiance editing elsewhere. It is possible though that this might be some kind of "bad hand" account, from my quick look (before this was filed actually). Verbal chat

16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the accused is supposed to weigh in, but the powers that be can reverse this addition if this is in any way a violation of wiki-protocol.

1) As regards the alleged accusation of sockpuppetry: I did not make such an allegation; I recorded an impression I got when I saw that OrangeMarlin had taken the initiative to reverse something like eight hours of editorial work to what is a highly contentious and not-especially-well-worded paragraph coupling 'controversy' and 'depression'.

2) As regards the characterization of my edit summaries as 'rude': I have, admittedly, incorporated my native acid wit into these proceedings, but that is what it was and is intended to be: humor. No character assassination or put down was implied or intended. If rough and tumble sport is inappropriate for this venue, so be it: I will refrain. But one man's insult is another man's hail-fellow-well-met. If tender sentiments were bruised, I offer my sincerest apology.

3) As regards the accusation of "refactoring someone else's edits"...well, someone will have to explain that one to me. I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about (?).

4) As regards the accusation of uncivil comments including reference to my esteemed cyber-colleague Dlabtot as "Blabdot": Again, this was an attempt at humor that was, no kidding, based on commentary that OrangeMarlin himself left on my User Page when I was just getting started as an editor, plus Sciencewatcher's referral to me as "Mr Anymoose", wch I think is actually very funny and in the spirit of comradeship referred to above. Again, if anyone's feelings were hurt (and it is rather clear from the line of edits that were subsequently erased by Mssr Dlabtot) then I am truly very sorry. I think I may have unintentionally stepped on Sean3001's toes as well by my allusion to the television series Kung-Fu following his (somewhat snarky) reply to one of my entries. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Dr. Anymouse:

1. Don't accuse people of sockpuppetry, even implicitly, unless you are prepared to stand by what you say
2. Don't try to be witty or sarcastic. It doesn't work in a text medium. At best one ends up looking supercilious, at worst one ends up looking like an obnoxious fool.
3. Don't correct other people's spelling and grammar except in articles. It's patronising.
4. See 2 above.

CIreland (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like something of a joke. Dr A is a noob and needs to be helped to understand his errors. If Ahem...quid pro quo, cruxador. Or perhaps you will reconsider editorializing what is (ostensibly) a encyclopedia article. Or am I mistaken? is an incivil edit summary warranting blocking then we'll be blocking everyone. Refactoring talk comments is bad; that will be why you've explained this issue on his talk page... oh, wait. "Blabdot" was ill-judged, but as Dr A points out he is hardly the first to make silly jokes on other peoples user names William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you - if it weren't for the fact that he was already warned about this type of uncivil behavior just 48 hours ago. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did call you Mr Anymoose a few times (I correct one, but I think I did it again). This wasn't intentional. My brain just interpreted your name as a variation on "Mr Anonymous", which would be pronounced "moose" rather than "mouse", and that's what I thought your name was until I checked the spelling carefully. Anyway I'll go back and fix any other occurrences. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, really. I do think it is very funny. The name derives from a program in the US Navy called "anymouse" whc is supposed to remind one of "anonymous", wch is what Wikipedia and cyber life is all about. Not that everyone adheres to this, natch. Not to worry: got reeeal thick skin. Cheers! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well amusingly enough on that occaision I *did* block Dr A, only to remove it when I found Deacon of P had warned him first. Well, Dr A has had all his warnings now and will be on tip-top good behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is "contributing" [[18]] a lot of new articles with one sentence about places. I left a note for them, but perhaps they need to be slowed down until they read up on article creation guidelines? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, isn't the idea behind Wikipedia is that the users create new content? Or are we really all about just stirring up drama? Seriously, I see nothing wrong with what this user is doing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, CoM's point was that this user is just going about adding stuff without any shred of reference or citation- such as this. They might actually be literally "creating" new content (not new articles), violating

Tan | 39

22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have blocked for 48 hours. Unlike Jayron, I see nothing but unsourced additions with no explanation, no response to comment/warnings, and no indication that sources or explanations are forthcoming.

Tan | 39

22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, and thanks for checking it out. Some of the additions may be about notable locations, but it's just really hard to tell with so little to go on. If it was just one or two articles or 3 or 4 I would have followed up with searches. But I didn't really know how to help the editor or steer them towards a more constructive approach (I tried), and their creation of severely limited articles (with not much substance and no formatting or citations) was prolific.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by

for which I am not to be blamed:

• 1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
  • EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

• 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

• 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

• 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "

?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---

) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a

request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux  

10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a broad issue, and ArbCom handles broad issues. Several people are involved, and I've counted numerous edit wars, AN/I posts, a current MedCab, I think an RFC/U at some point... it's getting ridiculous. Someone please take this whole mess to RFARb. //roux   20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux, I thought you have been retired from Wikipedia. Before commenting something drastic, why don't you do some research? --Caspian blue 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to do any research. I've seen forms of this dispute going on for ages, I was tangentially involved briefly, the whole Korea-vs-Japan thing needs resolution. I didn't comment in any way on who was at fault here, I just said that arbitration seems necessary to end the ridiculousness. //roux   04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux -- I doubt that your carefully bland suggestions have fallen on deaf ears.

Despite

talk

) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaf's ears? Tenmei, retract your personal attack here

Retract your attack here. I wonder how you're saved from every single chance from blocking. You made this hoax/false report that I hijacked your alleged RFC in 23 second. Why are you so quiet about your hoax allegation? You must prove it by diff. I saved your clear 3RR violation, but all you have done to me is constant harassments and personal attacks. I'm not tolerate about your behaviors any more. --Caspian blue 07:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue proffers examples of extravagant language:

• " ... attack ..."?
• " ... harassments ..."?

A line from William Shakespeare comes to mind:

Gertrude says: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

-- Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230.

While

talk

) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer the initial question. Why did you falsely accuse me that I hijacked your RFC in 23 seconds? You're certainly blaming that I rightly made the RFC on the talk page. I don't get what is your problem with my filing. Your tagging templates to the aritcle is trolling as other said so. This irrational fiasco should be answered. You're surely harassing me as turning several talk pages into personal attack site. Answer the initial question that you've brought up.--Caspian blue 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're demanding a retraction of a personal attack? Cut this out. Both of you. This has been going on for far, FAR too long. Caspian, you've subtly (and not-so-subtly) disrupted Wikipedia for months now - it stops. Now. Any further disruption, accusations, demands, or harassment will result in a block. Period. End of story. We've all had fucking ENOUGH of this.

Tan | 39

23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39, you're ignoring the fact that this disruptive baiting hoax report is made by Tenmei, not me. I'm defending myself from the absurdity. That is my valid right. I did not know that retracting personal attack is disruptive. You're also responsible for your previous "false" accusation: you blame me of assuming bad faith on some user (actually long-term sockpuppers) are all blocked. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse[19][20] I would appreciate your insight than your current warning/threat ignoring real disruption. If you do not want to see this thread spanning further, please achieve this.--Caspian blue 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To be unequivocally clear, the acronym POBYH comes from Shakespeare:

Mercutio says: "A plague a' both your houses!"

-- Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92

In this play, Mercutio's argues that everyone is tainted by association in the context of the Capulet-Montague feud, that both disputing factions are wrong and culpable. When

talk

) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Wikipedia is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

• What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
• How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --

) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of extravagant language:

• "... false accusation ..."?
• "... personal attcks ..."?
• "... harassment ..."?
• "... bad faith comments ..."?

Why not de-escalating, non-confrontational, moderating language? --

talk

) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The hoax report is a false accusation itself, personal attack, harassment, bad faith comments against me. Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? Think about it, why Taemyr removed your absurd tagging? --Caspian blue 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly clear in my edit summary on why I removed the tagging. The contested fact simply isn't in the version tagged. Please do not construe this as a statement about whether or not the fact should be in the article.

Taemyr (talk

) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

As Caspian Blue points out, there was less than a minute between Tenmei's RfC [21] and Caspian's[22]. As such it is extremely unlikely that Caspian launched his as an attempt to hijack Tenmei's.

However the text of Caspian's RfC[23] makes it clear that he intend it as a request on user conduct. He confirmed this himself[24]. As such this RfC should be closed as being in the wrong venue.

Tenmei's question[25], regarding the sourcing of the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is probably better suited for

) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The example of non-confrontational, moderating language is very valuable in this context -- far more important than any flaws in

talk

) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell kind of backhanded insult is that?ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that ThuranX's question was more than a rhetorical flourish -- I repeat the same thought in different words. There was nothing obscure, oblique nor offensive in this direct, declarative statement, i.e.,

• FACT: The serial paragraphs of
  Taemyr
  's proposal do illustrate non-confrontational, moderating language.
• FACT: Some of the substantive premises of
  Taemyr
  "suggested resolution" are flawed, unworkable ... but I'm persuaded that any mis-emphasis on transient issues is potentially short-sighted.
• FACT: The ameliorating effect of
  Taemyr
  's use of language does present a focal point which transcends the specifics of this thread.

In sum, a seemly focus on

talk

) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An additional upside is that my sentence evolved in response to a plausibly facetious suggestion made by Caspian blue, who wrote: "Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? at diff. It was worth trying to see what might come from taking these words at face value?

talk

) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Back from a block for edit-warring, has resumed edit-warring on the very page that got him blocked, the O'Reilly criticism page. [26] He also blanked out his own user talk page, so you'll have to look at its history to see. Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky; on the one hand, I think

reliable-sources noticeboard, or some other means of dispute resolution as an alternative to continued edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk

18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that he'll continue to remove the Hornbeck criticism from the O'Reilly page until he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A distinct possibility. The 1RR would speed up this outcome if it is, in fact, inevitable. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Having been notified of this thread, he has now reverted his deletion. Resolved, for now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Fru23 has taken to defend himself on

Wp:BLP Noticeboards (in addition to arguing for the deletion of the article, despite 5 previous AfD) and considers the previous blocks as if they were unbased. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be this: [27] He's going forum-shopping, and he's getting pretty well shot down there also. For reasons known only to himself, he seems desperate to get that Hornbeck section out of the article. Someone had accused him of being an employee of the show. I don't know what evidence there is for that, if any, but it certainly seems like he's an O'Reilly crusader. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am being "shot down" by you and Noian, everyone else agrees that with me. Fru23 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not being victimized Fru. Constantly complaining of your previous blocks, why you were blocked for disruptive conduct will get you nowhere, especially since your previous unblock request was denied. Please stop attempting to garner empathy as if you were incorrectly blocked. In addition, Bugs, Fru admitted to being a employee of O'reilly on IRC before, but retracted the statement after being called out for

assume his retraction to be true. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm doing this here since I don't want to use the warning template as that'd escalate the issue, but,

No Personal Attacks on wikipedia. Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Bugs, no need to use the vandal template -- Userlinks gives the same readout. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Rogereeny. Done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Veecort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in edit warring on ITT Technical Institute [28] and Sockpuppetry [29] [30], and has already had a 24 hour block for disruptive editing[31].

The block occured on 08:35, 22 November 2008, duration 24 hours. Roughly half a day after unblocking, Veecort resumed his edit war, this time using multiple IP addresses (see Suspected sock puppets/Veecort).

• 19:00, 23 November 2008
• 20:31, 23 November 2008
• 07:11, 24 November 2008
• 19:31, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 31 minutes)
• 22:24, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 1 hour 53 minutes)

Veecort also has one of the most serious COIs I have ever encountered on wikipedia, as seen by this edit from May 2008, in which he claims "I am obviously motivated by something other than making contributions to better Wikipedia. Whatever my motivations, the truth is on my side." This would make him the poster boy for

as well.

My suggestion is a block of moderate duration for Veecort for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and a total topic ban on ITT Tech and related articles.

As a side note, Veecort has in each case he's received a warning chosen to revert it without acknowledging it. McJeff (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. I don't deny any of the above accusations. (Except for sock puppetry. If anything they were meat puppets, but their opinions are their own.) McJeff, I think you are giving me too much credit as far as avoiding the 3RR. Nonetheless, the above notes would show that I was engaged in obvious edit warring. Furthermore, it is my fault that the page was locked to new and unregistered users. What should I do now? Veecort (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked up meat puppet and they were most definitely meat puppets. I'm a jerk. At least I am not good at recruiting meat puppets. (Effective meat puppets anyway.) If you look back at my "contributions" you will see that I have at least been genuine. (Genuinely stubborn, genuinely paranoid, genuinely disruptive, genuinely recruiting meat puppets, etc. But genuine nonetheless.) Also, was it wrong for me to revert my talk page? Veecort (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to remove comments from your own talk page. However, meatpuppetry is not acceptable behavior, and is very strongly discouraged. Please see

this portion of our sock puppetry policy, which notes that their actions will be treated as your own. Especially in this instance, one of your meatpuppets edited while you were still blocked, which would be treated as if you evaded a block (and thus justifies another, longer block), as well as edit warring since you're still at it

.

If you're willing to self-revert your last edits to the page to show good faith and promise to seek

edit warring, including the use of meatpuppets to advance your point of view, will result in blocking of both you and your meatpuppets. --slakr^\ talk

 / 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slakr here. If Veecort understands and agrees to revert and play by the rules from now on, we'll just call it a day. If not, everybody's been warned and the next step is a block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend Veecort's claims of innocence in regards to sockpuppeteering not be taken without his ongoing Checkuser request being cleared. Let's remember that he has admitted that the IP range starting with 151 is him, both it and one of the other two originate from Pennsylvania, and the third is either from Pennsylvania or Phoenix, AZ. Three different IP addresses all from the same state hitting the same article holding the same POV and using the same gramatical syntax does not exactly score well on the

duck test. McJeff (talk

) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that one sentence. I don't know what it means for my "ongoing Checkuser request [to be] cleared." But I don't like the sound of it, so I thought I should tell you that I don't know what that means. I don't really know what an IP range is in the sense that I can admit to being one. And maybe it is just a matter of semantics as in the meat puppets for all intents and purposes are me. Again. I do not have a single sock puppet. Believe me; I wish I wasn't Veecort right now.

I admitted to recruiting meat puppets. More specifically, I went to an online anti-ITT Tech community and flat out told them to be my meat puppets. I just now edited my posts in said community so that they are not calling for meat puppetry or even mention Wikipedia. Not that it is proof of anything but these are the threads I used. Here and here. My moniker there is SheepToTheFleecing. Veecort (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note this personal attack laden edit by confirmed meatpuppet 70.190. As the post contains a lie about my block log and a ludicrous Hitler comparison, I would somewhat appreciate it if an administrator removed it. McJeff (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What does "confirmed meatpuppet" even mean? You took two editors who are editing toward the same purpose and confirmed that they're editing toward the same purpose? That's an unnecessarily loaded phrase. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I believe McJeff is using the phrase because Veecort has admitted to canvassing for assistance on this article off wiki, as shown on his comments above [32] (and also his apology for doing so). However, the two editors seem to be getting along better now [33] and trying to seek consensus on the talk page, so I don't think admin attention is needed here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

since veecort has admitted to his wrongdoing, i think he should be given a second chance to make amends by editing better. i also have more to say, except mcjeff keeps removing my comments from this ANI as "harassment and personal attacks". Theserialcomma (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Any admin want to delete all of the images uploaded by a spammer? There is a huge list and I can't delete them..and really marking all of them will take too long. They are all redudant images whose purposes are to advertise for a company Peterson_tractor which was deleted under G11. They are all missing the proper copyright and fairuse tags. Rgoodermote  02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I was about to get to it myself. Plesant surprise!

friendly

) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, always a pleasure to delete spam.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Now I know who to come to for a mass delete of spam. Happy editing and enjoy your lives. Rgoodermote  05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you all take a look at this Is it the same person? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnit..yes..that would be the same person. Rgoodermote  08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll report them for suckpuppeting and block evasion. However, I doubt we will see a very fast block at this time of night. Rgoodermote  08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Theresa is an admin..she could just block them..--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

XD;; I failed to check...lack of sleep.Then Theresa can handle this if she wants..But in case I will leave the SSP up.Rgoodermote  08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

More obvious socks of

) 05:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the huge catalog of spam in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#User talk:Xgmx, which is linked from the first SSP, it looks like we should routinely place these new domains on the spam blacklist. The IPs used this time are so dynamic I'm not sure anything but a rangeblock would make a dent. Blacklisting could be the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, either; that's why a rangeblock wouldn't do any good. But if the main purpose is to spam certain domain addresses, then it seems that blacklisting the addresses would be more feasible. Based on experience, it's harder to come up with additional domains than additional Wikipedia (or YouTube, take your pick) accounts.

MuZemike (talk

) 08:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"

User:Horologium suggested I come here to report a constant issue him and I have been working on. There are a group of IPs from around the country attacking Camden, New Jersey and any related pages (so far, Delaware River, Cooper River (New Jersey), and Benjamin Franklin Bridge (the former 3 of which have been semi-protected for 3 months, while the latter has just started to see activity) called "The Network," a group of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity members determined, in their own words, to publish "certain facts" about Camden (this page has also been semi-protected for 3 months). See some examples (though, definitely not limited to just these) from Camden (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the first that I could find), Cooper River (1, 2, and 3), Delaware River (1, 2, and earliest instance), and Ben Franklin Bridge, with Camden being attacked for the longest period of time (since at least April).

They constantly use Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg as their calling card (trying to suggest that Camden appears to be like San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake) and use different IPs from around the country, anywhere from California to Maryland, Minnesota to Texas, and even as far away as Canada and the UK, so warning/blocking IPs doesn't work; it only encourages them more. They even tried (unsuccessfully) to impersonate me with

to prevent that from happening again.

I'm not sure if anything can be done (without infringing on

14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rather beaten-to-death practical joke of some kind. One could do the same thing for East St. Louis, or Gary, or any city just across New York to the west. Or Oakland, even. Any lesser city in the shadow of a big city, both geographically and economically. Semi-protection should simmer it down a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg to the bad image list, as is done with all of the lovely penis pics that have been uploaded to commons? Since they seem to have a hard-on for this picture (wordplay intentional), limiting it only to appropriate articles might slow them down. I don't know the procedure/policy for this, and it's an odd case, since the picture doesn't fit the usual profile of restricted images. Horologium (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's worth a try - however that would be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did that once with images used by the former socker

chatter

) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The right response to a criticism like that would be, "OK, how would you handle it?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this editor understands how to contribute to this project. Despite being blocked numerous times for essentially the same things, he choose to

16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted a large number of edits by several users, including ten by me, well within 24 hours, without any explanation or attempt to discuss. Enough said; I'd appreciate a review of user's editing behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Guido could show good faith by striking his second frivolous 3RR report here, or at least correcting it so it shows evidence of over 3 reverts to the same article in 24hrs. Verbal chat 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead something is done about the editwarring, and that constructive editing gets appreciated more. But perhaps that is too much to ask; I've never found this page very stimulating. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...and the main issue is dodged again. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Tan | 39

16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of Guido's response I feel some action should be taken due to the frivolous reports and harassment of editors. Verbal chat 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do none of you ever read any policies?

For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (

WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit

) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You've yet to show edit warring on any of those pages. Verbal chat 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had provided the diffs, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on the 3RR page. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, I feel action should be taken for the reasons outlined by OM. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, warnings are always appreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is abusive, especially for an editor that just completed a one-month block for a variety of negative activities. Again, can someone explain why GdB is allowed to treat fellow editors in this manner? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Guido den Broeder has filed two frivolous reports in less than 24 hours, I have imposed the following conditions on his editing

. He is barred from editing AN/EW unless one of the following conditions apply:

1. He is reporting a clear and unambiguous violations of the
   three-revert rule
   . At least four reverts must have been made to the same page, by the same editor, in a period of less than 24 hours.
2. He may make a response in any thread on that page which directly refers to him or his edits.

These restrictions will last for approximately two months, until midnight on 31 January 2009 (UTC). I feel that these restrictions will limit the disruptive filings of frivolous or vexations reports, but will still allow Guido den Broeder to report on genuine, serious problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have done nothing of the kind, I do not accept this ruling (by which you overturn another admin's decision, btw). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How many blatant mis-understandings of policy exactly do we have to put up with? This is what, the fourth, perhaps fifth time Guido has shown up as a title on ANI, plus an RFC and multiple blocks with no change in behaviour? Does

simple rules)

02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of GdB's editing history. If additional sanctions might be appropriate, other admins can feel free. My remedy here is solely intended to end the disruption at AN/EW, and does not address article-space conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, his block log tells some of the story, although it barely hints at the level of drama. Note that he just came off a 1-month progressive block for incivility and edit-warring on Nov 23. The block log also doesn't show the lengthy list of sanctions he received on nl.wikipedia before coming here. looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Judge him on what he does here, not on any history on another Wikipedia language.

Fram (talk

) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And we are. He recently had a one-month block on this wikipedia.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy, every time I come back after few hours there is a new complaint from Guido. Like these two consecutive addings at 3RR notice-board, Guido says people that oppose him do not know policy and WP is weak, and then sheesh I really don't believe it but he says I edit warred a sixth time after all these people try explain him what edit warring is. Guido i think is saying, edit warring is when any body beside him makes more then three edits in all of Wikipedia in a day!! I never reverted more then once on any article, I always explained my edits. I am very tired, being accused of stalking and 3RR and the rest. There's these guidelines MEDMOS and MEDRS, I am sorry i will follow those. Guido disagrees about the guidelines, he has edit warred, real edit wars, to try and change them but he could not. I think w/ his COI as a major activist and w/ his intransigent attitude to WP policy and guidelines it is an idea having a CFS topic ban where he can edit talk pages only is that possible or to harsh or should he have more warnings, just a suggestion. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support TenOfAllTrades' ban on dubious or unclear AN/EW postings by GdB. Although that ban isn't accepted voluntarily by GdB, it still may be enforced with blocking, if any further disruption occurs within that period. Perhaps that is the best way to leave this matter, for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting a ban or at least a warning for 71.35.158.93. His first edit was a questionable edit to a talk page, and since then all of his edits have been talk page vandalism. Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited after a warning, and that was six hours ago. The IP may well be reassigned to another user so there's little point blocking at present. In future, reporting to

WP:AIV will get a faster response. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu

12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That certainly seems irregular and inappopriate, although as it's now stopped, I don't know that a block is justified just now. A mass undo might be called for though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm happy to go through and undo the edits in question. Would that be appropriate? Cerebellum (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing, as discussion has moved to proper venue, per Durova. To continue, please see here .
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:COFS , which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist. However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were: COFS CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Grrrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case. I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found. Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof. There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself. My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC) I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. — neuro(talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux   14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem) As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI , and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest. Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Topic ban proposal Support. The topic ban proposal as suggested by Roux (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Support - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --GoodDamon 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Oppose - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Oppose – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. Jayen466 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Hold on a minute You're in the wrong forum, guys. The topic of Scientology is on article probation. From Wikipedia:General sanctions: Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation. So I'm marking this thread resolved and referring it to WP:AE. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC) For the record, I opened this as an incident report, because the evidence indicates a very large WP:ROLE problems as well, not because of a content dispute. However, I will abide by your wishes in this matter and move this report there. May I have your permission to copy it verbatim, including responses, to avoid extra work for all parties involved? --GoodDamon 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC) You appear to misunderstand the quoted definition. Nowhere does it restrict itself to content policies only. Nor do you need my permission to quote what I post. See gnu free documentation license. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Guhh... Sorry, I apparently overdosed on stupid this morning. Proceeding... --GoodDamon 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits and removal of templates and 3rd party sources

• Atisha's cook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

regarding the New Kadampa Tradition article the user has repeatedly deleted templates and reverted edits on which discussion were made on the talk page, and especially all corrections by me on which I used 3rd party sources or included the correct phrases from them. The user didn't participate in the discussion and seems to ignore the rules reagrding NPOV and 3rd party sources especially on controversial subjects. --Kt66 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Atisha's cook is over 3RR at New Kadampa Tradition, having made five reverts on November 26. I have notified them of this discussion, explained 3RR, and asked them to revert their last change. This editor has made sensible comments at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy so I think negotiation is worth a try. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just closed this TfD discussion as delete. Unfortunately, the template to be deleted is transcluded over 1400 times. As much as I like to pad my edit count with AWB runs, I am editing from a computer which lacks such amenities. Are there any admins who would like the extra thousand-or-so edits, or who could submit this request to some other type of automated tool? (There's got to be some sort of bot which could do this, isn't there?) Thanks in advance, RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 20:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ, I am sure someone has an bot for such tasks. Regards SoWhy

20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect, I'll ask them. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have gone on long enough that I need another opinion and would ask for action. The article is

the right to determine the outcome.

In the middle of this, the original admin who closed the AFD entered the discussion and asked that he take it to deletion review instead, which appears to have been ignored. At this point, I can no longer assume good faith. It appears the user is being disruptive to prove a

the article.

I would ask for a block at least long enough to fix the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighhhhh Shot info (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like directly quoting a bowl of petunias.

►BMW◄

00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate when ANI is in reruns... --Smashville^talk 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again. Can someone close this down and buy all of us a beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain the joke to me please? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the block log. Never mind. I see now that we have a group of like thinkers who believe it is ok to use disruptive behavior to prove a point. Ok, when why do we keep doing short blocks on someone who is this disruptive? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The joke is, every time SA cleans up a FRINGE article full of poorly or non-supported information, and those who love the article can't meet the burden of proof, they come here claiming SA hates them, hates Science, hates America, and so on. Then a bunch of people come, look at the complaint, support SA, and we all move on. It's like menstruation, except the bleeding, unless one of us gets an aneurysm again from the hassle or the laguhing at the complaint. ThuranX (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the cleaning up. I don't edit the article. I AM kinda big on honoring the outcome of an AFD. My complaints weren't about editing, it was about the obviously disruptive behavior. Adding every tag, or multiple redirects while demanding reasons. I'm not a UFO guy, and honestly, agree that everything in it should be sourced. Actually, I was ready to listen to why the redirect made sense. The problem is that he has taken a controversial tone since the beginning and basically is just saying "fuck you all, I'm deleting this". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke ... the bowl of petunias said "Oh no, not again" (well, at least it went through its mind). This name comes up more often than a teen boy's hormones.

►BMW◄

00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's always going to be fun when ANI has SA somewhere in the section title. Thuran, I hear that SA hates dark chocolate too. Just thought you should know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

don't get taht one, but we've had a dick joke in nine replies, so I think this is over. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Come now, no need to advertise for

Eldereft (cont.

) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such block. In reviewing your links, I do see the alleged wikilawyering, I do see a lack of cogent arguments, and further, this list of alleged UFO entities includes a large number of NON alien cryptozoological/mythological topics, like Mothman, Chupacabra, and more. I don't see any reliable sources for the temperament of imaginary space people. The article looks far better now than before SA started cleaning up. One major point he cleaned up? the one essentially asserting that mainstream science is unwilling to admit this is all real, which has way too much 'cover-up conspiracy' feel to it. This stuff is FRINGE to the FRINGE. A list of improbable entities that are being used to fill up an otherwise ridiculously small list? The Atmosphere beast, by the list's own admission, is native, its origin is in our upper atmosphere, so it's NOT an alien. SA fights a long uphill battle here, and all this stuff gets ridiculous. The external links were to fansites, not to interesting, scientifically reliable nor historically vetted reports. His edits look fine to me overall; the biggest problem edit I see is the 96 hour deadlne, but that gives four days for a reply. Plenty of time for any advocate of the page to put something together, but not so long as to allow the issue to cool so he has to start all over again in a week or a month. No problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Mothman nor Chupacabra exist in the article. All the existing material is sourced with reliable sources. So you are saying that disruptive behavior of adding every possible tag, redirecting after you already have an ultimatum, these are ok behaviors? Just curious. So, you are all saying that any complaint about his actions are simply ignored? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They did when I looked at the diffs. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone already agrees the unsourced stuff should go. That isn't the issue. And yes, this article was a POS recently. Many people (not me) have done a lot of work to fix it though, and the overall topic, if sourced properly, is notable since plenty of crazies have reported this stuff in reliable sources. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stop biting people just because it's a common topic here. ScienceApologist is hardly blameless; there is no deadline, yet SA artificially creates one in effect strangling discussion for his own ends; not to mention he himself professes to throw policy out the window for his own ends. Just because he may be right about the content doesn't give him carte blanche to mistreat other editors and ignore guideline, policy, and common sense. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute????? There are reliable sources that say aliens exist? Do tell. I would contend that there are reliable sources that state that delusional humans imagine aliens exist, and that's NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But there are reliable sources that describe aliens someone people believe exist and with the widespread appearance of such creatures in works of fiction, they're a valid part of literature, without FRINGE applying in the slightest.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Back to the issue: The actions are disruptive. I have made it as linked/clear as possible. If the admins here feel this is acceptable behavior, please let me know so I can change the way I do biz here. Otherwise, I would appreciate the merits I am presenting to be considered, as I brought them here, documented, in good faith. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I only partially agree with ThuranX. The article needs fixing; he is certainly right about that, and so is SA, & I would support some or all of his improvements. That there is a deadline on fixing articles, he is equally certainly wrong, and the attempts of SA to impose one seem like illegitimate pressure. The redirect without discussion immediately after the AfD close was in my opinion unfortunate, and was properly reverted. The discussion of how to edit the article should be carried out on the talk page, and if necessary--and I think it probably will be necessary--through dispute resolution. But Dennis Brown is wrong to ask for a block on the editor; I think that unnecessarily aggressive. The correct course for such disputes is to protect the article until there can be a resolution of the dispute. As I endorsed the revert of SA's redirect, I ask some other admin to do it. Personally, I think the need to deal with this here is not fit matter for jokes. DGG (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't ask for a block lightly. There were a couple of editors fixing the article, except it kept getting redirected and tagged. Do you feel that tagging the article for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic is not disruptive? And I never have argued the article has problems. I argue, like you did at AFD, that doesn't need deleting, real or virtual. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To add, the reason for the block wasn't the first redirect, which was ok under bold. It was the second one during the middle of his "convince me in 96 hours or else" timeframe. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Biz? What? I'm not reading this entire ordeal, but what's wrong with those those "more POV" edits from SA? I'm seeing the removal of non-NPOV, unverifiable statements. What's wrong with that and how is it relevant? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like upon SA's first edit to the article (the addition of the

01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. The question is pre AFD, the question is about post AFD actions. It appears obvious that being disruptive is ok for certain people that do it often enough to endear themselves to others for the simple fact of being disruptive and having a block page longer than the average talk page history. Stupid me, I assumed we all participated under the same expectations of conduct. Since this has provided such joy and joke value, although no reading value were it shows multiple redirects, I suppose I shouldn't expect more. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're asking for a block. I just stated my opinion that, while I don't approve of all of his methods, SA's intervention has sparked what appear to be improvements within the article. Thus, it's not purely disruptive and jumping for the block button is not, in my opinion, a wise choice when there remain dispute resolution avenues to be tried. Now that there are more eyes on the article, hopefully wider input will encourage further improvement efforts. — Scientizzle 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I realize we've resolved this issue, but I want to step in and say the best way to resolve an issue with someone who feels shortchanged in a dispute resolution area is not to say "you're asking for a block." It comes off as very schoolmarm/mother, and more importantly, that's not what blocks are for. Let's stop threatening users who get frustrated and continue to talk through issues without resorting to stupid threats. Everything good? Good. Mike H. Fierce! 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • For the record, "You're asking for a block" was only meant to reiterate Dennis Brown's thread-initiating request to block SA followed by my explanation of why I felt such a block was not necessary. It was not meant in some threatening way (such as "if you keep it up, you're asking for trouble"), but I now realize that it could have been misinterpreted in this way. I'll leave a note for Dennis (Mike, too) in case it was. — Scientizzle 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally or otherwise, someone was talking on the radio today about how reports of UFO incidents increase during periods of economic downturn or other stressful times for the nation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thats quite interesting, because people also turn to religion during such times, and also co-incidentally, I read recently that a survey found people more likely to believe in aliens than god--Jac16888 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall during the spring or so of 1974 that Harry Reasoner reported that a larger percentage of Americans believed in UFOs than believed in Richard Nixon. His comment: "I don't know what that says, but it says something." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the immortal words of Porky Pig, "Me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-MEN FROM MARS!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd just like to say that I agree with Dennis Brown - SA's edits are disruptive and he shows little interest in discussion or establishing consensus. I came across this recently on fractal cosmology, where SA removed large parts of the article while an AfD was in progress without having the courtesy to inform the AfD discussion that he had significantly changed the article. After the AfD was concluded as keep, and several editors, including myself, were attempting to improve the article, SA then performed a drive-by rollback to a 9-day old version. If the community is tired of seeing complaints about SA's behaviour here, then it should think about taking some effective action - although I admit I am not sure what that might be, as SA clearly feels the fault is always with those who disagree with him, and never with himself. As he says at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion) "I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such users on board". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the wrong venue for this. If you really feel something needs to be done, start a formal

WP:RFAR. However, I don't think that's going to go anywhere. Unless SA does something particularly egregious, he's not likely to have sanctions imposed by ArbCom. 68.156.149.62 (talk

) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SA has a tendency to approach every encounter on Wikipedia as a battle. He'll start by wiping a page and slapping every tag he can think of onto it. Sometimes he'll move into launching accusations and attempting to tar and feather people as 'fringe advocates' who hate science. As a recent thread over at

battleground approach. While he drums up constant wikidrama and gets credited for 'brilliant' work which actually amounts to attempting to wipe articles and drive-by tagging, others do the hard work of improving articles through old-fashioned reading and sourcing. Probably the best approach at this point is to do a Requests for Comment/User, cataloging the wikilawyering, petty edit-warring, and disrespect for other editors. I'll admit that he does some good work, but I don't think he's worth the headache. II | (t - c

) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

.

Since he's the author and original uploader of the image, this may influence his feelings of ownership of the image description page.

He's also edit warring about a new version of the file I've uploaded, where I blured an incidental advertisement that is visible on the image, making it 100% free.

Just for the record,

.

I have no reason to believe

13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe his primary objection is your uploading of a new version that substantially degrades the quality of the image as you did here. Any modification of his image should be uploaded under a new file name as a derivative of his image, otherwise improper attribution will exist. MBisanz ^talk 14:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with reverting the use of an {{information}} template (see my first 2 diffs)? What why you say my upload ubstantially degrades the quality of the image? Compare the original with my version (switch between firefox tabs) and you'll notice the only difference is the hiding of a copyrighted advertisement. --Damiens.rf 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you edited the image, and then uploaded it over the original. It should be uploaded as a derivative of the original, citing INTGAFW and citing your alterations of it. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But the point of my edit was exactly to replace the image used on Wikipedia, since his version contained a visible copyrighted advertisement, and mine was treated to have it blured (by the way, I didn't claimed authorship over my alterations because I don't think there's enough creative work involved).

And still, how does this would justify removing the {{information}} removal? --Damiens.rf 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is fixed now that the image is on Commons with a bot-placed info template. MBisanz ^talk 14:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It uses the {{information}} template with the incomplete information (e.g. bad description) from the image-description page version of JRG/INTGAFW edit war. I'll try to fix this, but one of his socks will revert it. But since that will happen on commons, nothing would be done here (not your problem). --Damiens.rf 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in the move to commons, my {{information}} template (with really useful information like a wikilinked Description parameter) was deleted (since it was edit-warred back to history). Can someone recover that? --Damiens.rf 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Query: Is there a rule against any copyrighted material or trademark appearing in the background of a photograph? If so, there are a lot of images which need "blurring"? Or is the fact it is in the background, and that blurring makes the image look really poor relevant? [45] etc. Collect (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

EnWiki has no rule on the concept known as Freedom of Panorama, as far as trademarks and other non-copyright legal holdings, the only thing we have is Wikipedia:Restricted materials. For such circumstances, the best I can suggest is Commons Freedom of Panorama page. MBisanz ^talk 15:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a "fair use" issue. To my understanding, showing an ad or billboard at low res in a picture of something else will usually constitute fair use. If the photo showed nothing except the billboard, that would be an infringement. Like many fair use issues, it comes down in the end to a question of judgement. In my judgement, there shouldn't be any problem with the original image, and in my aesthetic opinion, blurring the billboard would suck grievously. looie496 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The OP previously nominated the image for IFD(prior to it moved to commons) which resulted in a speedy keep in its current form. Damien.rf's edit of the image very much borders on disruption after he failed to get it deleted. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Damiens has a pretty long history of not getting it. He was recently blocked for a week for edit warring (against a former member of arbcom), and his reaction can be seen here. A walk through his contribs shows quite a bit of other incivility and disruption that somehow slipped under the radar (for example, deleting the entire content of a list of modern dictators with an edit summary asking why Ronald Reagan wasn't included, and then responding to a revert by re-deleting it with an edit summary saying that the revert was unexplained.) looie496 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I got an e-mail from

16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Clarification please: Is this the same old account of NWA.Rep, one that he relinquished and somebody now found his password and highjacked the account, or did NWA.Rep have the account renamed and somebody then later re-created a new account under that name? There are edits in its contribution history from 2006 which seem to have been the genuine Hustla, which would point to the first possibility, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If an account gets renamed, the old name can be registered by anyone, so it's technically possible to harass someone on that way. That's a known issue (has someone filed a bug report at bugzilla?) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This threw me off: There are old edits in the history of Bonafide.hustla, from 2006, looking like genuine Hustla edits. If the account was renamed and later recreated, the fact that these old edits are still registered to it must be because of a glitch in the logs: the page was deleted at the time of the rename and was later restored, leaving the old edits behind as registered to the old account name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the old times, deleted edits were not re-attributed when a user got renamed. This has now changed, but that rename was a long time ago. Kusma (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To Enric: we should certainly advise users that if they get their accounts renamed, they should immediately re-create their old account as a doppelgänger to block it against abuse. This shouldn't be done automatically by the software though, because I suppose it would make the process of usurpation impossible, where the whole point of a renaming is to free the old name up for re-creation by someone else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagging auto-creation of abandoned user names would work well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. This happened to me too under both my previous names. Sticky Parkin 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't even aware of that technical possibility. But back to the original topic, to put Bish's mind to rest, I don't suppose this looks as if we'd blame it on NWA, agreed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That's what I mean, it could happen to anyone who didn't realise it was possible/likely so didn't bagsy their old account. Sticky Parkin 18:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that NWA does that I disagree with, but this doesn't seem to be his style. I have tweaked the blocks so there is now a message in the log that shows that the 2006 and 2008 blocks are unrelated. Kusma (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) It will be Johnny the vandal (I think) check Krimpet's recent blocks) Viridae^Talk 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It was considered a gr*wp-a-like, see the similar contribs made using my old name [46] Sticky Parkin 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did someone try to rename Bonafide to see if this wannabe has an SUL? If he does, this isn't Johnny the vandal; this is more likely JA/G, who is known to abuse the SUL system to impersonate others (I fell victim to it last month). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Diff here: [47]

"moron"? "delusional"? "bozo"?

"Indian"??

Similar incivility here [48], here [49], and here [50], repeatedly calling me "Indian" or telling me to "get a life".

Not only is there no evidence that he's going to work for consensus, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's attacking me, and is a racist. Sorry, but I really don't think I should have to put up with this, no matter where it's posted. As I indicated previously, the page protection has done NOTHING to entice Mercenary2k to come to the table, and I think nothing will. Regardless, this is pretty unaccaptable.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These edits are obviously

personal attacks. This user should recant and agree not to do this again or else be blocked IMO. Oren0 (talk

)

I had asked Mercenary2k to participate in the discussion regarding his edit dispute with CSHunt68. However, from his bitter reply to that request, it does seem Mercenary2k is not willing to discuss this amicably :(. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the edit war at Inter-Services Intelligence, I would suggest that the two editors pursue 3O and other dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further, I see Mercenary has been making personal attacks before and some ownership issues. I am going to keep watch. Ragib, I think you can remove the protection if you can get both editors to agree to go to the talk page first before being massively bold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already posted at 3O, and am continuing to pursue good faith DR of this article. But, that post was beyond the pale. And, needless to say, it's not okay for Mercenary to say that he's now going to make some edits _without discussing things on the talk page_. To me, that would be more of the same - demonstrating lack of desire for consensus, and WP:OWN. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for _some small level_ of good faith - a strikeout of the offending comments, or an apology AT THE VERY LEAST. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He received a civility warning from BWilkins on November 14th, which was promptly deleted (along with every other comment made about the article on his talk page - mostly by me) by Merc. These defamatory comments have now been up for 24 hours. Any chance of anything happening about this? As indicated, I continue to pursue good faith DR (having just posted regarding a source on Reliable sources/Noticeboard), but I shouldn't have to put up with these personal attacks, should I?CSHunt68 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a final warning to Mercenary. It remains obvious that 3O and additional DR need to be worked on. However, I read complete exasperation on the side of CSHunt68, and Ragib is just trying to come in and prevent overall damage. I am not removing offending statements from any of the locations, even though I would consider many to be outright racist ("an Indian in disguise" is used in a way to say that it's "offensive" to be Indian). I would actually hope someone with a button takes further action.

►BMW◄

23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Mercenary2k has now had time to DELETE ALL COMMENTARY related to these incidents from his talk page, including all warnings. And yet, the talk page of the article in question, and all other talk pages, remain unchanged - despite third parties becoming involved. As well, the blunt, racist, personal attacks remain in place, unretracted. Colour me disappointed. Not surprised, mind you, but disappointed. And, yes - UTTERLY exasperated.CSHunt68 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If Mercenary wants to blank his talk page, it's on him. I think we should archive the article talk page and remove the protection, to get moving forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe moving forward is appropriate if Mercenary2k won't strike his previous personal attacks. I think you guys are being too light in tolerating this kind of behavior. Oren0 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actively seeking consensus for changes to the article as it exists - creating and participating in discussion on the article talk page, asking for outside opinion on WP:3O, asking for outside opinion on WP:RS/N. Mercenary2k has indicated that he is NOT going to do this - either on my talk page threatening flat reverts of any changes I make, or on User:Ragib's talk page saying he'll just add a bunch of citations and be done. So, while I remain willing to move forward, it is very clear that Merc is not. Until those comments are stricken, a recant is issued, and he joins the discussion on the article talk page, I cannot assume good faith on his part. How could I?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(UI) So ... nothing.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I create a user RfC? I'm honestly at a loss here as to how to proceed. An editor has now come forward on the discussion page, at my request, to provide third opinion. I doubt Mercenary is going to join the discussion, and with his unretracted personal attack still up, I'd rather he stayed away. However, his last comments indicated that he intended to undo whatever I did (with or without consensus) and make edits as he saw fit. What is the proper course of action here? When there was an edit war going on, admins were quick to intervene. Now that there is clear evidence of ridiculous personal attack - nothing? Advice, please?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? CSHunt, if nobody is going to address the racism and incivility who actually has the tools to do so, then perhaps you have to take the next step.

►BMW◄

23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that might entail that wouldn't get ME blocked or banned. :(CSHunt68 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it's RfC / User time. More ridiculous commentary from Mercenary - this time, on the article talk page, so I guess that's progress. :-/ ... CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddy is back. Having made this series of tasteful contributions [51] during his recent absence, he is now requesting to be blocked [52]. I'd say he should have his wishes fulfilled tout de suite. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wish granted.

Tan | 39

23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia really can make your dreams come true? Tan, are you

of magical powers?? <Swoon> AlasdairGreen27 (talk

) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Freddy is also User:Idiotsonwackipedia, to which account he has now turned. See [53]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddy's talk page needs to be protected, I think. looie496 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now

neuro^(talk)

04:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Dear WP admins,

i bring to your attention a seriously disruptive editor. Once i warned about a "contributor" called PARARUBBAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas), whom operated almost exclusively on PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL and/or FOOTBALLERS, and his modus operandi consisted of gluing sentences into one, removing brackets, links and references. Thank god i got some users to help him get blocked.

Now, i bring to you another user which i believe is the same, as PARARUBBAS is blocked and has not edited in 4 months. With the account name PEP10 (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), the M.O. is the same: Almost exclusively PORT.FOOTBALL, refs, links all gone just because and, like PARARUBBAS he does not write one single edit summary and does not respond to messages, although (over)duly warned.

Sincerely yours, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs would really be helpful here. I think what's going on here is an accusation of sockpuppetry? Seems odd considering the first user,

linking to appropriate articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hi there MENDALIV, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

regarding your input to my report on a disruptive editor (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents), you seem to not understand what i am conveying. PEP10 (which may not me previous user PARARUBBAS, i only said it should be because his modus operandi is the same, and i also did not mean PARARUBBAS was permanently blocked, i only referred he had been in the past for continuous edits of the sort) is a disruptive editor and adds nothing to the site.

You said you had a random look at his edits and saw nothing particularly disruptive. Well, his "correcting of typos" consist in writing in appalling English (not an accusation or a judgment, a statement based on what i see) and gluing all sentences leaving just 1 paragraph. Much much much worse, his "linking to appropriate articles" may also include removal of references and external links that pertain duly in articles, and that is a striking pattern in both user PARARUBBAS and PEP10. Of this latter user, i'll give you an example: see what he did in RICARDO OLIVEIRA's article in 3 edits at about 16h00 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Oliveira&action=history), right before i "entered the pitch". If that's not vandalism...

Anyways, i did what i thought was appropriate and reported, if the people responsible don't think a block is justified, no problems by me. By the way, here his PEP10's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#November_2008), where he also has received warnings about removal of content.

Regards, keep up the good work"

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.67.28 (talk)

I have no idea what you are going for here, but I find the fact that you take issue with his English quite ironic... --Smashville^talk 04:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe an editor is making bad edits, it would help to provide specific diffs showing the exact bad edits he made. That way, we can look at whatever the specific problem is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this. I'm not requesting help, this is more of a heads up and I suppose it could be good for admins to know this. After reverting another SPA accounts addition of GR reviews to various articles, I realized it wasn't the first time I've seen this kind of account. I'd have to dig and dig to try and find earlier diffs because I think the last time this happened was about 2 or 3 months ago (but the memory is a little fuzzy). Latest user is here [54]. I occasionally see it pop up on my watch list as I often watch list one or two new and popular video games. I'll see a GR review link added and check the red link user who added it and find they've joined simply to add GR reviews to multiple articles and not make any other contributions. Obviously just here to promote GR. I usually revert them, but I'm sure I've missed plenty if they never landed on an article I've watch listed. I highly doubt that so many random fans of GR are just creating accounts to drop their reviews on a handful of articles and then do nothing else so its probably someone with a relationship to GR doing it. Not really much for the COI board as this account will likely never edit again.--

) 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to AN -- not really an incident here. looie496 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if it'd be worth taking the time to try and find the old incidents of this and if I can find them consider blacklisting the site (I'm sure this is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen it happen).--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw

Following

, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04
  User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth[56]
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[57]

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling[58]
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI[59][60][61]
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[62]
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion[63]
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move[64]
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth[65]
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[66]
• 04:48
  Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?[67]
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL[68]

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this

Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c

15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring

Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk

) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-If I were an impartial editor or admin reading this situation for the very first time, you'd wonder if Una Smith or Montanabw were at fault. I'm not impartial, because I've either interacted with her or watched others do the same, and in general, it isn't positive. I spend most of my time in medical articles. During editing of articles, one runs into either editors who are knowledgeable or those who are not. The problem with Una Smith is that she is not very knowledgeable about medical articles, but pretends to be, and then is very disruptive about it. Most of my knowledge of it is around
  Herpes zoster. Here and here are discussions about the article. Una Smith tends to be very tendentious in making points about the definition of the word "shingles", "zoster", and "herepes zoster", a point that had be agreed to long ago. And this type of edit just exhibits a lack of knowledge of editing medical articles (both in accuracy and in quality) that is just frustrating. I'll add to this later. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}
  17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the problems are apparently not confined to the Equine Project, as the Medicine Project has also seen some unusual editing and input from Una Smith. The issues Una Smith brought to the Herpes zoster article frustrated several other knowledgeable participants and derailed the FAC, leaving several editors expressing confusion on the talk page about the issues she was raising. I've seen other similar incidents, to the point that I have become reluctant to request help from the Medicine Project on articles, out of concern that Una Smith will get involved, having seen her cause deterioration to articles like Herpes zoster and
  WP:MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections, and left the article in that state. Yet strangely (in that WP:MED discussion), she claimed not to even see the issues when she later returned to editing. This incident was so bizarre that it discouraged me from collaborating on the Medicine Project to clean up articles and I'm more cautious now about asking for input from the Medicine Project. There were other similar issues. I've also noted that she doesn't have a strong sense of collaboration (see the interaction with Montanabw, for example). I suggest a mentor might be more useful than an RfC, as the basic issues have already been reviewed and I don't think an RfC would produce anything different. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Late addition, because I had completely forgotten this incident. Una Smith also derailed a DYK nomination for Retrospective diagnosis with original research that left others scratching their heads. The folks at DYK had little choice but to reject the nomination after Una Smith presented complaints about the hook, based on idiosyncratic original research (the DYK had been submitted by Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), a knowledgeable medical editor). The DYK discussion was moved to Talk:Retrospective diagnosis#Removed from T:TDYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These same 2 names came up in an unfounded WQA report a couple of months ago. I'll try and find it to provide some background.

►BMW◄

16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For your reading enjoyment, here is a link to the WQA

►BMW◄

17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite everyone telling Una at the WQA that the problem was not on Montanabw's side, she felt that the response there was telling her to take it to a RfC against Montanabw. See [69]. I was asked to provide a few examples of Una's behavior, which, although difficult because it streches over so many pages and often has discussions in multiple areas, I will try to do. First, her quick-failing of the GAN of Horse (which can be found at Talk:Horse/GA1, when she knew that Montanabw was a major editor (and this occured after the WQA). This was apparently a bad-faith fail, because the article was fairly easily passed by a reviewer who is known as fairly difficult to please. Una then argued that because she and Montanabw weren't "allies", there was no reason that she should not review the article, see here. For this action, she was roundly rebuked by involved and noninvolved editors alike, which can be seen on the Horse talk page and her talk page, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#GA review of Horse, where she apparently went to try to get some support for her side of the story. Another fine example is one that she conveniently just created for me - accusing me of biting a newcomer in the subsection right below here this one. I'm assuming she's trying to show a pattern of collaboration between Montanabw and I, and I will admit, there is one. It is a pattern of collaboration that has improved many articles, led to several GAs and one FA, welcomed and attempted to help and communicate with several new editors, and in general done what I hope is a service to WP as a whole. If Montanabw and I have a difference of opinion, we work it out on the talk page of the article, and have so far always managed to come to an agreement. That is the difference between my relationship with Montanabw and the relationship between Montanabw and Una - I am willing to discuss things at length and take criticism, while Una apparently cannot (or sometimes appears to not even read it). I hope this helps everyone to see a broader picture, as that is my intent. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer

) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 June 13

• 23:02 User talk:Dana boomer#Ahem...[70]
• 23:10 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[71]
• 23:32 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution[72]

• 2008 June 14

• (Dana boomer) 00:17 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Proposed deletion of Kool Little Leo[73]
• (Dana boomer) 00:28 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome![74]
• (Dana boomer) 00:37 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[75]
• 01:01 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)[76]

• 2008 June 19

• 13:01 page deleted

Are any of those diff's supposed to show a problem? If so, um ... they don't.

►BMW◄

17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith, how on earth do you get "bite" out of that exchange? I'm mystified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those, I mean not one, indicates that Dana boomer or Montanabw have exhibited bad faith towards anyone. However, the use of these diffs in trying to make a case indicates that Una Smith lacks good faith (in addition to her other faults). This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is from June. Strikes me as vexatious litigation to be bringing it up now, given that the WQA was more recent and it could have been brought up there. All this does, in my view, is make the case that Una is not acting reasonably. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, and I don't have much time to spoare, but I got a mail from Una about this AN/I, and I really feel the need to step in on her side. I have noticed what could well be undue irritation from her side, but Montana is not nearly as unproblematic as she's made out to be. There are also issues of Montana's acting as a constant gatekeeper for just about any horse-related article. I've been confronted with this personally without having long-standing disputes with her. I'm hesitant about getting detailed by posting diffs here, though, since it's not an RfC. I'm awaiting further comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs to share that highlight an issue with Montanabw, you should feel free to do so. We are none of us perfect, and Montanabw is surely no exception. But Una is here asking that Montanabw be blocked (presumably indefinitely), not just counseled not to show

ownership. That is a very serious request, and is not to be undertaken lightly. Since Montanabw is a long time contributor with no previous block history, AN/I is probably not the right venue for a resolution, but since we're here, it's appropriate to note that Una (while certainly making some valuable contributions) has a history of antagonistic relations with Montanabw, and with others. With other members of the equine project, and members of other projects, pointing out that there are serious issues with Una, there clearly is an issue here with Una. That's not going to be resolved here at AN/I either though. I'm thinking that an RfC on Una is the appropriate next step. If Una (or others) think an RfC on Montanabw is also appropriate, that's for Una (or them) to put forward. I don't see it, but I may not be unanimous in not seeing it. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c

15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block request, but like I said, I'm not happy about Montana being presented as a virtually flawless contributor by herself and her co-editors. Ideally no RfC should be filed at all and both users should try to scrutinize their behavior closer. Much of the problem is that Montana is allowed to boss people around, even other high-level contributors, simply because she's so darned active. I've had a few interactions with her, and I've found them all rather troublesome.

• medieval horses and got this testy reply.[77]
• mare: Despite being argued against very convincingly by myself and other editors, Montana was more or less unilaterally deciding what was relevant or not in the etymology section. Everyone who disagreed were put on hold until she personally felt she was convinced. I still think that the etymology is one part relevant material and one part dictionary trivia, but I simply ran gave up because of Montana's zeal. This reply[78] in particular is what put me off since it appeared as though Montana's voice was more relevant than that of other editors.
• horses in warfare: I had a crack at helping out in the PR and tried to argue for what I believed was somewhat irrelevant sources and a somewhat Eurocentric tilt to the article. There was disagreement, but I tried to focus on details rather than mere policy interpretations. Montana asked me to summarize my position[79], and in the next reply I was told to take it elsewhere[80], even though other main contributors were partially agreeing. The discussion continued on the article talkpage, and again another editor agrees, but Montana defines the whole thing as irrelevant.[81]
• I was also auto-reverted on mere technicalities with the motivation "This was Ealdgyth's work, she has multiple FAs, please leave it alone, take this to talk."[82] When I complained, I only got this non sequitur as a final reply.[83]

The problem as I see it is that Montana is too keen on putting edits on hold for tedious consensus discussions whether they are actually controversial or not. She also acts like a kind of proxy guardian for the work of her colleagues, and appears to insinuate that only the original contributors are really qualified to change her/his work (see the reply to Gwinva at the bottom).[84] Whether or not her co-editors actually sympathize with this, I don't know, but the end result is nevertheless her guarding horse articles quite jealously. I think part of the solution might for members of WP:EQUINE to look a bit more critically on how she handles contributions and criticism that comes outside of her own clique.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I grant that the bit I posted about Montanabw and Dana boomer above is old, and in that respect not relevant to this AN/I, which concerns Montanabw's current wikihounding of me. I think Montanabw's behavior toward me reflects the gatekeeping (ownership) that Peter Isotalo mentions. But the proper venue for that would be an RFC/U on Montanabw, correct? Or is AN/I a free-for-all, as Montanabw's supporters here seem to think?

Montanabw's wikihounding of me goes back farther than I showed above. Below are just two other instances, from earlier this month.

• 2008 November 10 23:26 User talk:SandyGeorgia#Two to watchlist, just in case[85]
• 2008 November 16 02:23 User talk:Cgoodwin#Draw reins and running reins[86], edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we?

--Una Smith (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(I refactored the examples to indent, and to go above your signature, for improved readability... the "::" construct can indent bullet points nicely) I'm not the supporter or enemy of anyone. What I support is harmonious, collegial, collaborative, constructive editing, and I'm happy to support activities by anyone along those lines. AN/I is not a free-for-all but it is a venue in which the complainant may well be subject to scrutiny themselves. This is true of every venue, not just AN/I. You have a history of complaining about Montanabw which is, in my view, not supported by the facts. That's worrisome, and suggests that you are deserving of more scrutiny. When I did so the last time you complained, I found a pattern of difficult behaviour in your interactions with others, not just Montanabw. It's not out and out blockably bad, but it is concerning, and I'd like you to seriously consider the repeated feedback you've been given by many folk that the problems in your interactions with others do not lie entirely with others, but in part are your own doing. That said, I think you're unnecessarily polarising this into supporters and enemies. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about how long a block should be. I would not presume. My concern here was and is to prevent more disruptive edits such as Montanabw made on November 23rd. I figured that if the AN/I notice did not stop them, an admin might apply an immediate block. I agree with Lar that my prior behavior in response to Montanabw's remarks and other behavior that offend me sometimes was less than ideal. I think I am doing better now, although it is difficult in the face of such as Montanabw's edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we? --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so a block NOW for behavior a while back is not warranted, unless there is reason to believe the behavior is endemic and is going to continue and is manifestly disruptice. Tell you what, Una... find an admin or other impartial party, and if you see behavior that concerns you again, ask them to evaluate it and if they agree, caution or counsel Montanabw (or whoever). I'll do so if you like, in fact, although I'm not sure you consider me impartial. That might be a better approach than coming to AN/I. If you're trying to turn over a new leaf with regard to yourself that's also a good thing... if it's for real you can expect my support. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The block I requested concerns Montanabw's behavior yesterday; it certainly has seemed endemic to me, and whether it has now stopped remains to be seen. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly if anyone needs a block here it seems to be Una. I hadn't realized how widespread Una's disruption was until I saw this thread. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit editing horse articles because of the contention between Una and Montanabw. If this should go to RfC on either of them, I'll have more to say.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from Montanabw

Montanabw finally weighing in. The other people who have posted have said far more than I can at this point, and have done so far more eloquently. Thank you. The issues between Una and myself have been longstanding, and quite frankly, I firmly believe that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia; this is her second formal attempt (the first was the WQA Lar refers to above). However, to the immediate incident, WikiProject Equine has been having some ongoing problems with Una that are very similar to the problems she appears to be causing at WIkiProject Medicine, namely, derailing articles on their way to GA or FA status, promotion of unusual theories with much

WP:V would resolve these questions. However, Uns often does not provide sources for her edits when requested, or uses them out of context. (example

).

As of late, Una has been trying to do some sort of reorganization of some of the horse equipment articles without collaboration with other members of WPEQ. She has created stubs, red links, two templates that are not spported by the project, and has responded to comment from others besides just myself with an unwillingness to change her positions or collaborate. In this process, I noticed that the problem with the horse articles were starting to bleed over into the dog articles and the articles on Weymouth and so alerted some of those editors as well as an admin, Lar, who, unsolicited, had weighed in at the WQA and had been instrumental in resolving this issue.

I have been trying very hard for the last few months to not respond with anger toward Una and pretend that Una she is just another editor and to try and deal with each issue on its own without dragging up the past. So, to stay in the present, within just the last week or so, I have had to deal with the following: [87], [88], [89], [90]. I will defer to those with admin credentials as to how they wish to deal with Una. From my end, I wish that she would simply collaborate in places where she knows other editors are active, avoid inserting offbeat theories and OR, cease engaging in tenditious editing, and ask questions on talk pages rather than engaging in editing disputes that just make a lot of work for everyone else. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, except for some occasional instances where you need to think about

WP:OWN

, there appears to be very little concern overall for your contributions and actions noted above. I would be careful about reverting any of Una's edits, but try as much as you can to incorporate them with appropriate modifications, if possible. Ensure that your posts on various talk and user talkpages don't have any hints of sarcasm. You are dealing with an editor who has a high degree of sensitivity - that doesn't mean kid gloves, but it means think twice before hitting "submit". Build consensus overall.

Una, you appear to take constructive criticism a little too strongly. If consensus is that your edits do not positively add to the article, then there may be a reason, and it's not simply because it was your edit. Many of your "complaints" were the same you brought up in WQA. They were not found to be overall valid. Even though this is a few months later, it's almost considered to be "forum-shopping" to re-use those same arguments. Many of your edits are fine, but sometimes they are not - that happens to all of us. Work together - again, build consensus.

I'm not trying to sound patronizing to anyone here, just after a WQA and now this ANI, I'm really trying to get people to work together ...

►BMW◄

00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts BMW, and I acknowledge the balance of your comments. I will attempt to watch the sarcasm, I admit it is a flaw of mine, along with impatience. I have actually tried desperately to sort through many of Una's edits to keep what material she adds that is useful and remove the inappropriate material. See for example the recent edit history of Pelham bit. But, sometimes it is extremely difficult to collaborate when everything I try to do is perceived as an attack and I am told to go away from wikipedia altogether. I have repeatedly attempted to negotiate a truce or discuss collaboration and compromise in recent months, to no avail. (In addition to above paragraphs, see also example, example) She now has requested that I do not even post a message on her talk page. So, in short, I would be delighted to see if there is some way to end this constant barrage of attacks on me and engage in direct peace talks, but it takes two to negotiate. I think this is now my fourth request, in good faith, to ask Una to discuss matters directly with me instead of through indirect means. If someone wants to help as a neutral third party mediator/negotiator, I'd be OK with that, too, in fact, I'd prefer it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Small aside to Peter's new comments. Peter's not a bad egg; I believe he and I mostly just are two rather stubborn people who tend to dig in when we interact with one another, probably as much due to mutual tone than anything. His examples must be viewed in full context of each discussion, and also considered in light of this particular user's general pattern of interaction on other articles where I am not involved.(example). I can provide a point by point explanation/rebuttal if requested, but I hope the full context of the discussions noted speak for themselves. BMW, what is the next step here? Do you weigh in?Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to dig up dirt on me, I'd like to hear why you so obviously went against several other editors over at mare and then called your decision consensus. No one agreed to your conclusions and your argumentation was entirely based on your own opinions. I would also like to hear why you consider yourself entitled to be so uncivil to me at talk:horses in warfare#Length/bias of the Europe section. I don't keep tellign you that you're not serious and the likes. And since you appear to have turned around completely[91][92] concerning my suggestion on mounted archery, despite arguing fiercly against it, I get the feeling that you're arguing against me as a person, not my suggestions and criticisms.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First Peter, I apologize if my growing frustration and impatience at arguing the same points with you over and over and over came across to you as uncivil. But second, please do not distort or misstate my positions here: I did not argue against the archery material in HIW, Peter. I acknowledged it. See here. My exact reply to you on the issue was: " While I agree that if archery can be explained further, that would be nice, but If you have any recommendations, it would be much appreciated--we lack adequate source material." In the time since you mentioned it, as you were so gracious to demonstrate above, I responded to the critique, recalled some of the institutional history of the article,(here) found some material, and added it. If the admins want to review the issue at the mare article, which was 11 months ago, they can read the entire discussion after the diff you providedin it's complete form here, where my last comment to you was "Anyway, I was OK with your last set of edits, so if things are settled for now, I'll call it a day." which I think means I agreed with some of your work. I believe a compromise was reached, removing some linguistic OR material the other editors wanted out, but keeping some other definitions. The issue was further refined by other editors later, and the etymology section of the mare article has now been, er, "stable" (pardon the horse pun) for months. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to summarize and move forward

From the above, I see absolutely no consensus to block Montanabw - in fact quite the opposite. Yes, they can be a bit tendentious, and can also resort to sarcasm. This, and some

WP:OWN

concepts need to be looked at, but overall a competent editor who takes the lead (not always a good thing).

Una is another matter. Multiple editors on a wide range of articles have had concerns with her behaviour. Over the last few months, when feeling especially downtrodden, they have resorted to WQA and now an ANI filing. This is not how we deal with complaints about your own bad edits - in in fact seems to be drawing more attention to the quality of their edits overall. Valid WQA and ANI (and even RFC) reports are important tools in Wikipedia, and they should be reserved for cases when they're required. Perhaps some mentoring would be due for Una - I think it would help them to understand the project overall, and the "rules and how to apply them".

As far as puns go, I believe that we have not put the cart before the horse on this one,nor are we dangling any carrots. I could go on until I was long in the tooth, but that's Montanabw's fault now :-)

If someone is willing to mentor Una, I think it would help them to become a great editor - they obviously have passion for a number of subjects, and for Wikipedia as a whole. If not, then I expect we'll see another ANI or RFC by them very soon, and the results will be a complete reversal of what they want.

Additional comments about closure and mentoring welcome.

►BMW◄

23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BMW, and I will give thoughtful and sincere consideration to your assessment. (um, yeah, in real life too, gotta work on that) Is there anything further needed from me? I make no recommendations as to Una, other than a simple plea that she work cooperatively with me instead of filing these attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW that seems a pretty good summary of where we stand. By request, I was just about to pop over here and write something similar. I see no need for blocks of anyone at this time, and suggest we close this. If folk really want to, the

WP:RFC mechanism is available, but I'd rather see everyone work things out informally, via each other's talk pages. Una, while I don't have time to take on a mentoree for an indefinite period, my offer to review situations for you stands and also I am happy to offer advice if asked. (and I'll point out that the advice I give when asked is likely to be a little more friendly than the advice I give when I see matters have already come to a head and there is corrective action that needs taking) Move to close and archive with no other action taken. ++Lar: t/c

00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the ownership issues are quite serious enough to require a full-blown RfC, but they should be resolved properly. Otherwise I think there's a good chance Montana will eventually get into similar conflicts with other editors. I'd like to continue the discussion I initiated here over at Montana's talkpage. Is anyone willing to participate as an impartial observer and/or mediator?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If my somewhat dilatory attention would be helpful, I certainly would. Assuming I'm viewed as sufficiently impartial. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds okay with me. BMW, yould you also be interested in looking at the exchange? My suggestion is that we move relevant posts with diffs over to Montana's talkpage and continue there. I just want to make sure that Montana is with us on this course of action.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurokiwi

I wonder could a friendly admin ask this user to start using sources and stop using personal info and opinion on main pages. I have tried as others have and he has not responded. the user has created sevral pages and has redirected several. here are all his contributions [93] If he keeps going it will take a lot of work to correct all his editsOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

if he's adding inappropriate content or nonsense report him to AIV if warnings fail.--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A wrap on my knuckles, I have amended and updated some of my posts, and referenced a bit more, what I post are not my Opinions, at least not consciously so, perhaps my phraseology is somewhat indefinite, will endeavor to be more so Eurokiwi (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has indicated that he/she will be careful in the future. The "referenced a bit more" is a bit weak as his edits tend to be on BLP pages and re current affairs. Thanks for the help. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

However adding unsourced refs to

IRSP. INLA is a paramilitary movemnet in Ireland whether the info is true or not I think the User is crossing the line still. see[94]. Suggested action? Opiumjones 23 (talk

) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gaiaguerrilla

Incivility/personal attacks, see contributions. Clark89 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

threat of violence, sort of

Resolved

 – IP hardblocked for six months. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this edit by Special:Contributions/209.146.31.20 (made a few hours ago). It implies a threat of violence (though a vague, generalized one). Is there someone who could find out enough about where it's coming from to make a meaningful report to authorities? -- Why Not A Duck 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if a report needs to be made, after all "everyone" would mean every country, etc. needing to be contacted. In this case,

talk

) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on this it's from school. I would be thinking blocking anonymous edits, and advising the school of what their little kiddies are doing might be a good idea.

►BMW◄

23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

After this IP's next block, I think they'd be eligible for

an abuse report. Going by the standards over there, generally 5 blocks are necessary to report a single IP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I schoolblocked it for 6 months, and disabled account creation from it as well. There is no history of useful edits from that address, and a long string of vandalism. Let the school ask for access; perhaps they will police their children a bit better afterwards. Horologium (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this is just stupid vandalism. Reporting it to the FBI and having them have a little chit-chat with the punk who wrote the hoax threat would likely prevent any further ones. Making such a threat is a felony, afterall. Bstone (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And that, is why I think more credible threats should be reported, because even though it will most likely be a joke, you still get to imagine the reaction of some dumb kid when two big guys in suits show up to interrogate them--Jac16888 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, mercenary zero tolerance policies really work, and overreacting in the name of "scaring people straight" is as psychologically healthy as it gets. Badger Drink (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the closest

WP:TOV afterall , or atleast notify the Foundation on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs

) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be the Newark field office, as the IP geolocates to Burlington, New Jersey. For future reference, this page will help you find field offices, provided you know the state where the IP originates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The user rio de oro made a IP abuse report on the matter already on the 27 Nov 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.199.124 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Friendly compromised?

Resolved

 – User edited a template used by Friendly accidentally breaking it. Template has been fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Having just provided a welcome/warning (first edit appears to be vandalised) - I note that when I used Friendly it signed my name incorrectly and pointed to the Artichoke page - see these two diffs. Does anyone else have this problem?--VS ^talk 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually the user Artichoker. Go figure. Synergy 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Artichoker, in trying to subst the template, mistakenly broke it, but User:Bidgee fixed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Gwen? --VS ^talk 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon

Resolved

 – Blocks were appropriate, user not banned, no admin action needed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel I was wrongly banned what do, I need to do to get it removed from my record? Fru23 (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hack into the database. looie496 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It can't be removed but you can get an admin to annotate it (write something else in the log) saying the past block was wrong. But in reality that's very rare. Sticky Parkin 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You violated 3RR and another admin upheld it. It was the second block for edit warring on the same issue. Looking at your contributions from the last day, it looks like you still haven't gotten the point. The fact that you've been blocked twice and have only been here for two weeks speaks volumes. --Smashville^talk 03:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he could also study the difference between a block and a ban. They are not the same thing. He was blocked (temporarily), not banned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I only see a block, not a ban. Personally, I'd dismiss this, the block was clearly warranted. —

neuro^(talk)

05:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice

Resolved

 – User has been blocked, and is fully warned that further disruption will not be entertained

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You who browse through the AN/I pages may remember my last two(or was it one) report on this user. Following the discussion, he was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I knew he wouldn't really notice the block, as he does not edit frequently. He has not taken the block to heart, and if you review, he just reverted all of my and Grz11 reversions of his personal attacks on the talk pages of IPs, with the edit summery of reverting vandalism. This user does obviously not get it, and should be blocked, in my opinion, indefinitely for disruption.—

Improve

10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you did not assume good faith just now. That's one of the rules, right? You said I didn't notice the block, but I did. So, not only did you assume bad faith, but you assumed erroneous facts. You report on this board every single time I try to edit. I've been here for maybe a month, and you report me all the time. You have made false statements about my editing, and you reverted my talk page comments, which is vandalism. In fact, you engaged in so many acts of vandalism that you should be blocked. Now, I can't even work on an article because I'm having to deal with ANI reports, deal with you reverting my edits, and deal with you putting deletion tags on the article while I'm working on it. Good grief. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done assuming good faith with you. You removed our message to your talk page calling them attacks, when they were no such thing. In my earlier reports, I provided evidence of your actions. So far you have provided no accounts of the vandalism I supposedly committed. I suspect, given your actions here, that you're trying to make some kind of

Improve

10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the reverts you just made. Those are all vandalism. Removing my comments from talk pages is vandalism. Not assuming good faith, egregiously and admittedly, on your part here is enough to warrant a block. You're running around to administrator talk pages asking for me to be blocked, reporting me here numerous times, trying to delete my pages, blanking my talk comments -- isn't there some rule against harassing, wiki-stalking, forum shopping, or something? Just let it go. Why are the same two or three people attacking me every time I try to edit? What have I done wrong? Is this how Wikipedia works? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you really should read up on personal attacks. When I removed your comments to the user talk pages for IPs, that is not classified as vandalism. Users are allowed to remove personal attacks directed at editors, and the way you warned those IPs is classified as a personal attack. There is a reason that warning messages are templated. From your recent edit to my talk page, I can see that you already know about templates, but refuse to use them, as indicated by your most recent attacks on the talk pages of IPs.

Removing personal attacks is not vandalism, and lastly, do not use mis-leading edit summaries.—

Improve

10:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)JoJ, this is frustrating for you because you don't seem to want to actually learn our policies around here. You were blocked earlier for your reverts, and Daedalus and Grz spent their time trying to change your uncivil edits to IP talk pages while you were blocked. You returned and immediately reverted all of their work, calling it vandalism and basically saying that even though you were blocked for those reversions and comments, that you were right in your actions. I left a message on your talk page which you quickly deleted, so it doesn't seem like you want to discuss things. You don't engage in talk page discussions, and you just templated a regular because you didn't like his reversion of the edits which got you blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting but I believe that this was vandalism, and this was vandal reversion. Just because Jayhawk uses nonstandard vandal warnings like this doesn't mean that his vandal fighting is vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First, again, I must ask that only the truth be involved in this discussion. I do engage in discussions, so there is no reason to make that kind of false statement. Secondly, I am learning the rules quite well. I am creating articles, reverting vandalism, and warning users. In turn, I find well-established users actually aligned with the vandals -- removing warnings from their pages. If you really cared about the vandalism, why not replace my comments with a template or a warning of your own? It seems to me that you're much more interested in harassing me than stopping their vandalism. And, yes, that last statement failed to assume good faith, but I don't know why I should be handicapped by the rule if apparently no one else in this discussion is going to be. I seriously have no idea what I have done wrong. In fact, my edits since returning have been even better than my previous edits. I've also pointed out where other people engaged in vandalism and reverted it. Why don't you guys go have a happy Thanksgiving and get off my back? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit also.[95] What purpose did that edit serve? Really? It didn't add to the conversation in any substantial way. All that comment did was served to try to inflame an already messed up situation. If anything is a personal attack, that is a personal attack. It's not only an attack on me, but it implies a falsehood. It implies I have not edited constructively, when I have. I have been trying to create articles and revert vandalism since I got here, and I have been met with hostility. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@WereSpiel: It's not the vandalism reversion that is the vandalism, and to be specific, we're talking about this users' interactions with other users. It's that JoJ is personally attacking the vandals on the their respective talk pages. Do not forget,

WP:CIVIL

is a policy, a policy that this user has continuously broken, and a policy that they continue to break.

@JoJ:So far, as a review of your account, and I shall provide diffs if asked, you have issued ultimatums to several people who have disagreed with your behavior, myself included, telling us to resign. You're barely been here a month, and you're telling us to quit because you disagree with us? Not to mention that edit you left on Jimbo's talk page, telling him that his time as a Wikipedia admin or whatever his job here exactly is, is running out, and he should just step down. You've been nothing but rude since you got here, and when an admin warns you against personal attacks, you go ahead and make one anyway on the second thread about you that's been on this board. You're then blocked. In that personal attack, you make several ultimatums with the result of resignation by the party the message is directed at, and you then accuse each of us of vandalism, with no diffs provided in the least. When you accuse someone here, on Wikipedia. You provide a diff of the revision that shows the activity, otherwise it could be interpreted as a complete fabrication meant to get a response, or a block on the user you disagree with.

You then claim that the accusation I make about you concerning Jimbo's talk page is false, despite the fact that I provided a diff in my first report about you. After your block is over, and you return to your page, you then remove several messages me and other editors left on your talk page, with mis-leading edit summaries claiming they are personal attacks, when in fact, they were not. I don't know if you read my message or not, but for anyone else reading this, let me bring it to light: This user claimed that a piece of evidence I cited in my first report, then cited again without a diff in the second report did not exist. I went to his talk page and linked him to the diff that he claimed did not exist. What's more, in the diatribe that can now be found in the archives for this board, the user claimed that I was ready to resign,(I meaning me, Daedalus), and that Gwen Gale's interference steered me away from that action. The second part of my message on his talk page clarified that I indeed never had planned on resigning, and that this information that he claimed to have had(but of course, did not) about me resigning was entirely false. To reiterate, he removed this message from his talk page claiming it to be an attack. I am through assuming good faith with this user because of his actions.—

Improve

11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• personal attacks. Jehochman ^Talk
  11:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)As background, no one has denied that JoJ's edits to fight vandalism have been useful, however weird his refusal to use the standard vandalism warnings has been. He got into trouble originally with a weird edit to the Jimbo Wales talkpage [96] that brought him to ANI. From there, he called for the resignation of two editors who questioned the edit [97] [98]. His refusal to use the standard vandal warnings also called him into question of crossing the line into personal atacks, and that led to the previous ANI discussion, where JoJ was blocked for 48 hours by Gwen Gale after a rather impressive display of personal attacks and wikilawyering. [99]

After his block, JoJ's first actions were to reinstate all of his previous vandalism warnings, referring to the actions of the editors who fixed the edits as "vandalism," which probably started his return on a bad note with the editors who tried to correct the problems earlier. Dayewalker (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, here you accused me of vandalizing my own talk page in your edit summary. That was against the rules, because I did not commit vandalism on my own talk page.

Here you vandalized a talk page by removing a legitimate warning. Even if you felt this warning was somehow in bad taste (which it wasn't), why wouldn't you just replace it with a better one? Why enable vandals?

You have also repeatedly misquoted and mischaracterized my comments about Jimbo Wales, and then you have mischaracterized my defense of them. You keep acting like I think blanked pages magically disappear from the history. That's not true. My concern was that you were misquoting my comments about Jimbo Wales.

You've committed vandalism and engaged in so much incivility during your interactions with me, that I really have to recommend a block. I think it would prevent you from doing this to another editor again in the future. Over at your editor review page, I have to say that it looks like you have a long history of questionable interactions with other users. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First, that was a twinkle edit summery, an edit summery that is created automatically by the script when in use. Secondly, and I quote: You knew this day was coming. Thirdly, I've committed vandalism? Where? Oh, do you mean my reverts of your

personal attacks

on several IP users' pages? Removing personal attacks is not vandalism. Fourthly, incivility? Please provide a diff, less that actually be an attack.

Lastly, you called for several users' resignations because they questioned your edits, and you called for me to quit Wikipedia because I filed a report about you? Do I have to quote the numerous times you attacked me and other editors in that archived rant?—

Improve

11:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - Here they are:

• Telling Jimbo his time is running out
• Telling me I should resign, this happened after the first AN/I notice I placed about this user concerning the above diff
• The second time this user has said another user should resign, because the user disagrees with how JoJ had been editing
• JoJ's gratuitous personal attack on me and a few others,
• The last edit to his reply, from the diff noted above, As can be seen here, the user makes a few false claims, and, I believe a quote is in order: To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Wikipedia.
• Misleading edit summery
• One of his personal attacks directed at an IP. Vandal or not,
  WP:CIVIL
  are still policies.
• Here he claims that removing my notice is removing an attack, despite the fact that my notice is not an attack
• Same as above, but with a different user's(read: admin's) message/warning

I believe that is all for now.—

Improve

11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent edit by Daudalus969. It really sums up his (or her) false accusations. He listed [this as a personal attack. I think we can bring the witch hunt to a close now. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed a lot of the IP warnings and the vandalism that they were responding to and I'd agree that some were incivil. But my concern is that many if not most of Jayhawk's non standard warnings were as appropriate as this, and all seem to have been "courtesy blanked" whether they were appropriate or not. I've started a dialogue with Jayhawk on User talk:Jayhawk of Justice#Template warnings about his use of warnings, can I suggest that we don't revert his nonstandard warnings unless they are uncivil? ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

His most recent warning was not a breach of

Improve

11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)We probably should calm down a bit on this one. JoJ has done some weird things in the past and doesn't seem to understand how policy works around here, but if he's willing to calm down and use the standard vandalism templates (as WRC has explained to him) things should be okay for now. Daedalus is a tireless vandal fighter, and he's obviously a bit upset at seeing a user who has already made several strange statements about him and called for his resignation return to the same type of behavior that led to his block, and revert all of his edits. It's easy to see how things got sideways here. Dayewalker (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Daedalus doesn't seem to understand how the policies work either. He has engaged in vandalism, page blanking, false statements, failure to assume good faith (which he admitted), and misleading edit summaries. And, that's just during this conversation. How was this appropriate? That edit contained vandalism and a misleading edit summary, and that was just minutes ago. Is a block not in order? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain edits to pages that are about me. That's my editor review, a review that I requested. So far your edits appear to be rather pointy, rude, and you have attacked me and several others several times. I removed your message from my review because I simply don't trust someone who keeps telling others to resign and quit, not to mention your long strings of personal attacks, and your behavior. Notice how I let other users' comments who disagree with me remain on the page, this is because they are established users who are trustworthy, and know the policies, like those about civility and personal attacks. If after this discussion, and maybe many more months pass, and you actually do contribute constructively, I could probably see that if you made a comment, it would remain there, but as of this moment, you might be something else, and I'm not going to have someone who has been so rude to me and others question my editing ability.—

Improve

12:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what you just said justifies blanking or using false edit summaries. At the risk of being accused of making a personal attack, I have to point out the hypocrasy of your claim (not you personally, just your claim). You are saying you can blank statements on pages about you and give misleading edit summaries, but you are upset at me for allegedly using misleading edit summaries on my talk page (an accusation I deny). You are doing the very same thing you are accusing me of. What am I to do? Not only do I get in trouble for following the plain language of the rule pages, but I apparently cannot even make edits of a similar nature to my own accusers? This is baffling, in deed. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Jayhawk, Wikipedia has its own ways of doing things. If you're going to get along here, you're going to have to learn more about how the word

personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk

) 12:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting straight from the Wikipedia page on vandalism: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." This edit by Daedalus969 was vandalism. He blanked my post from a talk page, other than his own, and it did not contain spam, vandalism, or a personal attack. He has done this numerous times. This, Dayewalker, is why I am frustrated. I am trying to follow the rules. I expect to eventually become a better editor, but it is frustrating to have people tell me that the plain language of the rules do not mean what they say. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you read that entire page? I reverted you because that edit can be considered uncivil, and a personal attack, and removal of personal attacks is not considered vandalism.—

Improve

12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And, what about this? Again, more vandalism on your part. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jayhawk of Justice

Jayhawk, while it can be useful to leave a hand typed message as a warning (I often do this myself), you may want to use the standard

before you do any more patrolling.

To the others here, a user may remove warnings from their own talk page. That is a good confirmation they have seen the warning. If there are further problems, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I can't accept any "results" that don't call out Daedalus969 for his blatant, unapologetic violations of Wikipedia policies. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

JoJ, you appear to be trolling, either accidentally or not. I'd suggest backing off and quietly editing articles constructively. Patience, when it runs out here, runs out swiftly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, this is an edit I made. It has been reverted, and people are maintaining that edits such as that one constitute personal attacks and that blanking edits such as that do not constitute vandalism. I certainly must reject any claim that I am trolling. In fact, the mere mention of the word is completely out of line. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayhawk, things have gotten stirred up here enough. I don't think you're trolling, but it may look that way to some editors. Daedalus' edits aren't vandalism, because he's clearly trying to help. Most of your IP messages are not personal attacks, but their wordings are a bit unsettling to some editors: Please think about using templates instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The telling people to resign for no reason, the

WP:DEADHORSEing here, the attack on Jimbo, the calling long-standing editors vandals... that's trolling. As I say, you may be doing this by accident. That's why it'll be good if you got on with some real editing and veered off the road you are currently on. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan

12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I had reasons for telling people to resign, but I haven't asked anyone to resign or brought up Jimbo Wales sua sponte since returning from my block, so those don't even apply here. I'm saying a long-standing editor engaged in vandalism, because he did, in fact, engage in vandalism. That someone is a long-standing editor prevents him from committing vandalism is a non sequitur. I must also reject the idea that people can attack me ad nauseum (loving the Latin right now), but if I respond to these criticisms I'm beating a dead horse. That's garbage. It really is, and I adamantly reject in totality the substance of your claims.

Daudalus is more likely the one who is trolling. As soon as I returned to Wikipedia today, he immediately began undoing my edits, putting my articles up for deletion, and reporting me on

WP:ANI

, which I believe he has done three times now, and reporting me on admin talk pages. Why can't he leave me alone? And, I must also reject Gwen Gale's claim that he wasn't engaging in vandalism. He was. I quoted the definition of vandalism, and then I showed where he broke that definition. This was after a quite untactful comment by Gwen Gale about my own understanding of the rules. She could have conceded Daedalus had done wrong or that he needed a vandalism warning. Instead, she...you know what. Why continue? This is ridiculous.

You know how I know it's ridiculous? Daedalus is on the side of the vandals. He's removing warnings from their pages. If he was such a staunch opponent of vandalism and he disagreed with my warnings, why didn't he replace them with acceptable warnings? I'm not playing this game right now. At this point, I've got one word for this entire thread, and that one word would probably get me blocked. I'm done. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JoJ from editing for one week owing to the renewed personal attack above (X is on the side of the vandals). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. It would be nice to gently teach JoJ some clue, but he doesn't seem to get it. Therefore, a bit of crude bludgeoning may instill said clue. Calling established editors "vandals" devalues the problem with vandalism and is, in Wikipedia terms, one of the worst insults you can throw around. He needs to learn that, and in the meantime we can protect Wikipedia from disruption and have a nice break from him. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if I thought JoJ undertsood the policies on civility, personal attacks and vandalism (what those terms mean here as to policy and so on) I would have blocked indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I still can't figure out his call for Jimbo to resign. I can understand why someone would wonder if he is trolling.

talk

) 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be that JoJ gets very stirred up, doesn't understand Wikipedia and muddles editors (along with Jimbo, the handiest target of them all) with whatever it is that nettles him about Wikipedia. Meanwhile, yes, this could be someone's trolling sock, but I think that's less likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone do something about

15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like at least an in-spirit violation of

WP:NLT; it's an attempt to identify a user's contributions as illegal (as slander in this case) with the clear goal of causing a chilling effect based entirely on that threat. It's for this purpose that we have NLT. As to whether the user knows this may constitute a NLT violation, I think he/she should be informed and given a chance to clarify/retract his/her statement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can see deleted revisions, you know this isn't the first 'dancing around a legal threat' message from related accounts. Whether it's from the same person or a sock of another of the accounts, or whether they're all socks of one I'm not sure. I think the socks need to stop their disruption, but like I said I'm not uninvolved so that's why I'm asking someone else to look at it. If it isn't a legal threat then it's not blockable for that -- whether it's blockable for using multiple accounts and IPs is another. Playing whack a mole with the IPs has gotten old. StarM 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please protect this article on the wrong version to stop the edit war? Science Apologist restructured the article based on an old proposal of his which he claims nobody opposed. (Two editors opposed for good reasons, but they didn't oppose; and now I oppose and several others do as well.)

I also think someone should beat ScienceApologist with a cluestick, especially for

.

After some back-and-forth, QuackGuru has jumped in, complicating matters further by making unrelated changes. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the talk page. See

WP:PSCI. QuackGuru

00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue (to save work for people) is that there is a group of editors who want to distinguish between things that scientists officially label as pseudoscience, and things that have only been labeled as pseudoscience by skeptical groups such as CSICOP -- homeopathy happening to fall into the latter group. SA opposes this split as artificial, as do I -- it's really all just pseudoscience. Hans is trying to turn this content dispute into an issue of civility, baselessly in my opinion. looie496 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find

WP:RS that calls it pseudoscience, it doesn't matter if that source is 'scientific' or not, does it? Scientists might invalidate via studies or ignore these theories but just not happen to use the word pseudoscience in that instance. So plenty of sources might call homeopathy pseudoscience, you don't need to argue over the use of CSICOP. On the other hand, it sounds like you are arguing about whether CSICOP is a reliable source, or that fans of various things are trying to say that any sources that aren't in scientific journals, or any source that calls them pseudoscience, is invalid. Sticky Parkin

03:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than me ploughing through god knows how much debate, could someone explain what it means for scientists for officially label something? There is no central body in science that classifies areas of research... --Tango (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The situation has cooled down. Sorry for having spammed here, I wasn't aware of

) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor 'warning' me will always change BCE/CE to BC/AD

See [100] -- I'd warned him for doing this on

) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to encourage the editor to bear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 in mind. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I need a second opinion.

 2008-11-27 06:49 z

He is violating

neuro^(talk)

07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

He has changed hundreds of articles claiming that American related pages should be changed, yet British subject areas have been amended. Will reverts be completed on all changed pages? CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-iterating knowledge George, i was just querying whether i am allowed to undo the edits, and if there was a faster way as i noted above that there is 100+ and im no "wikiwizz" as yet, thanks.CorrectlyContentious (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the edits were effectively indiscriminate, I don't see a problem with automatically reverting them with minimal supervision. I do see a lot of constructive minor wikitext improvements in Hmains' edits too, but the WWI–FWW and related changes have been going on for days.

I see that many of them have already been restored. —Michael Z. 2008-11-27 16:05 z

I rolled back over 1100 automated edits going back to 22 November - not all the edits could be rolled back though, so some inconsistencies will remain (but only in perhaps a couple of dozen articles), and some constructive work may have been undone as I only sampled the diffs every so often, rather than checking them all. However, I'll live with the minor collateral damage; we're certainly no worse off than before this nonsense. Thanks for catching this. EyeSerene^talk 21:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There've been a couple of attempts today to change the article of recently deceased British conductor, Richard Hickox to state that he was married 3 times, rather than twice as stated in obituaries in major British newspapers. Since it was completely unsourced, I've reverted both times, but I think it would be worth having a few more eyes on the article. The edits were made by two different users, both newly registered, and with no other edits from those accounts. I've left mesages on both user talk pages, and also on the article talkpage. David Underdown (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And a further attempt by the second account. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem curious that not just one but two new accounts should appear four days after his death to claim he was married more often than documented in the obits.--

talk

) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the first account was blocked for having an inappropriate username, and the second account became active shortly afterwards. The strong likelihood is it's the same person; I've just reverted another addition and left a warning (article also watchlisted) EyeSerene^talk 22:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I feel I'm not being allowed to edit at these articles... I provided a reference from the

) 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit those articles, however, ensure your changes meet

►BMW◄

17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that I should of edited in the talk-page before. Anyway, these guys are following me around and bullying me with numbers. The editors that don't know me, usually ask why they're so motivated to remove sourced material. The youtube.com, isn't the reference---it's the muslimheritage website. Thanks for your time, though. InternetHero (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Experience has shown that using the talk page is the only way to resolve disputes, and that when people avoid the talk page, the only way to get anywhere is to "bully" them until they either give up or agree to discuss the issue. "Discussing" by using edit summaries just doesn't work. looie496 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If you look a the Siege of Fort Meigs article, you'll see a finely written (:-D) article that WAS story-like, but only needed to be edite to a past-tense. Anyway, I had a lot of information on that article, yet my bullyers seen fit to delete it altogether. I'll put back the information later on, but I have a job now, and I go to school so I don't have the time.

For the telescope articles, the material is WELL sourced (from the NY Times) yet they don't see any logic in it... Like I said, I think they're acting out of hate for me---not the benefit of Wikipedia's users. Thanks for your support, nevertheless. InternetHero (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is threatening to sick the

) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the KGB doesn't exist anymore (there's other organizations now), I'd take it as more of a personal attack. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, what the hell? Message from XENU

u, t

18:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(after 3 edit conflicts) Also, IIRC, the KGB used to operate outside the law, more than within it. :-) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I said sorry :) The real meaning may have been lost in the translation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman121212 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk: Collectonian. I believe that this user has been blocked for legitimate edits based on a mistaken understanding, as she explains in the unblock request. Unblock has already been declined once, so I will not act unilaterally, but am bringing this here for further review. (I'm on a slow connection and need to sign off; could someone please advise the other admins involved of this thread and that I'm sorry I wasn't able to consult them first.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake. Although I have limited sympathy because she was edit-warring, I'd say this wasn't what the blocking admin intended. If WMC and Daniel Case are not available to comment I'd just unblock her and tell her not to edit the contested article for the remaining duration. CIreland (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see the confusion - there was edit warring at two locations, the template and a list. At the template, Collectonian did indeed make a fourth revert after filing the complaint. She's referring to the edit war at the list, and apparently just forgot she was over the line at the template as well. I would agree with an unblock if she acknowledges the error and agrees to stay way from the rather questionable editor (that SPA is another story) for 12 hours. Kuru ^talk 03:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• William blocked this user not for ongoing 3RR issues but as a punishment. I thought we didn't do punitive blocks? Bstone (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he upgraded his original warning to a block when he discovered that after she'd filed an entirely justified 3RR report herself, she made a fourth revert to the template. While that might seem punitive, as I said rules are rules. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to have to have declined this unblock, since Collectonian is a good editor, but the fact is she made four reverts in 24 hours to the template. She got 12 hours rather than the usual 24; that reflects her stature here. 3RR is, as reiterated recently, the bright-line rule of Wikipedia. We cannot make exceptions for people we like other than those already allowed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Daniel Case case here; how can we expect new editors to follow the rules if experienced one like Collectonian do not? My deep respect for this editor cannot make me overlook what appears to be a 3RR violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has decided to [wait out the block and withdrew her current request. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to this, I was asleep. C was blocked for [101] which was at 2008-11-27T19:23:14. Its obviously a violation of 3RR. C's 3RR report was filed at 17:57. It contains the explicit promise To reviewing admin, I am aware that my reverts on the list push 3RR and I will not be reverting it again. The later revert obviously breaks that promise William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's going on on this User's page, but the edit history of the page seems to indicate that it's not being used to improve Wikipedia. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• It almost looks like bits of homework/research papers for....SOMEthing. (I don't even WANT to know what, exactly--this bit nearly made me toss my stuffing: "Christian Personalism opposes sobriety (and also shrewdness, and thinking in general), which is what differentiates a man from a girlie. One could say it opposes testosterone in general." Three words--W, T, and F.) GJC 06:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like semi-serious philosophical rambling based on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche to me. It should be noted that this doesn't conflict with Gladys' interpretation above. In any case, it doesn't look like it's doing any serious harm, now that it's been blanked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

I've redirected the talk page to the user page. I'd rolled back his snide comments without having signed in and he simply put them back after I'd left. Would someone be kind enough to protect the talk page? Thanks! --

) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've full-protected both userpage and talkpage indefinitely. Did I do that right? GJC 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The only thing I changed was to add a {{pp-usertalk}} template to their talk page rather than the redirect, but that's trivial ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In the

, and the material, which I expanded in the hope of clarifying enough to resolve any objections, is certainly relevant to the subject of the article. It is my understanding that WP policy on NPOV, and reliable sourcing, can not be outvoted.

Would it be possible to get some administrative oversight for this article? Or could someone suggest another possible route to diminishing the abysmal editing environment of this article, and a number of other articles related to the issue of antisemitism, where NPOV is a constant problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable is likely the more fit adjective here: Verifiably sourced content shouldn't be removed from articles. If an editor has PoV worries about such content, it's far more helpful to find verifiable secondary sources which answer that PoV, rather than taking it out of the article. Gwen Gale (talk

) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the document the edit is sourced to [105]. Perhaps I never did get my WP lingo just right. Sorry. It is, as far as I understand, both reliable and verifiable. (I also admit to sometimes being less than charming. Sorry about that too. But I sometimes wind up editing articles where the more charming editors have departed because the editing atmosphere is so poisoned -- as in this case. It is admittedly a very hotly contested subject in the real world, and that has translated into a problem on WP too.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is that you are describing Fischer as a "former terrorist", which is not included in the source. I have reinstated the quote, but without that commentary on the person who made it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed that not being in the source. Thanks for catching it. I have no idea why, or who, put that in. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Number 57 - I'm not aware of an RSN on the Wiesenthal Centre, I'd have supposed it's status as an RS to be dubious. Norman Finkelstein calls them "a gang of heartless and immoral crooks, whose hallmark is that they will do anything for a dollar. As I point out in the book, the guy who runs their headquarters in Los Angeles, runs it as a family business, and in the mid 1990's they were collectively raking in $525 000 a year." The book in question is Finkelstein's own, "The Holocaust Industry" and is hardly even-handed. However, it's considered a work of major importance with over 100 Google Scholar citations just in the English-language version.

And in this case, the SW Centre is being used as a source for "In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister (and former terrorist) Joschka Fischer stated that "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism.", apparently something overheard during his visit. I can see no RS for this statement, only a few bloggish re-publishings. As you say, there is nothing provided to describe Fischer as a "former terrorist", another reason this should have been discussed on TalkPage before coming here. PR^talk 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fischer (who was a stone-thrower and rabble rouser as a young adult but not a terrorist) is well documented to have made such statements on several occasions. For example, in an April 2002 interview for the respected German weekly Die Zeit, Fischer said:

ZEIT: Wo ist die Grenze zwischen legitimer Kritik und Antiisraelismus oder sogar Antisemitismus?

Fischer: Ich habe in meinem Leben die Erfahrung gemacht, wie Antizionismus in Antisemitismus weggekippt ist. Das hat mich geprägt. Ich bin durch diese Erfahrung zum Westler geworden. Das heißt: Das Verhältnis zu den USA, zu Israel ist für mich immer der Lackmustest, woran man nicht so sehr antisemitische Positionen als antiwestliche Positionen und Emotionen in der deutschen Innenpolitik erkennt, nationale Positionen, die im linken wie im rechten Gewande daherkommen.

ZEIT: Ist Antiisraelismus verwandt mit Antiamerikanismus?

Fischer: Hinter beidem steht ein starkes antiwestliches Element. Es ist essenziell, dass wir Antiisraelismus keinen Raum geben, nicht nur aufgrund unserer besonderen historischen Verpflichtungen. Wir würden auch ganz aktuell einen eminenten politischen Fehler begehen.

Translation:

ZEIT: Where does legitimate criticism cross the line into anti-Israelism or even anti-Semitism?

Fischer: I have personal experience of how anti-Zionism defaulted to anti-Semitism. This experience was formative for me, it turned me into a pro-Western person. To be clear: one's attitude towards the U.S. and towards Israel, as far as I am concerned, is always the acid test. You can use it to detect attitudes and emotions in domestic German politics that are not anti-Semitic so much as they are anti-Western and nationalist, cloaked in the garb of both the left and the right.

ZEIT: Is anti-Israelism related to anti-Americanism?

Fischer: Both are backed by a strong anti-Western element. It is essential that we give no quarter to anti-Israelism – not just because of our unique historical obligation. It would also mean making a grievous political mistake.

By the way, I'm not sure that the user name PalestineRemembered is a good example of Truth in Advertising, but people can choose the pseudonym they like.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Can we get this clear, Fischer has never been recorded anywhere as saying "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism" - other than in this statement from the the non-RS Wiesenthal Centre? Though the original anti-Zionism of this "extremist" led to him hating the Jews, he appears to be more or less denying that it happens this way to anyone else. PR^talk 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the interview excerpt above and numerous other public statements from Fischer, it is entirely possible that he said exactly that. Although when questioned further, he would probably clarify that he does not equate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Zionism. Fischer is not on record as "hating the Jews". His attendance as a young "activist" at a PLO conference in Algiers was the formative experience that taught him that anti-Zionism (which is nothing else than the claim that the state of Israel has no right to exist) in most cases is simply a modern form of hating the Jews. I hope it won't be considered a personal attack if I add that I am somewhat mystified that [personal attack removed].--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Goodmorningworld about making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, The Wiesenthal Centre is a reliable source, and you are not... no matter what you think to the contrary. If you have a source where Fischer directly contradicts the Wiesenthal Centre, you should put that into the article. As it is, what you are doing is arguing for the removal of reliably sourced, verifiable, material from the article just because you don't agree what it says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Strike this notification. This is a content dispute. When it is dealt with at the proper places (starting with RSN) it's quite possible that the edit concerned will be rejected. The addition "In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister (and former terrorist) Joschka Fischer stated that "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism." is unlikely to reach WP standard on at least 3 different grounds. However, admin assistance would be appreciated since there is significant disruption going on. The TalkPage on this article is being vandalised, the contributions of at least 2 people being removed (twice now). The dubious inclusion-edit itself is being edit-warred without discussion. And this comes on top of inflammatory statements that editors have refused to discuss, ethno-specific references to other editors after objections and a claim that other editors are "antisemitic schmucks". PR^talk 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing reliable sourced material that is relevant to the article indicates POV problems, and not normal editorial content disagreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I may not be online much for the rest of the day, and do not have time to reply to PalestineRemembered's conniption right now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit clash)

It has already been agreed that the allegation against Fischer was not reliably sourced. And he is not German Foreign Minister he was the then foreign minister. Given PR has raised your editing of the talk page I would be interested in why you removed this part of my post to the page:

Wikipedia has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.

Perhaps admins could care to comment on how to handle talk page chatter that wanders away fromt he page subject and then comes back again.--

talk

) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I put in the text from the Wiesenthal centre and wrote that Fischer was a former terrorist. I apologize for that over simplification. Fischer associated with terrorists in the past see

. I believe he left a training camp in Algeria when he found German neo-Nazis sharing the facilities. This led to a misunderstanding. I would note that editors of Zionist and Jewish related topics endure a great deal of abuse including antisemitic or almost-antisemitic abuse. We rarely complain but sometimes one can lose it when abusive editors seem to be defending anti-semitism (even if they don't think they are). Telaviv1 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of being antisemites because they oppose your own POV on a particular subject is not a road that is going to lead to productive, collaborative editing. Might wanna rethink your attitude there. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has reverted or altered a lot of TA's edits and who is on the pro-Palestinian side of the issue, I have to agree with him there are certainly several contributions that I can think of where either the post has been "antisemitic or almost-antisemitic" or where "editors seem to be defending anti-semitism". Conversely there are people who label anyone who disagrees with them antisemitic and even end up accusing pro-Israeli editors as such. (See any amount of material related to the JIDF.) which is why I posted the now-removed sentence to the anti-Zionism talk page.

Wikipedia has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.

--

talk

) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins reading this should be aware that Malcolm is committed to the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, and virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view, against the consensus of other editors. The thread here is just the latest of several attempts to game the system in order to overcome consensus. looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted chat that had nothing to do with the article, and I asked the users involved to have their chat elsewhere. If there were a few good sentences, in the bad paragraphs I removed I regret that. There is nothing to stop Peter cohen, or anyone else, from adding relevant discussion at any time. As for the

WP:reliable source. Looie496's accusation above is not correct, and, in any case, I am quite capable of including information in articles that I do not agree with to achieve NPOV, but with the editing situation as it is for that article, there is no need for me to do what others are doing already, and the need for balance os on the other side. Malcolm Schosha (talk

) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, please don't remove or refactor anything from/on the talk page of a controversial article. Whatever sundry editors may think of the Wisenthal Center, as for its reliability as a source, the pith here is independent reliability. No organization is an independent source for information about itself, hence if that information is at all controversial, it can be taken as being less reliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, what I deleted had nothing to do with the Wiesenthal Center, or anything else concerned with the article. Here is that edit [106]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I see your reasoning about the Wisenthal Center as a source. The article is not about them. The article is about anti-Zionism, a subject for which they are as reliable as any source that exists. This is a Google news search result for them [107]. This is a NYTimes search result [108]. The organization is a reliable source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, please don't remove content from article talk pages. Otherwise, ANI is not the project page for talking at any length about sourcing disputes. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, my understanding is that WP guidelines allows deletion of material not connected to the writing of the article. This is old [109], but I know of nothing saying guidelines are now different, and I have seen, many experienced editors remove such material. If deletions of talk page chat not now allowed, please show me the changed rules and I will not do that again. As it is I believe I acted properly.

Also you have not explained your statement above, about the Wisenthal Center. Not long ago you defended the presence of this source (which I nominated for deletion) [110] in the anti-Zionism article, and which has nothing at all to establish its notability, and yet you are criticizing the Wisenthal Center which is world world renowned. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you to not delete content from article talk pages because you have done it in a way which has stirred up worries among other editors. As for the Wiesenthal Center, I didn't criticize them, you misread what I wrote. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, why are you concerned about my stirring up "worries among other editors"? Unfortunately, anything in the article or talk page that suggests Israel has a right to exist stirs them up, and there is no way of avoiding such discussion in the anti-Zionism article. Unless you can indicate a WP policy or guideline against doing it, I will later today, or tomorrow, once more remove the off topic chat that PalestineRemembered has once again restored to the talk page.

More importantly, I have still not gotten any reply to my original request at the top of this section. The are editors who had frequently removed sourced material from reliable sources that is relevant to the article, apparently because they do not agree with it. I gave only one example, but can supply others. They have on occasion resorted to using tag team reverts to enforce such. It is because it appeared to me that the article was entering another round of such deletions that I came to the administrators noticeboard. For instance, yesterday morning I found this edit [111] by Peter cohen, which removed the antisemitism category from the article despite the fact that the subject is important to the article and is discussed here [112]. I reverted it back, and the category was again deleted, this time by CJCurrie [[113]]. The removal of a category that is justified by content of the article because is contrary to the POV of some editors seems problematic, and contrary to the writing of a balanced article. It is for these reasons that I asked if administrative oversight of the article was possible, or if some other solution to the articles very toxic editing envionment could be suggested. I am still hoping to get a reply to that question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, when one stirs up the worries of other editors by removing talk page contents, one might be nudging the bounds of

.

Another way of putting it would be, if multiple editors don't have your PoV, it's a "tag team." If they do share your PoV, it's consensus. I think most of this would be more helpfully talked about on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar comment as Gwen ... when the "environment" on a specific topic (and therefore its related Talkpage) is a little problematic, the absolute worst thing that one could do would be to "stir up the hornet's nest". Refactoring/removing comments from a Talkpage (whether unrelated or not) is just that type of action. As an long-time editor, you must have known that doing so would have caused the environment to worsen.

►BMW◄

13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, it was the chat that was disruptive, perhaps intentionally so. But, if you point out what I deleted that had value to editing the article, I will not bother that.

As for the question of "tag team" or "consensus", perhaps I misunderstand something. My understanding is that removing reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant information is considered harmful to the article (and to WP). If the majority is acting to maintain sourced material that is consestant with WP policy and guidelines, that is called "consensus." If it is the contrary to that, it is "tag team." If I am mistaken about this, please give a detailed explination, because it seems I do not understand what you have said previously.

I invite anyone who is neutral about the subject to examine the editing of the article, and the talk page, to judge for themselves if I have portrayed the editing situation correctly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point Malcolm - it has nothing to do with the comments themselves, but the action. Planting a tree is not usually a bad thing. However, planting a tree in the middle of your neighbour's livingroom is. Refactoring unrelated chat on a talkpage is usually not a bad thing. Refactoring unrelated chat on a talkpage that is already a poisoned environment is.

►BMW◄

13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Malcom, we've been through this already. It helps to gather a consensus on what sources for a given topic are deemed reliable, independent and verifiable. Take it from me, you won't always get your way, consensus does not equal Truth(TM) and sometimes, it doesn't even equal NPoV, but we do what we can. This project page is not the place to discuss a sourcing dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale wrote:"This project page is not the place to discuss a sourcing dispute". There is no sourcing dispute, but the arbitrary deletion of a source that is world renowned on the subject. That is why I brought this here, and (in all likelihood) will be back again soon. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it has and I am so sorry. Warning: Some editors may wish to avert their eyes from what I am about to do:

Malcom,

) 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Introducing (da-da-da-daaahhhh) the

►BMW◄

14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tea? Never drink the stuff. I have been up (as usual) since 4:00 am, and am about to have my fourth cup of coffee.

It would not be necessary for me to discuss the problems of the anti-Zionism article on this page if I was willing to do what other editors of the article have apparently done, and build a team that is in contact be e-mail. But, since I think canvassing is wrong when others do it, I will not do it. This is a problem that is well know on Wikipedia irrespective of the editing situation of the anti-Zionism article. All too frequently editors working alone are faced with this problem. The failure to find a cure is equivalent to a well know infection if the human immune system. For WP what is harmed is its credibility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence of such groups, then by all means bring it forward. As we have seen in the past when such cases arise, they are dealt with swiftly. Otherwise, as I noted above, baseless accusations against other editors left to stand unchallenged is truly what will harm the Wiki's credibility. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, I said that is how it seems to me, which is not a "baseless accusation." On the other hand, there have been many baseless accusations in this section, such as [114], which mentions me by my actual name, because I use my actual name instead of hiding behind a WP alias. But you seem to have found nothing wrong with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure why this discussion is taking place here and not somewhere else like the article talk page or on one of the appropriate noticeboards? JodyB _talk 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

JodyB, because

1. I am still hoping that my original question will get answered
2. Other users make edits that seem logical to reply to where they have occurred (i.e. here)
3. There is other unfinished business, such as user looie496 (talk's personal attack on me, by name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would someone please explain the best way to locate this discussion thread after it is archived? I will need to be able to refer to it later. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the last blue number (currently 495) in the arcive link near the top right of this page. The most recently atchived threads are placed there. When this thread is archived, note down the number. Leave it a week and see whether you still want to pursue things at that time.--

talk

) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please block Skipstops for continual disruptive editing to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. He has been warned by myself, and The Legendary Ranger to add sourced info, however continues to add knee-jerk reaction/opinion to various articles.

Acps110 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If its obvious vandalism you can report it to

Nn123645 (talk

) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV reports was declined by Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Looks like a content dispute to me ... --Kralizec! (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AALIYAH2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a chronic copyright/fair-use violator. Final warning here, latest violation here.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 days. Like the last image guy, I'm open to any admin undoing the block provided that the user acknowledges that they have read and understand our policies on non-free content. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User threatened, and personal information given, in this diff to today's FA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, for all the good it will do. The page has been protected and I doubt it's really personal information. JodyB _talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT if it is. Pedro :  Chat 

12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is not protected beyond standard move protection for Main Page articles. Oversight have been emailed - easier for them to remove one diff than for me to delete the Main Page article and selectively restore. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another threat here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight contacted ... just in case someone hasn't already done so. Anyone with Checkuser access might want to do a sweep of that IP ... sounds like this person knows Possum fairly well.

96

13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually called the number listed in the soon-to-be-oversighted edits? For purely encyclopaedic purposes of course. :) X MarX the Spot (talk)

No, because either it's the number of the editor in question, in which case we're helping the harasser harass; or it's the vandal's number and s/he'll get off on us chasing around after him/her; or it's a made-up number and we'll just confuse whoever it belongs to. Better to ignore it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Yeah, I 'spose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who know me will know that I've been the victim of some very serious harassment recently which was one of the reasons I retired in the first place. However, what's happened today is ridiculous. The following 10 edits were made to todays featured article, my number appeared on the main page for goodness knows how long: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He left similar messages on my talk page yesterday (1, 2 and 3) until

talk

) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, how did the nasty little git vandal get your mobile number in the first place? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea but if it's the same person as last time then they also know my address and email addresses. They've been sending me cheques and other mysterious gifts through the post too. You all may find it hilarious but it most certainly isn't —

talk

) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, this is worrying. It's also very illegal. You're being stalked, and clearly by someone who knows you (I assume, sorry if you're older) from school. I think you need to tell the authorities. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I would suggest two things. First, contact a 'crat and ask them for a name change (or just start posting under a different name) If you want to conceal your WP identity from this guy, you might want to lay low on the articles you've been working on. Second, you might want to consider contacting the authorities. If this guy has your personal information, is using the internet to make threats, and sending you stuff to your home address, they might be able to do something.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I renamed from

talk

) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the card have this guy's number on it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of instances of the phone number posted to oversight-l - you may wish to ask WMF what paperwork they need from the police to release the IPs to you/them (some of the edits are IP edits, you'll see 'em in the block logs, some are logged-in users) - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being part of the crapflood, David, but better to have each diff a dozen times rather than not at all (I assume). Possum, this isn't cyberbullying, no matter what the useless police have to say: it's real-life harassment. They have your telephone number, email address, home address and Wikipedia account details. That's Not Good. You need to do something. An email to Mike Godwin may be a start, to see what info the Foundation can release to you, as David suggests. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I echo Redvers above. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 this is harrassment and a criminal offence that can carry a jail term. I implore you to contact the police again, making it very clear that the "cyber-bullying" is mixed with real world interaction too and that it has escalated. Given the nature of the threats on your talk, you could easily argue that you are in fear of violence, in which case it is also common assault. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the article for about two minutes in the process to get them out of public view (that's the first time ever I've deleted Today's Featured Article), and all the offending revisions have apparently been duly oversighted. The IPs who added this are all blocked for 48 hours, and I support reporting this to the Internet Service Provider. The FindIP resolves the IP to some service provider in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just zapped another few. Could someone please put their hand up and step through every single diff during the relevant range of the history of the page(s?), and report to oversight-l a list of diffs that introduce the problematic text. Thanks.

chat

) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted oversight a while ago asking whether they could provide me the material that was posted about me so I could pass it onto the police but I think it was FT2 who replied by saying it's against policy even if it is sensitive data about myself, he still couldn't do it. I then contacted Godwin who pretty much echoed the same. The only concern I have is that oversighted material is kept for 30 days, I live in the UK, if I were to request the material the legal way, surely it would take more than 30 days? —

talk

) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Send Godwin and FT2 a note that you want them to preserve the material separately since you are going to be making a legal request for it shortly. That should make sure that they at least keep a copy on hand. And then get a lawyer on this asap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted

cyber-bullying.Rio de oro (talk

) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contacted Scotland Yard, however, my local force is aware of the situation —

talk

) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way a rangeblock can be implemented? Collateral damage be damned--we've got to nip this in the bud, now.

96

21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to bring this slightly off-topic, but I'm concerned that this editor's number appeared on the main page for a period of time. I wonder, if it has or has not already been discussed, perhaps we could consider having all pages automatically semi-protected when they are featured on the main page, so as to avoid vandalism, or incidents like this.
  Talk
  ) 08:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that our open invitation is that anyone can edit. Given the high traffic TFA gets if non auto confirmed/IP editors then discover they can't, in fact edit it, it goes against that invitation. Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh OK, thought it might be something like that —

talk

) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• God, that's terrifying. Great work with this one, guys. —
  ♦ (speak)
  00:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Denialist Hate Speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has no problems whatsoever of denying the Syriac ethnicity though, [115]. This user also has no problems of insulting and talking ill of other users with other users in a different language than English, [116]. Unfortunately for Nineveh, I also speak Syriac and therefore I could make up some of the things he said about me. In the end, this user is no better than user:HD86, but when your out of arguments then you have to either go on personal attacks (as Nineveh has done) or trying to eliminate the opposition (which Nineveh is trying to do here). The TriZ (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment None of these comments are inflammatory. As an editor you must except that other editors may have differing points of view to your own especially when discussing history. Wikipedia does not and can not legislate what personal beliefs editors' should hold, admins can only intervention when such views lead to disruption. If this is a content dispute, persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A more pressing matter is the personal attacks and canvassing by Nineveh 209. --neon white talk 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was just about to remark on that. Someone should warn him on that, especially after forum-shopping at

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#HD86. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat of physical violence

I think this edit requires some attention. Thank you. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's clear vandalism and I see no actual threat. Bstone (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bstone are you that

naive , this is a serious threat. You dont go around on the internet and post death threats to people. Its a felony in this country , for your information. Has this been reported to the FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, I'm going to file a ISP abuse report form right now on the matter to let the ISP know what this 'person' committed. Rio de oro (talk

) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The ip is located in Willkes Barre, Pennsylvania. They are using Verizon Internet Services. Rio de oro (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider... the authorities have limited resources and we want them to concentrate their efforts on the most serious and likely threats. If they are bogged down hearing about random childish "death threats" scattered all over the internet (and I'm sure there are thousands), they will have less time to spend on potentially more real and serious threats. So while your concern is admirable, it would be wise to to use your best judgement when taking up the time of the authorities. Ask yourself, is this a real threat, or is this just some boob making noise? Is taking the time to chase down this particular boob really how you want the authorities to spend their time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarta (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I started the bio of Stephen Gardner Champlin today. The bio is about the American Civil War general. It easily passes WP standard. The bio was tagged for speedy deletion by User:McWomble. I think it was an inappropriate step. An editor should understand WP notability standard before tagging articles for speedy deletion. I erased the tag so that I could further develop the bio. Then User:McWomble posted a warning on my talkpage. I want an admin to look into this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the tag as it indeed isn't a speedy candidate and will drop McWomble a note. Which is more or less what would have happened anyways once an administrator evaluates the deletion request. They may just haven't seen that he became Brigadier general and the warning is a boilerplate one that is often given if the author removes the db tag themselves instead of using the recommended hangon tag. --

Tikiwont (talk

) 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for erasing {{db-bio}} from the bio, and warning from my talkpage. I erased the db tag myself so that I could further develop the bio. No further action is required. I think this issue is resolved. AdjustShift (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to remove a db tag from an article that you started. That could lead to more warnings. Better to let somebody else do it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Read User_talk:Gppande#kokar --GPPande talk! 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looks pretty open and shut to me. Two checkusers noted that both accounts used two identical IPs within minutes of each other and edited the same discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rvnx25 (talk • contribs)

1. First incident
2. Second incident
3. Third incident

Per above evidence, can any admin take action on the abovementioned guy? I think his action of harrassing three wiki users to make a point has gone too far! ...Dave1185 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been warned now, and yeah, his editing does appear a bit obnoxious. Let us know if it keeps up. I wouldn't necessarily say that he's been harassing people per se, but he's not interacting in a particularly constructive manner. --Cyde Weys 01:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

74.249.96.148 (talk · contribs) is making edits with peculiar edit comments of the form "thanks for letting me vandalize!". I can't see any obvious vandalism, but the edit comments make me suspicious. -- The Anome (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo your suspicions, but also note that without any evidence to suggest disruptive behaviour from the individual behind this IP address, we have little grounds for taking action—most especially in light of the anonymous editor's constructive article contributions. I am concerned, however, about the IP's edit summaries, which generally take the form of excessive punctuation and ALL CAPITALS, and I have dropped a note at

AGK

20:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I smell a

MuZemike (talk

) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, based on looking where all the new text came from, it looks like it's the Disney vandal, back again. There is, for example, no User:Collection or User:Collectionion, who they "thank" for "letting them vandalize". Does anyone want to start the process of blocking and reverting? -- The Anome (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: there is, however, a User:Collectonian. However, this IP's edits still closely resemble those of the Disney vandal. I've unpicked 74.249.96.148'd edits to the best of my ability: can someone check whether I've got all their changes? -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian (talk · contribs) is (but not right now, being on a 3RR block) a very active Disney Vandal fighter - and quite possibly the ip was noting Collectonians "enforced unavailability" in the manner of a taunt; which is another way of confirming the editor behind the anonymous addy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-11-27T23:21:21 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (3rr) - you've got your timestamps confused William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have requested her help in checking out if there are any further articles and addys to be cleaned up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on this edit, 86.40.211.19 (talk · contribs) looks like another sock of the same editor at work. Can someone who knows this vandal's MO go over all the affected articles and check them out, please? -- The Anome (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Those songs are not in the Charlotte's Web 2006 movie. Another vandalism [117], changing the book's author from

MuZemike (talk

) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of the latest edits of 74.249.96.148, (over 50 within the past couple of hours), I think it's time to put a stop to it. Looks like everything from bad redirects to talk page refactoring to removing other's talk page comments to what it looks like vandalizing all of Collectonian's previous edits (before the block, that is) and wreaking havoc (example, others can be found on the diffs where the edit summaries say "thanks Collectonion for letting me vandalize! happy thanksgiving!").

MuZemike (talk

) 01:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is a portable mobile IP and currently blocked for 72 hours. Not much else can be done right now. --Rodhullandemu 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that was the Disney Vandal. He/she dosen't do edits that oviously bad, mainly refacters the talk pages ([118]) and pushes pov ([119], [120]). Pizzahutpanpizza (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from the response I left on my talk page: 74.249.96.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Pizzahutpanpizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both him (I'd already suspected Pizzahutpanpizza and reverted his first two edits, but didn't bother tagging him). The named should be indef blocked, the IP long term blocked, and both tagged as usual. His editing tends to be fairly distinctive, with a mix of "okay" and bad edits, primarily reverting various Disney articles to older versions before clean up attempts were made, refactoring talk pages, undoing archiving, changing project templates to incorrect ratings, making bad redirects, and adding links to his many bad articles on other language wiki's. His taunt is likely a response to my removing the Disney vandal info from my user page (and my somewhat sarcastic edit summary) by which he knows I am not going to bother being the "Disney vandal fighter" anymore.[121] (Guess that proves my theory that he was stalking my contribs as well) 86.40.211.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is someone else. The Disney articles are, actually, hit regularly by 3 known repeat vandals:

• the main one (Bambifan101 socks), who sometimes self-identifies, depending on his mood, and sometimes tries to pretend he's just a new editor, but almost always reverts to his old behaviors quickly
• the User:Skymac207 IP socks who constantly changes the release dates and almost always vandalizes User:Gabrielkat user and user talk pages as well and occasionally self identifies by signing his comments with his sock name (last known IP to hit is 66.63.88.209)
• and the newer one, the Clone Wars one, who runs around and edits a bunch of the Disney Princess articles to insert fake stuff about some Disney Princess vs Star Wars Clone War thing.

I have removed all of the Disney and Teletubbies articles from my watchlist and will not be involving myself in this anymore. Someone else is welcome to use the info I removed from my user page and in the various AN/I and abuse reports to take over watching for Bambifan101 if they want. I never wrote up anything for the other two, though I'm pretty sure Skymac has some stuff somewhere identifying the source sock.

I'm only responding now because LessHeard vanU asked me about it and neither has been blocked hours later. The use of a mobile IP would explain how he's getting around the range blocks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I admet it! I am the Disney vandal! I knew I would get caught (again) somehow, though I really was starting to belive Collectonian would leave me alone. The "Clone Trooper" Orchestra thing on the Disney princess articles has me laugh EVERY time it's so stupid! Seriously, and yes the block has been released from all three wikis that I've hit as a sock, but I was also blocked as an IP at Welsh Wikipedia and as a user at Simple Wikipedia, thus I must now wait untill tomarrow to edit as an IP. And then they'll block me. They said so here. They changed my name to The "Disney Anon" as well. If that's not a mockery then I don't know what is. It's like when they put the thorned crown on Jesus. Pizzahutpanpizza (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

MuZemike (talk

) 08:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• If he comes back on this range, it is 74.249.96.0/19. The 86.x.x.x is in the UK, and is not related. Black Kite 08:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin Radio

Despite a press release clearly showing Led Zeppelin Radio moving to Channel 12 til December 31st,[122] an editor User:Bull-Doser has continued to change the channel from 12 to 33. This channel swapping has been going on for sometime now, mostly by anonymous edits and now by User:Bull-Doser. I would like to request that a lock be placed on the article from anonymous edits and an admin intervene if necessary to resolve the dispute. MegX (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. I see that you are talking on his talk page, so I think this is moot now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Megatron85

Looks to be a single-purpose sockpuppet/meatpuppet over at an AfD discussion. User's first edit was to C&P someone else's user page to his own. The same AfD article has been getting a lot of anon hits as well. --

talk

) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all who said that I copy-pasted the user page of another user. That IS my user page and that user IS me. I just decided I want to change my username because the old one was, well, getting old. Check your facts buddy before accusing people.Megatron85 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as sock of Top Gun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sock's userpage he copied. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare

Resolved

 – No admin action requested.  Sandstein  09:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(Statement redacted per

WP:BLP,  Sandstein  09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budhhiyogo (talk • contribs

) 09:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. No admin action requested. This should be closed. // roux   09:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo pushing his ideas despite sources and concensus

This editor has been making unsourced edits on the article

List of best selling video games, including claiming that Super Smash Bros. Brawl

isn't a fighting game, despite the fact Nintendo's US, UK and Australian sites say its a fighter, the box of the game itself says fighter and several e-tailers put it in the fighter section. This particular one has been discussed at length and concensus says everyone thinks its a fighter, and he has made this change more than 5 times to the article, despite concensus being reached.

He also claims, again with no sources, that

Pokemon Red and Blue

isn't a roleplayer, and has also edited this. This one doesn't even need discussion, the simple fact is it is a role-player - no room for arguement.

I have warned him before that if he continues editing like this he will be reported, and, as its happened again, I feel there is no other option but to take it here

Looking at his previous edits on all articles, he does appear to be a disruptive editor, pushing his opinion despite concensus. He has also tried to edit articles, including the SSBB one, to say it isnt a fighter. I feel that he may be an "anti-Nintendo" fanboy, which is why he's taking these titles off the article, despite sources etc.

I would like an admin to decide if his clear edit warring over a period of weeks means that he won't change, and should therefore be blocked from editing the

List of best selling video games

article?

Also, could someone notify him about this discussion as I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

just for clarity he originally tried to class Smash Bros as a party game, then tried to class it as a "vs action" (despite the fact if you do a google search, this genre does not exist) then tried to class it as a party game again - this to me is clearly either him being anti-Nintendo or a Tekken fanboy.

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is take those references you mentioned and put them in the article. I went to

List of best selling video games and Super Smash Bros. Brawl and couldn't find any cites for the genre so either they're well hidden or non-existent. CIreland (talk

) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, cheers for the advice. the sources are not on the main page (as this is the first time anyone has argued a games genre, i believe) but they are clearly listed on the discussion about the game's genre on the talk page

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick google and there are *lots* of articles from reliable sources that name this as a fighter - added a few of them to the article and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

done and thx

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If the user persists in edit warring/adding blatantly incorrect information, then ititiate a

MuZemike (talk

) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

i considered an rfc but the particular article is edited by relatively few people, i didnt see the point as it wud end up here anyway

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The vs. genre exists in Japan not in America, that's why you don't find it at google.... many websites claim brawl is a fighter because they don't know what vs. action is. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't care - if 5 reliable sources name it as a fighter - it's a fighter - it's not our business to say "oh well they all got it wrong" and slot in OR in it's place. You keep reverting it out and you should be blocked for disruption. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the link, i'd already used all the English-speaking Nintendo websites (UK,US,AU) as refs as well as 2 shops (which I know aren't reliable but still extra evidence). please add your comments to the RfC, Cameron.

also, if the "vs. action" genre existed you would be able to find results in Google, people debating why theres so few, talking about Japanese games etc, but no - no results. Its a genre you tried to make up, because nobody let you call it a party game.

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

12:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that multiple editors have failed to resolve this situation, I am initiating the RFC/U.

MuZemike (talk

) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

MuZemike (talk

) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

George Carlin

I have been attempting to ad a quote from George Carlin to his bio and OhNoitsJamie ^Talk has done what he can to censor me.

He needs to be banned or at least lose his ability to ban others. --Georgelives (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to the talk page and discuss it. We aren't banning anyone here. But shoot, I'll ask him and see if he wants to explain himself here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As an impartial non-admin, I took a look at the George Carlin page and I have to say that Ohnoitsjamie was in the right to remove the quote. The quote you added, while from Carlin, had nothing to do with the "Religion" section it was under. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:07

Carlin's belief that the earth can think qualifies as a form of pantheism and while I'm not sure if he should be labled as such the quote should stay none the less. --Georgelives (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't the way to get that to happen. Talk with Jamie or do as Ricky81682 suggested, go to the talk page and discuss it there. Edit warring will only get you blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:20

If you look at the edit history it's clear that no matter what I did to reach a middle ground it wasn't good enough for jamie and he continued to wage an edit war. --Georgelives (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did look at your edits and you haven't tried talking to Jamie. Please try doing this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:34

What's the point if he's not going to change in the slightest? --Georgelives (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you're failing to assume good faith by not trying. HalfShadow 02:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And when he tells me (again) that my edit shouldn't be on the page and accuses me of being disruptive (again) for having posted a cited quote what then? --Georgelives (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

When you add the same thing over and over and over after it has been removed and the user has explained why, that is disruptive and potentially violating

3RR. So, show some good faith, and start up a conversation with Jamie. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• November 29, 2008 @ 02:51

The quote clearly did not belong in that section. As I noted in an edit summary, short quotes can be introduced into the article in the context of explaining one of the themes of his work. It's pointless and unencyclopedic to randomly toss in quotes. You were given plenty of warning to stop trying to make a

WP:POINT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As much as I love GC, and I haven't gone through their contributions, but Georgelives might just have some

►BMW◄

12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

200.109.222.132

Resolved

 – Blocked for disruptive editing

WP:BADCHARTS into articles related to RBD, as have his socks Blandinocm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morocho12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's back at it today.—Kww(talk

) 23:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help?

• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]

He's been blocked for this before, his accounts have been blocked for this before, he's been warned multiple times, and he continues to insert bad chart information. It's a static IP, so a block won't have collateral damage. Please, a nice, long, hardblock? It's hard enough to try to clean these charts out of Wikipedia without having to revisit the same articles over and over because people keep trying to force bad charts into them.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for a week with a message in the block message about the disruption of continuing to add information from known unreliable sources. Block duration will get longer if the behavior continues. This editor is making some good edits but on balance is causing more harm then benefit to the project.--NrDg 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

116.212.192.14 - Possible spam in bibliographies

116.212.192.14 (talk · contribs) has added details of a book (example, with no obvious relevance, to the bibliographies of several articles. I think this may be spam, but could be wrong. (I looked for a "spam noticeboard", but couldn't find one.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I am rolling these back. Please report any recurrence. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• WT:SPAM is where all the cool spam-fighting kids hang out; it's the closest thing I've found to a "spam noticeboard." --ElKevbo (talk
  ) 16:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Block extension

In light of User_talk:Privatemusings#curiosity_killed_the_crat, should the block on Everyme (talk · contribs) be reset/extended for this second incident of block evasion with socks? MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset. I can't really see any other course of action, seeing the blatant admission. A pity, because I like this editor - and he can be quite acute in his observations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset and extend for a further few weeks. Sorry, this is just deliberate and obvious trolling. Quite apart from the mention of the possibility of a "reset because of forbidden editing like this", the user, had he wished to contact PrivateMusings, had numerous other options - PM has email enabled, is a regular face on IRC, he even has a blog about his WP activities. The only reason to do it on wiki is to stir up a bit of drama. CIreland (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset, extend 6 months - Everyme has been around for more than long enough to know that blocks=people, not accounts. // roux   08:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset and double duration. Clear block evasion.  Sandstein  09:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Warn, but no additional action - he did not create an additional account and commented under an IP. He is merely asking what appears to be a "friend" a question. I read his comment about "reset because of forbidden editing like this" as rhetorical, if not even a portion of self-deprecating humour. Warn him, let him go.

►BMW◄

12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset, double block time - I had second thoughts about my earlier statement immediately after posting it. Subject is not just leaving a message, he is also editing mainspace pages. —

neuro^(talk)

14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Extend. Obviously. User shows no signs of change of approach. The only question is whether he's deliberately trying to sabotage that other user's ArbCom nomination, and if not, just what his game is. Aside from the obvious, of feeling like he's on a crusade of some kind, to "balance" wikipedia, i.e. to violate POV rules as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've exteneded Everyme's block to 2 months - something average between times proposed by different participants in this discussion. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Snappy1999 among others

Resolved

 – Dopplegangers of a long-time user trying to avoid impersonation. Protonk (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a slew of accounts being created with the same basic naming convention of "Snappy19xx" and "Snappy20xx." I don't know what this guy has in mind, but experience tells me that there may be a sockpuppet farm in the works. --

talk

) 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Trying to list all of them below. This is every one that matches the literal search term "snappy" in the past 1500 accounts created.
• Snappy1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheSnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fakesnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Realsnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Might be related to
  User:Snappy56). Protonk (talk
  ) 04:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't the server stop you after 20 accounts if you don't have the ACC tool? This is 21, unless I fail at counting. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not if you are IP hopping. John Reaves 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird. So, what to do since none of the accounts have edited? I left word with the 1999 version, but no answer. --

talk

) 06:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a trip to requests for Checkuser and see what they have to say. This many identically-named accounts seem to be pretty obvious evidence of ill intent. // roux   08:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Snappy here, I created those accounts but I forgot to put the doppelganger template in. I had some trouble recently with

talk

) 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AGF being what it is, I have struck my previous comments. // roux   09:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to strike them in my view, Roux. I fail to see how creating 20 or so accounts can be done with improving the encyclopedia in mind. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So, assume good faith. If these accounts are not intended to be used, but are only intended to block the namespace, go ahead and indefinitely block all of them. Since the creator has assured us that he doesn't intend to edit with them, you will only be making sure his wishes are honored.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Really? After the user comes here and says "I am the account creator and I created these accounts to avoid continued impersonation" that isn't a reason that improves the encyclopedia? PMDrive wasn't wrong to be curious and Roux wasn't wrong to be suspicious but in the face of an answer that allays suspicion and satisfies curiosity, shouldn't we accept it? Protonk (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange case of Millard Brunton

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted as a blatant hoax

User:Vendergood1's only edit is to create Millard Brunton and attempt to redirect Lew Brown to it. Ordinarily I would just let this grind through AFD but there seems to be a BLP angle to this. The article purports to have a photo of the subject, but it's plain that the picture is recent and not of a sixty year old. I suggest the photo at least ought to be oversighted. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• The image was on Commons, uploaded by the hoaxer and not used elsewhere; I have tagged it for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• ...and it's gone. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attack by possible sock User:130.17.92.17

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

The only edtis he has done contains of either personal attacks ([128] & [129]) or edit warring (as seen in his contribution history). Most likely his also a sock puppet of Am6212 (talk · contribs). The TriZ (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The only disruptive editor here is the incompetent above me. Look at this users history, he cusses, attacks, wikistalks other users who disagree and disprove his minority views. He is a menace to this enclyopedia. Have thourogh background check of this users civility towards other users. He has made several appalling comments towards other users under which I responded back to him for his idiotic comments. 130.17.92.17 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

re The TriZ, you cant put someone on an incident page without trying to resolve it with said user. as his talk page is blank its clear you haven't.

re 130.17.92.17 please provide links to these edits you claim are appalling.

thanks

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is there to resolve? This user is clearly a sock puppet, I've talked to him before, (

Wikiquette alerts or as a sock puppet at Suspected sock puppets. The TriZ (talk

) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These are just a small fraction of what this user has been saying. He has continously attacked other Users

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&diff=254823893&oldid=254539077 At line 225

Obviously your suffering from some kind of superior-complex. But fortunatetly your not ruling wikipedia. And nowadays, we have two articles, Aramean-Syriac people and Assyrian people. If that doesn't suit you, then please, keep it for yourself. And the numbers will change, cause they are incorrect, the question is whats the closest number to reality. The TriZ (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you stop lying? How about you start being constructive? How about you getting to a point? What are you trying to achieve here? Spreading your Assyrian propaganda? I'm sorry, me and the rest of the members in Wikipedia won't allow it. The TriZ (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one gives a damn about what we were called by the Greeks 2000 years ago, we really don't live in the bronze age. Aren't we all from the beginning the same people? But we have choosen different paths. Some rejetcs the Assyrian name, others embrace it. And you need to respect that. I'll leave this whole "Assyrian vs Syriac" thing for now, and I'm guessing soon enough your friends will have turned Mor Afrem Assyrian to... The TriZ (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only shows how biased you are, just because Rollinger has said based on a stone that Syrian is arrived from Assyrian doesn't mean its true. And when I'm on it, old Greeks also said that Syrians were Arameans, as you can find it cited in the Aramean-Syriac page. And so did Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Serug, Michael the Great, etc, etc, etc... Your only looking at one side of the coin. Don't be so naive and don't ignore you yourself the proofs that there is a trace through history that proves an Aramean link. The TriZ (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Malik, I'm starting to believe you are stupid. It's absolutely true a majority of the people in Södertälje are Syriacs. So if a reporter calls them Assyrian, proves only the ignorance of the reporter and nothing else. You are clearly as ignorant as the reporter about this subject. Your sources can never be used in a wikipedian article to prove that Syriacs and Chaldeans are Assyrians. That's just plain stupidity. The TriZ (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't blaim your obvious lack of reading comprehension by calling what I write for "folly". The TriZ (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Malik, once again you show your ignorance. The TriZ (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bla bla bla, cry me a river. The Assyrian flag represents those who call themselves Assyrians, no one else. I can create a flag that I say represents all countries in the world, does that make it the flag of the world? The TriZ (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your nonsense away from the article, no one is interest in your lies and conspiracy theories. And most important, do not present them as FACTS in the article. Also, this is not a matter of this article, if you have opionions about the Syriac Orthodox Churchs name, please take it in the article about the Church. The TriZ (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No one gives a damn about what you think about this "ethnic infighting", so you can save your rascist rants for yourself. You obviously have no idea about how many Syriac Christians there exist, so why even bother? The Assyrian people is dedicated for the ethinc Assyrian group. This is for the ethnic Aramean-Syriac group. The cited 3-4 million may have been high (and they can be adjusted), but they are more close to reality than that 3,3 millions call themselves Assyrians. I'm getting tired of your involvement in this debate because of your obvious lackage of insight in these matters and the fact that you alone, with some help of your lackey-warriors, are trying to force a name on a people who rejects it. The TriZ (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case they are just as right as the Nazis. "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it.".The TriZ (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC

I have far far far more than this Oh and by the way i am no sock puppet you name calling menace 130.17.92.17 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take your content dispute elsewhere. This is not the place for it, and frankly you are BOTH millimeters away from being blocked for incivility.GJC 21:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

to be honest its very handbags at dawn. The TriZ, you are flying very close to the power lines accusing somebody of racism. Anon, a lot of what The TriZ has said is relatively fair, at least the links you've shown, he's just gone an offensive route for expressing it. But again, the worst thing on there by far is an accusation of racism.

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect both of your inputs I must emphasize that this user has made several like the first link i have provided in line 225 which states "take your head out of your ass" this is one of countless articles and user talk pages this user has been using against other innocent bystanders who disprove his minority views. He has claimed others who disagree with him have mental illness etc. The incivility I have shown was strictly towards these inflammatory comments this user has and is continuig to make. I apologize on my behalf but I must stress these comment that I have provided are just a tip of the iceberg.130.17.92.17 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

IP 130.17.92.17 blocked 48h, sockpuppeter Am6212 (talk · contribs) re-blocked for another month, for now. Obviously abusive pattern here (note there were also obviously identical 130.* IPs in the relevant page histories.) I'll be willing to look into the behaviour of TriZ too, but perhaps later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

GJC, this isn't really content dispute. I didn't know if I was to report this user as a sock puppet or/and for his personal attacks, so I decided to report him here. I'll report him as a sock-puppet though, as you can see, he doesn't even bother to deny it. It's just one of many of his sock puppets. Chocobogamer, my racism accusation was some time ago and was directed at an admin acutally, but we are both past that now and are now working with eachother with no such problems anymore. The TriZ (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot

Why does ClueBot have the 'Accountcreator' permission? Looking at it's tasks/actions, I don't think it needs it.

Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!}

22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We have him doing DNSBL work at ACC, I don't know if it actually is required as such, though. Maybe it is simply more of a guidance flag than a technical flag. —

neuro^(talk)

23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PopSinger623

Resolved

 – Kanonkas dropped by.

Can I get an admin to pop in on this kid's talk page and reassure him that I'm not feeding him crap about his chances of getting unblocked, and what he needs to understand to get anyone to honor any unblock requests that he may make?

PopSinger623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Kww(talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:HPJoker

Please see here: WQA on HPJoker. User responded to the warnings from the WQA with personal attacks and more incivility that I added to the original WQA. In addition to what I have mentioned on the WQA link, he has also been uncivil on my usertalk page here: User talk:Atlantabravz. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of an admin, because it seems that the WQA warnings haven't worked for this editor, and admins seem to pay more attention to this board for obvious reasons. Atlantabravz (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with additional admin action. After responding a

►BMW◄

01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to just give him a "one more stunt like this and you will be blocked" message, but after seeing this, I decided he needed a three-day Wikibreak. Feel free to review.

96

01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup - that is what you did, all right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mary-Louise Parker has a troll account

This was an account on which I'd stumbled across a few days ago and which was subsequently blocked for an inappropriate username. The strange thing is, I've been seeing this same account popping up an awful lot as an autoblock on the list of blocked users. He/she is certainly persistent in attempting to log in, so that's why I'd thought it best to bring it here in case that user decides to try again through another IP. A username like that sure can't be attached to anything good. Just a thought. --

talk

) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Popped up again just two minutes ago. At least the block is working, but this individual hasn't got a clue. --

talk

) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article about West Chop College

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted per

WP:CSD#G3. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

After tagging the article for speedy deletion, page's author removed it. A warning was issued. Apparently, West Chop College is a false college. There are no results for it on Google. Which db template should I use? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

{{

AFD might be the best route to getting the article knocked down permanently. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And I see Protonk has now taken it to AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said on the AfD, I don't have any problem w/ people speedying this so long as they feel it fits G3 (I don't). Protonk (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sly77

Resolved

 – Blocked 12 hours by

user:Blueboy96 HalfShadow

02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User keeps reverting an edit on an article he created, Get in my belly. It is coming close to

csdnew

02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a 3RR warning since he has reverted 3 times. This is largely a content issue with a newbie editor. CIreland (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the redirect, as it should be. If it continues,

AFD might be able to establish a more convincing consensus. Though I doubt it'd be necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He also seemed to think he

96

02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't block him. It really does seem like this is a new editor who doesn't "get" the content and inclusion guidelines. I think engagement is preferable to blocking, though I don't think it is a bad block. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that diff

ownership issues, I don't think I can endorse a block just yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 02:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure he meant this HalfShadow 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual edit by new user

Please would an experienced admin take a look at this diff and inspect the edit made that appears to impersonate another user. Please then take whatever action is necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that intention of the said user was simply a reaction to my comment. Considering that s/he is a new user and has been informed of the mistake, I think we can

ignore it at the moment. ^LeaveSleaves _talk

11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really never a big deal and not really blockable unless you're in a bad mood and they're persistent. Yanksox (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist troll - what to do

Can anything be done about an anonymous racist troll?

Indian Massacre of 1622 full of highly emotional language directed against native Americans, and he is also repeatedly switching the casualties in the reference to "over 400", when it is indisputable among ALL sources that exactly 347 died. His edits there and at other articles (which started on Native American Commemoration day, perhaps coincidentally) clearly fall within the description of "trolling for a reaction". But I am hesitant to break 3RR, while he keeps on reverting the article to a racist version. I've tried engaging him on his talkpage, but he shows no understanding at all of wikipedia's neutrality policies, nor how the editing process works (he's already requesting "arbitration" after only one day of this dispute). Til Eulenspiegel (talk

) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not endorsing his view or edits, but he does not appear to be
  trolling editors. Please don't use those words to characterize his edits. Protonk (talk
  ) 01:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If that doesn't meet the definition of trolling, nothing does. He is using inflammatory language to back up a racist pov. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, in fact, not the definition of trolling. Trolling is staking a position in order to deliberately rile up others or cause resentment/consternation. I see no sign that he picked the word genocide for any reason other than ignorance. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. Taken a longer look at this. While he's obviously pushing a POV, this is largely a content dispute and I'm disinclined to use the tools in order to resolve it. My first suggestion is to find better sources for the Indian Massacre of 1622 article--from the cited sources in the article I can hardly say that many historians believe the figure to be 347. Likewise for the other articles, seek to improve them and if he continues to revert, come back here or try to go through
  dispute resolution. I know this is the long way 'round, given that this IP is clearly pushing a pseudoracist/revisionist POV, but we can't in practice just block based on that. Protonk (talk
  ) 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP's recent edits to the article have been challenged and thus should not be re-added until and unless consensus to do so established at the article's talk page, per
    WP:CONSENSUS. The IP should be warned about this by an admin and apprised of the fact that WP:edit warring may result in a block. In fact, by looking at the edit history, it seems to me that a block for edit warring may already be warranted. Nsk92 (talk
    ) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments made by 75.36.220.124

This individual has engaged in vandalism and uncivil comments. Witness his comment on the talk page for tobacco smoke enema. Dr. Morbius (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to warn him 4 times before he can be blocked. If he does it again report it here and someone can take action. SteelersFan-94 05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a popular misconception. While there are four levels of warning templates, there is no requirement – none – that all four be issued before a block. Serious vandalism often leads to a block after a single warning; in particularly egregious cases a block may be placed without warning. If there is further vandalism from this IP address, drop a note at

WP:AIV. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I reverted the talk page entry, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with improving wikipedia. That, along with being a lame joke unworthy even of my low level sense of humor. However, it did raise the question, in my mind, of whether the article itself is a hoax. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lame jokes, what Ten said reminded me of this one from Ernie Kovacs' old radio show, the "Mr. Question Man" segment: "A listener writes, 'If the world is round, why don't people fall off?' (chuckles) The listener has repeated a popular misconception. Actually, people are falling off all the time!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Looie496

Looie496 (talk · contribs)

This user has posted an slanderous lie here. I have requested he immediate delete his comment and apologize. Since he has refused to do so, I asked that he be blocked. This is

personal attack veiled in what appears to be a real Arbcom decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The time interval between demanding stuff and filing this report was precisely 20 minutes, during which I was not around. I intend to respond to this, but it may take a short time to get my ducks in order, so this is just a quick note that I'm not ignoring the issue. Looie496 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be this is a reference to

simple rules)

21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...yeah. That's a 'slanderous lie' in the same way the Star Wars prequels were epic examples of motion picture history (In the good way, obviously). At best, this could be considered an error on Looie's part. Overreact much? HalfShadow 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's the case. I wasn't aware of the "further statement", and I deny having "lied" in the sense of making statements that I knew to be false when I made them. I apologize to OM for having misrepresented the outcome of the case. That being said, there are real issues with his current behavior, which can easily by seen by anybody willing to take the time to read Talk:Major depressive disorder#False statements in the other treatments section. There is also material that may be relevant on my talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

you lied. I didn't. Instead of an honest apology you make excuses. This about your slandering me. Where's the apology and full retraction. Otherwise I hope you're blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

he has apologised above, and says he didn't deliberately lie but was himself unaware of the conclusion of the case. You could just have linked him to it or explained or something. :) Sticky Parkin 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, the worst effect of this frighteningly intense attack is that it is obscuring what I see as the main problem, the post from OM that I was responding to with the passage that he is complaining about, quote:

"Too many medical articles on this project have utter crap when discussing medications. Tryptophan or 5-HTP cannot treat depression under any condition, and picking one dumb-ass paper out of the millions published is an embarrassment. Do you really want to treat your spouse, your mother or yourself with tryptophan if you have MDD? I wouldn't. I think there's a CAM-wikipedia somewhere. Take this stuff there. Not here. I intend to remove any CAM crap from this article, and if Casliber blocks me for doing so, I'll respect that. However, if I'm mistaken and some of these useless therapies have shown to work as described in a fair number of real peer-reviewed journals, then I'm willing to eat humble pie. I don't see it however." -- OM

This argument is used to justify altering a statement in the article in a way that causes it to misrepresent its cited source. As far as I can see, this is the same kind of belligerently uncooperative style that led to the Arbcom proceedings, and that's what I was trying to say. I have a great deal of respect for OM, and think that the vast majority of his edits are excellent. But there have to be limits for everybody. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the mentorship outcome of the arbcom case, I've posted a

simple rules)

13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't an outcome, it was voluntary on my part. Remember, it was the result of secret, vindictive, arbitrary, and hateful proceedings by one Arbcom member, FT2, without the support of any others. So please don't misrepresent what happened. If you want to complain about someone, go after FT2. Otherwise, the point of this situation is not me, but it's the patent misrepresentation of facts by Looie in an vain attempt to silence my opinion. WLU, whom I respect, is misinterpreting what is going on here. I am not the subject of this ANI. I did nothing but respond in a very appropriate way to an outright lie and fabrication by a fellow editor, so that his awful pro-CAM POV can be added to articles. I would appreciate it WLU if you would stick to the point of my ANI--someone lied in a most hurtful manner. There's nothing else to discuss, other than the full blocking of Looie from this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, you probably need to watch how you phrase things in future. I looked at this thread thinking it had been startd by

talk

) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, on this page, Looie496 made this statement about me [131], which includes this: virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view. A look at an article on POV pushing, which he accused me of, includes this list of characteristics of a POV pusher [132]. In the context of WP, POV pushing is a serious accusation, and if Looie496 thinks I am guilty of anything on this list, I will be happy to discuss it further. But Looie496 seems to have a pattern of making foundationless serious accusations against other users which are insulting, and apparently intended to undermine the credibility of those he criticizes. The apparent intent of destroying the credibility of editors is highly problematic and harmful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. There's no admin action to take here. OrangeMarlin, your show of bad faith in response to his clarification is shameful. And you can throw whatever you like at FT2, but when it comes down to it, there were serious issues raised in your case. The fact that you are demanding a block for this, claiming it is a "personal attack"... I don't even have words. You're in no position to be demanding apologies from anyone.

vecia

15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, the role of people commenting is to deescalate a dispute, right? I'm not seeing your comment as helping to improve the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Er...I'm pretty sure the "role" of a commenter is to shed light on the situation by providing a comment...y'know...a singular opinion within a greater discussion with the goal of creating a consensus? Or did ArbCom ban "comments" which might upset people? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment:It is extremely bad form to mention an users ArbCom sanction in an effort to "win" a content dispute. It seems to me that Looie496 muddied the water by talking about Orangemarlin prior conduct in this discussion. The fact that he mistated the situation makes it worse. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were in OM's shoes, my response to such a statement would be simply, "You are mistaken about the ArbCom," and elaborate as needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, in a perfect world, OM would have not responded in a heated way. But in the real world people have different temperaments. OM has a legitimate complaint that I've heard from many of other users with current and past sanction. I think we need to make a point to remind users not to take discussions sideways by mentioning a persons past conduct. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. What's the value of a civility sanction if it can never be invoked? Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that many users have been blocked for less, but in this there has not been even a warning to Looie496. It seems true that Wikipedia is a virtual police state with club welding administrators keeping the slaves in line, but it would be nice to know that the punishments were being given out in something other than a random fashion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with mentioning someone's arbcom sanction- if the facts are correct. Unfortunately, Looie had gone on the case 'verdict' before it was altered, so had misunderstood the findings, for which he's apologised. Sticky Parkin 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mention?! The way it was done was not a mention, but a cheap shot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A cheap shot indeed -- and one of the reasons I came to the realization that "civility paroles" are not a good tool on Wikipedia is that they are used as bludgeons in precisely this manner, and the result, a disproportionate amount of the time, is escalation, just as we are seeing here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a cheap shot, and the guy who brought it up knew just which button to push. Everyone's different, but what matters here above all else is the content of wikipedia - to keep it a place where the casual reader to go to find information. If someone takes a cheap shot, it might sting, but does it interfere with the content of articles? That's the issue that should be the primary focus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not a cheap shot, and the problem was that I didn't know which button to push, or I wouldn't have left myself open to such an obvious counterpunch. In one of the threads OM started a few days ago, somebody included a link to [133] or something similar. I read it, and the evidence, but was not aware that the decision had been vacated. In the evidence, I noted several instances of the same type of angry intimidation apparent in the passage I quoted above. Believing that it still applied, I cited it. I have apologized for that. I consider that in doing so I have taken the first step to de-escalate this. I don't think I am obligated to keep trying to de-escalate while OM keeps trying to escalate. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• If it was just one, I would be more inclined to believe your innocent mistake excuse. But you did the same to me. I invited you [134] to explain just what it is that makes you think I am a POV pusher, and have gotten no reply. That was two cheap shots in one day (or was it two?). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're right that stuff like this takes away from time that could be better spent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The right way for Looie to have handled this was to bring it here if he thought an ArbCom sanction was being violated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to get him punished, I only wanted him to change his tactics in the dispute. Bringing it here would have been the last resort. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this thread continued beyond here. Looie made an honest mistake; OM overreacted; Looie apologized. It wouldn't hurt if OM apologized for his part as well, but anything beyond that and a handshake seems like overkill. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin has a history of this; if he doesn't like you, you 'need to be blocked'. HalfShadow 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I never got a reply at all from Looie496 about his accusation that I am a POV pusher. It was a cheap shot too, although the one against Orangemarlin was worse. Looie496 seems to see no need to respond to my challenge of that at all, and has continued to ignore my request for an explanation. In my view Looie496 is just trying hard to play innocent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to deal with this in the current thread, it's already too complicated. Start a new thread and I'll respond. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, this began with you responding to a forcefully put reminder of the essence of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE by alleging that it's "belligerent intimidation" and dragging in imaginary sanctions. Your response was completely out of order, and you should be presenting reliable sources to support the claims you want included, not trying to get people shut out for asking you in no uncertain terms to comply with policy and fringe guidance. If you acknowledge that it would be a great help. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I sympathize because it's always hard to understand the flow of editing coming from outside, but you're not really grasping the sequence of events here. This literature review, the best source that could be found, explicitly states, "Available evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression." There was consensus between at least Casliber, me, and ImperfectlyInformed to use a wording in the article that reflected that conclusion. OM then did this, and defended it with the passage I quoted above, which provoked the response I made. Looie496 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, but that isn't the conclusion. You seem to have forgotten the next sentences – "Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-HTP and tryptophan before their widespread use can be recommended. The possible association between these substances and the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome has not been elucidated. Because alternative antidepressants exist which have been proven to be effective and safe the clinical usefulness of 5-HTP and tryptophan is limited at present." So, OM's edit would have been better focussed on the safety implications and the existence of proven alternatives. Or, as he suggests, leave this unproven and potentially dangerous medication out. See? it's good to discuss these things, not to try to bully people away by claiming their reasonable concerns over article content are "intimidation". Do try to do better in future. . . dave souza, talk 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)