Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503

• User talk:Martintg;. this is a sock of the banned vandal and sock puppeteer User:roobit. He is right now harassing his former 'opponents' on their talk pages. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!
  ) 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. (or WP:ANI, if SSP is still backlogged) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  For God's sake, I didn't need any wiki-bureaucratic discussions on the page you linked here! I wanted this IP (probably an Estonian

  WP:3RR 3 rv rule this time - on other person's talk page. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!

  ) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I can see your problem - you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page! If it is a sockpuppet problem take it to the sockpuppet page, and if it is 3RR violations take it to the 3RR page, and if it is more complex take it to WP:ANI. This page is for obvious vandalism and spamming (it says so, just above these reports). Not really our problem if you are too lazy or thick to place it on the right page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're reply (unlike mine ;-)) contains violation of

WP:NPA. Tell me where should I report you? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!

) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, having re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, I could easily conclude that the IP's acts fall under two 'Vandalism types': 'sneaky vandalism' in article space and 'Userspace vandalism' on various user talk pages. And according to Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, “Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV”, so that if anyone has problems with reading, it's probably not me. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI LessHeard vanU (talk

) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above thread was at

) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page", whilst perhaps not being the most appropriate response, doesn't sound uncivil to myself. In Miacek's position I would have merely taken it as a slap on the wrist, but I guess that is just an interpretation. —

neuro^(talk)

14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that comment was clear violation of NPA and I shouldn't have done it (

time off as considered appropriate) so I apologise for that. As for the basis of the complaint, I couldn't see a direct link between the two accounts except for an obvious bias - but one which may be shared by several inclined editors, so folk more familiar with socking or this particular case should review it. As for 3RR, this usually needs more than one editor and I was not prepared to wade through the history to find if one party was more guilty than another (plus, it is AIV!!!) Lastly, I was I admit ticked off with the response; in that period I had more edits to the AIV board than the bot, and I was less than amused with Miacek's first comments - still, as I said, my bad. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I never said it wasn't an NPA violation. It is. —

neuro^(talk)

14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good grief. I blocked the IP for a while, as I agree with the analysis that it is a returning blocked user harassing people. Miacek, LHvU is right, next time please take it to
  WP:SSP which is there for that exact purpose. Happy New Year, everyone. Guy (Help!
  ) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point this thread can be marked as resolved - thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and done. Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So the problem with lack of civility on the part of LHVU is not to be addressed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not taking a side but asking...It looks like he apologized above and realized his mistake?? What more do you suggest or are you looking for? --Tom 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BalLightning (talk · contribs)

Just checking this users contribs as I ran in to him again, he's made a total of 5 edits in over 2 years, 1 was vandalism, and 4 have been for promotion. The 4 promotion ones are all in the last month. His talk page shows a deleted contribution that from the looks of it was probably more promotion. It seems that he's not here to do anything besides promote (as slowly and infrequently as it is, but there isn't a good contrib in the bunch).--

) 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see no contributions at all. Anyone care to clarify? —

neuro^(talk)

14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BalLightning does seem to list 5 contributions to my non-administrator eyes. I don't think any admin action is required here, the 4-level warning system should suffice as it's possible the editor does not understand the implications of their actions and it's no harm to assume good faith on the part of inexperienced editors. The Spore article has enough eyes on it to prevent any damage. Skomorokh 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems my ec was Crossmr fixing the username. I agree that no admin intervention appears to be required immediately - uw is probably the best course of action. —

neuro^(talk)

16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse / suspect editing motives

Would it be possible for an administrator to have a quick look at

) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 3 hours to permit them to read the welcome message on their talkpage, and to respond to concerns expressed there. Next time,

WP:AIV is best suited for a quick response (as long as you don't get the grumpy reviewer that sometimes answers there). LessHeard vanU (talk

) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the grumpy reviewer? ;-)

Tan | 39

16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't go to

WP:AIV because I didn't consider it to be vandalism, or the matter to be particularly urgent. It was more "annoying" rather than "harmful" to the project. -- Scjessey (talk

) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the curmudgeon who was the subject of this matter. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm familiar. At any rate, you could have easily been referring to me - I do get grumpy :-)

Tan | 39

17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that "being grumpy" is an impediment to being an administrator. It may even be a requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually; I never promote any RfA candidate that doesn't have the correct level of grumpiness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like you're not a true admin until you are told you are abusing your power...which in turn gives you an appropriate level of grumpiness. --Smashville^talk 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense; the prerequisites of adminship are (1) had your talkpage blanked by an IP, (2) been accused of at least three words ending in "ism" and (3) had at least one argument with Baseball Bugs. There's a checklist – 

iridescent

17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like you just went through my talk page archives.

Tan | 39

17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think another one is, "Likes to argue with brick walls". --Smashville^talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop this requirement creep at once.

Policy is clear on this matter. Skomorokh

18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I get on pretty well with Baseball Bugs - and Duncan Hill, for that matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but it sure doesn't stop him arguing with me. I guess if you haven't had an argument with BB, one with Smith Jones would be an acceptable substitute. – 

iridescent

21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Arguing" with Smith Jones would be akin to arguing with Gabby Johnson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been in an argument with Bugs (well...not a real one that I can recall), but I've read enough of Smith...someone should've given him spell check for Christmas. Bugs is at least well-liked enough to have his own stalker. --Smashville^talk 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's when you know you've arrived. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I've never had an argument with either (although I've read BB's comments here), nor have I had a stalker (not looking to fill the position, either). Maybe it's that I read stuff like this for fun, & folks consider me strange even by Wikipedia standards. But I can get grumpy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New account 104Serena (talk · contribs) has plunged straight into editing a number of articles on contentious issues (such as police action, feminism, porn, depression) and made edits which, while having innocuous edit summaries, remove cleanup templates around neutrality, OR, unreferenced claims, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two edits which removed templates; one was a revert to a previous version, and the other, well, who knows, maybe it was malicious and maybe it was an accident. Is there a reason you came here first instead of first asking them why they did it, and telling them not to do it again?

I do not see any problems. Have you cautioned the user yet? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor? I doubt it.

talk

) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

neuro^(talk)

19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more or less a pro forma notice, since it involved a lot of pages... Please see User:Lindale13 in the ANI archive 500. This user, as discussed there, was mirroring the user pages of others into their user space, via copy. I don't think any major harm was intended, but it's a GFDL violation, and worse, it was making some categories wonky (any category that a given page was in also had the mirror page in it too). I suggested to the user (at User_talk:Lindale13) that they should reply. They did so, but to the ANI archive, rather than their own user page or mine. Based on what they have said, (about not needing the pages, and about "deleting them" (actually what they did was blank the page that linked to them, making the pages unreachable, but not deleted) and the issues originally raised, I've deleted the entire swath of pages, as can be seen in my deletion log: [1]. I shall notify the user of this discussion. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I do hope that he is able to follow course work requirement and project assignments criteria a little better than he does WP:Practice and Principles. Yeah, fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of admins have suppressed the fundraiser banner, so they don't see it on each page, but there's a rather embarrassing misspelling in one of the messages and I haven't been able to find the page from which to correct it:

Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité ! — Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR (Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!)

"Luxembuorg" is spelled wrong, I haven't been able to find any location which is so spelled. It should be "Luxembourg." Pretty sure this is an admin task, but I have no idea where the notice is generated from. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The class is "siteNoticeBig notice-wrapper", if that helps anyone locate it. —

neuro^(talk)

00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably on Meta-wiki. Majorly talk 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The banner is created by the Foundation staff... Shoot an e-mail to foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org?

00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the quote translations are editable by meta admins, has been taken care of by Marybelle.

00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is most aggravating. Editors who have been using the tool for a long while should be very well aware when rollbacking should be utilized, but coming from a sysop no less, I expected better. Thoughts on what to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about trying a little harder to not be so irritating? older ≠ wiser 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That gives you absolutely no reason to imply I am vandalizing. Your bad faith revert on that redirect should be undone immediately. You don't deserve the rollback feature as far as I'm concerned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You were making repeated blatantly nonproductive edits under the mistaken aegis of

WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser

02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Bkonrad that comment was out of line, I suggest you retract it. As for rollback abuse, rollback should never ever be used to revert a good faith edit. However I should also point out that both of you are close to breaking the 3rr--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede the comment may have been out of line for this forum. However, this editor, despite knowing full well that his edit is blatantly nonproductive, and even apparently agreeing at least to some extent with me[2], he has

WP:POINTedly once again reverted here and here. I'll stand by my characterization as irritating. older ≠ wiser

02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering to justify yourself. Your use of rollback, in an edit war, was out of line, if you refuse to accept that then perhaps your permission should be revoked--Jac16888 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What wikilawyering? The edits were blatantly nonproductive and he failed to follow up on discussions that he initiated before reverting while incorrectly invoking

WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser

02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if your assessment is 100% accurate, in no way does that justify your use of the rollback function, which never should be invoked in a content dispute, regardless of who's right or wrong. You've been a sysop since May 2004, so I would hope that you're aware of this. —

David Levy

03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that my use of rollback may have been motivated by a fit of pique. I should have manually reverted the edits and once again attempted to explain to irritatingly deaf ears why the edits were unproductive. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In such a situation, it also can be helpful to consider allowing someone else to revert. The edits appear to be relatively minor (rendering reversion non-urgent), but if you're correct in your belief that they were "blatantly nonproductive," an ample number of users should agree. (I realize, of course, that it's easier to prescribe that type of patience than it is to summon it in the heat of the moment.) —

David Levy

03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. Please settle this dispute on the talk page, either way (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Over at

03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Davidx5 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked twice in less than two weeks for repeated disruptive editing. He doesn't like the article at Hispanic, so he keeps putting in contentious edits, which keep getting reverted. He then created Hispanic (updated), which contained his personal point of view, and that got speedy deleted. So he's just re-created it, I've listed it for speedy deletion as db-repost. Somebody needs to take Davidx5 in hand and explain that he can't have his own articles, and if he continues, he should be long-term blocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems sorted out, dramaz now.

) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An IP user logging in from 84.139.*.* (the IP address seems to vary with every edit) has been wiki-hounding me for the last couple of weeks - especially the last few days. Since he or she does not have an account or a fixed IP address, the easiest way to confirm this claim may be to look at the articles I have edited recently and track his contributions. Besides having an apparent dislike for my work, he seems to have a faint but consistent German nationalist slant.

(I brought the matter here a couple of days ago; he replied by making claims on my edits that were prima facie false - at times these claims were contradicted by the diffs he had given. This seems frivolous, to say the least.) Feketekave (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, Geolocate shows that this user is logging in from Rostock in Pomerania (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Can somebody run a check against two recent users in Talk:Drang nach Osten? User:Skäpperöd and User:HerkusMonte may have compatible views, declare themselves to be from the same region and have been contributing to the page where the wikihounding started. No offense intended; I hope my relations with those two users (should they be distinct from each other and from the misbehaving IP user) will continue to be cordial. Feketekave (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please speedy delete The List Companies? I've now got three "new" editors, including the article's original creator, who has a conflict of interest name that's similar to that of the company, removing not only my db-spam tag from the article, but also CorenBot's copyright notice. Salting may be necessary, too. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• 76.30.97.194 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.207.143 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.96.91 (talk · contribs)

Could I get an administrator who knows ranges to work a rangeblock that'll hit all three of these

) 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• 76.30.96.0/23 for the close pair, 76.30.0.0/16 (No go) for the whole. What makes you think that comcast isn't just assigning dynamic IPs across a large range? Do you think the smaller range will block a few potential socks from being created? Protonk (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to agree with Protonk on this. We had a situation abotu a month ago where someone had a Bell Canada IP, and had dynamically assigned addresses over a /8 range. It was kinda like this. Given the size of the range, and the way many large ISPs assign dynamic IP numbers, it would be as ineffective in stopping such a person with a range-block as it would be just handing out individual whack-a-mole blocks. The targeted ranges only have a random chance of stopping him, temporarily, while they will also block otherwise good users at the exact same rate, thus making any rangeblocks in this situation pointless.
    WP:RBI and semi-protect for short durations (a day or so) as needed seems to be the only way to stop this. Yes it sucks, but given the way that Comcast likely handles assigning its IP addresses, its the only feasible way of doing this. Get your whack-a-mole hammers ready... --Jayron32.talk.contribs
    15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How should this spam be dealt with?

This page: punjabinri.com/ is continually being added by various editors to articles. It's clearly spam but there is no point in dealing with the editors as they are often one-off IPs. Another page, punjab.punjabinri.com/ is also added which I think is basically there to lead to the financial services page.

I'm not clear how to get this blacklisted (if that's the solution), and whether this should be done only locally or over all Foundation Wikis. Thanks.

talk

) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Talk to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist folks. They R smrt. They can figure out how to add that to their regexes and what-not. :) They can also probably answer the foundation vs. en-wiki question. Protonk (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that page first, and it seems that is only for the en version, but I'll have a go, I can only learn!

talk

) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koavf/Community_sanction of October (which stated, among other clauses "Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construe. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions) yesterday 29 Dec 08 KOAVF returned to start editing, and immediately started out with stealth edits to Western Sahara pages. The edits themselves are merely minor, if irritating, semi-POV edits to stable language, but right out of the gate from his return to editing, it appears, he violates a clear ban (based on this discussion for exactly the same behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals ; scroll up for discussion of ban etc).

KOAVF Edit History: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Koavf

Immediate (upon return) W. Sahara Edits: SADR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&diff=260640377&oldid=246168664 (Comparison is merely w my last revert from some vandalism, highlighting he removed stable language, not a new addition, never mind he's specifically banned from editing W Sahara; I would note the deceptive "edit description" note marking it as spelling, when in fact it was POV on content).

Sagui El Hamra: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saguia_el-Hamra&diff=260639740&oldid=257753630 (Editing again, rather more defensible insofar as he restored information, however as he is banned and already changing stable but to him controversial text, I would suggest he could have editing a talk page and asked a neutral party to take the same action, without violating his ban.)

I have not included some minor edits related to Western Sahara on non-W. Sahara pages, insofar as they would cloud the issue.

The key reason for this complaint is (i) of course it is a clear violation of the ban, but (ii) much more importantly edits such as to the SADR page (mislabelled as spelling, overturning stable consensus language to his preferred version, after months of quiet) are precisely what used to set off nasty edit wars between himself and the Moroccan partisans. As noted in the ban/block discussion of September / October above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals) KAOVF has long edit warred over W. Sahara were it is more than evident that in the end only his POV is "consensus" to him, as Admin FaysalIF laid out in the original conversation, which has invariably touched off endless edit wars even with the most reasonable of editors. (collounsbury (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Ban has clearly been violated, I am not sure if I should suggest a final warning or a block though. —

neuro^(talk)

11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per neuro. Given this is the first time he's edited since 27 September, I'm not sure either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eyh, given that the edits are not that disruptive, and given that there has been some time elapsed since that case, I'm going to issue a final warning here. If he continues to edit these pages, any editor has my support for another lengthy block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Good call. Any repeat is an unambiguous block, so pay out the rope and let him decide what to do with it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may, first whether Kaovf gets his 20th or 21st block seems almost inevitable, but with respect to the triviality of the edits, I agree except for example on the SADR editing, as it was this kind of stealth editing (mislabelled, overturning phrasing that had been arrived at - to no single parties' pleasure, obstinacy as noted in FAysal's original discussion of a site ban) that has set off multiple rounds of edit wars with respect to Western Sahara & Morocco. The highly party political editing, and the habit of going silent for periods and then coming back and stealthily overturning consensus phrasing was well attested to before. I do not believe for a minute he was not aware of the ban, given how it arrived. I found it remarkably telling that the very moment he returned to editing, he snuck in the POV (minor to be sure, without a 'history' I would have ignored it) edit, under a mislabelled (as "spelling") minor edit. It is extremely difficult, taken a long history of such, to see this as merely a mistake in good faith, and it is exactly the sort of habits that set off edit wars with other editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

This shows how Justin (Koavf) is so keen to blatantly close his ears to all calls. He clearly knows the reason why he decided himself to be off for all those few weeks. I'd consider this as 'him testing the waters' and suggest we leave it there for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to have been nuked as spam. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah was deleted! In fact it was me who nomed it for deletion as it contained little context to ascertain notability. But I still can't fathom what happened! Why was it displaying {{

grammar}} twenty times! Was the template vandalised? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk

17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what it was, but the template seems OK, it's not been edited for a while. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh (talk · contribs) These are false accusations here and here. I consider this editors activities to be disruptive, lacking in

16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits, he certainly appears to be well beyond 3rr [[3]] and certainly doesn't seem interested in the fact that his POV is being soundly rejected by the other participants on talk.

talk

) 17:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are difs from today when he undoes others work on the article. [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]

talk

) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A pattern he apparently carried on from previus days as per [[8]] and [[9]] I don't think he can argue that he was unaware that there was, at best no-consensus on his edits and in fact an overwhelming majority opposed to them.

talk

) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the diffs only [39] is a clear revert. In [40] Skomorokh moved a statement to a different place. In [41] (s)he removed a citation from the lead, because it is not necessary there. And in [42] (s)he simply merged 3 successive refs. I do not see evidence of a violation. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my agreement with Ruslik. 3RR appears to be intact. —

neuro^(talk)

18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh added a "maintainer" template for himself at the top of the talk page of

WP:OWN shown by the maintenance template and his failure to understand the controversial nature of this article (as well as a likely COI), he should probably receive a topic ban of some sort: he does appear to be disrupting the editing of the article and causing needless offense on talk pages. Mathsci (talk

) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I restored this section after it was prematurely archived. Enigma ^message 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to comment that I have left the article after being brought there by the comments made to both Verbal and OrangeMarlin's talk pages. I also noticed that every comment being made was seemingly controlled by this user. I questioned the notation at the top of the page box which then got removed. I am sorry to say but I too feel the

WP:OWN is a factor here. Skomorokh is still working the page and asking questions at the talk page but it appears to me that everyone else has decided to as I did, leave. If this editor would slow down a bit and give others the opportunity to add to the article I find this would be helpful. For every edit someone else did, Skomorokh was right behind them making edits to the new additon with comments. I am just commenting so that maybe this editor will slow down and allow others to edit too without s/he trailing behind them. As it is now, I think the article is theirs for now. I am not sure what should be done though. --CrohnieGal^Talk

12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One has to admire those with a strong enough constitution to wade into that cesspool. I don't possess a strong enough gag reflex to do much more than quickly glance at it and then dash to the bathroom to toss up my lunch.

) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

No smoke without fire, and I'm a bit concerned about Orangemarlin. People will remember the secret ArbCom trial a few months ago. Orangemarlin realised he acted like a twat and promised to not do so in the future. Why then, is he accusing an arguably good-faith editor (come on, Sko's intentions aside, he did get the article to GA, which given the subject matter, is an achievement in itself) of "whitewashing" and threatening to tag all of Sko's contribs with COI templates? Clearly he's lied to the community. An all too common occurence these days... Sceptre ^(talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Excellent commentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment should either be refactored or removed, it's being unhelpful to the discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. Being a big fan of the mentioned body part, I don't find the term to be an insult to OrangeMarlin, but a compliment! Apparently, OrangeMarlin acted like a desirably warm, inviting, nurturing spring of life in the exchange! 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was exasperated to find that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters appears to be continuing the outing crusade of Bali ultimate at [[13]]. Lulu does this despite the exonerating results of the checkuser done against me. I made reasonable edits to the ACORN article and, unlike previous occasions, explained in detail why I was doing so, yet Lulu reverted them apparently just because I made them. As I recall I made several edits one of which was a mass revert of material (deleted previously by Bali) that happened to include maybe one Capital Research Center item and Lulu seized on this to again make allegations about my identity. Other edits to the article included an article from NPR which is considered on WP to be a reliable source. The fact that he is continuing the outing talk begun by Bali and continues to make allegations as to my identity contrary to

) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just here to say i note that my name is repeated again and again up above apparently in some complaint about lulu. My connection appears to have to do with one comment i made a week or so ago (now enshrined in Acorn lore as the "outing crusade"), and other edits i've done about this, that or the other thing. It's all very confusing. If there's an actual reason for my involvement in this, someone let me know (aside to syntacticus: I'm pretty sure that lulu is not an admin.)

talk

) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read Lulu was an admin. I may be mistaken. The reason you are mentioned here is because you made an attempted outing which I subsequently learned is a very serious blockable infraction of WP rules. You desisted after being warned but Lulu appears to have picked up the ball from you and is doing the same (or very close to the same) all because I happen not to agree with his reverts of my edits to ACORN. Syntacticus (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge the parties involved to take a chill pill. This looks like an edit war / content dispute, and a minor one at that.[15] The sock/coi concerns are that Syntacticus added several sourcing links to contentious claims made by a think tank that he/she may be affiliated with, and is editing articles in a way that supports their position. Those concerns are not unfounded and are not answered by the checkuser's inconclusive result. There was an improper attempted outing, which was already handled here with a warning, but that is a separate matter - voicing sock/coi concerns is not outing. However, absent any blatant trouble, even if they are true Syntacticus is free to make good faith, anonymous edits here, and seems to be sincerely interested in participating in Wikipedia. When faced with a simple content question, and a murky question behind that of the legitimacy of editor accounts, perhaps it's better to stock to the content question. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Lulu's edits, and they are troubling. Perhaps a: Lulu stop that, and a Syntacticus, please ask for community input about the sources that you want to use. I am extremely sympathetic to your point of view, but the sources that you want to use do not, as of yet, have community support. Request another mediation, ask more established users whom you trust or let CRC go.( on my way to notify lulu, as Im not sure he is aware)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what appears to be your insinuation that Lulu is a pedophile or a homosexual here [[16]] troubling. Lots of us are troubled by what lots of people do.

talk

) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D: Seriously, how can NPR not have community support? Why should I have to ask anybody's permission to cite NPR? My continuing concern with the ACORN article is that it very briefly and almost in passing recites just a few of ACORN's problems. It's as if ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis wrote the thing.(Perhaps the matter of ACORN's many legal and other problems would be dealt with in a separate article linked to in the main article?) As for the CRC item, it was just one in a mass blanking by Bali ultimate. This is not solely about CRC. This is about whether the ACORN article reflects make believe or whether it reflects reality. WP is supposed to be about reality, not about PR puff-piece BS. Syntacticus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it some more, so if I jumped the gun , I apologize. NPR should be a reliable source ( although I seldom like what I hear them say :-). This sounds like a conflict dispute, so I'll check out the talk page. If it is CRC related, then I stand by my previous statementDie4Dixie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I will take a rain check on the chill pill, but thanks for the suggestion. I want to get to the bottom of this. Syntacticus (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Syntacticus has made a career on Wikipedia of adding references to the Capital Research Center, and more especially to reports by Matthew Vadum. That behavior inevitably and justifiably leads to the suspicion that he is connected to one or the other of them. Regardless of his motivation, it is inappropriate behavior. I've repeatedly asked him to stop spamming links to CRC in articles. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the CRC. Whether or not Syntacticus is connected to the CRC or Vadum, he shouldn't be promoting them so excessively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some of this could be resolved if all the users there would agree to mediation like was attempted earlier. He seems to think it is a case of

WP:DONTLIKEIT rather than a problem with the source. I for one would agree again. I don't think the source is a good one for Wikipedia, but there are several sources I see used here that are as bad or worse. A difinitive statement from the mediation crew would resolve this. Or even a group of trusted neutral admins. could be formed to evaluate sources and make determinations for reliability in questions like this.Die4Dixie (talk

) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich redirect not allowed

Shostakovich, DmitriÄ­ Dmitrievich is official form of name found in library catalogs but I received a "not allowed" when I tried to create a rediredct page #REDIRECT Dmitri Shostakovich This causes link from library catalog to fail. Should be able to create redirects from library catalogs using official form of name to provide users with access to the Wikipedia author article.

compare results of http://plus.mnpals.net/vufind/Author/Home?author=Shostakovich,%20Dmitri%C3%84%C2%AD%20Dmitrievich,%201906-1975.&library=TRC were it doesn't connect to Wikipedia article

with one for Tomas Friedman

http://plus.mnpals.net/vufind/Author/Home?author=Friedman,%20Thomas%20L.&library=TRC

Where it does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9friedrich9 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's how it works? There's also no redirect at

Friedman, Thomas L. here.
In any case, I don't think Wikipedia should create misspelled redirects so that third party websites can interface with it more easily – that should be taken care of at their end. Also, assuming that it's not a live mirror, you won't see any change on the site unless they get a new database dump. --Amalthea

17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, that's a pretty common spelling. Even if DmitriÄ­ is a mis-spelling, it's still a plausible search term. Since I didn't see the reply above, i went ahead and created the redirect as requested. No harm done, I hope. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a misspelling, it looks like an HTML/web browser character encoding problem to me, albeit a prevalent one. And I think the OP was also referring to the Eastern European convention of "last name, first name" listings. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's an encoding issue. What they tried to write is Shostakovich, Dmitriĭ Dmitrievich. Anyhow, since the OP's link now works and displays the Wikipedia lead, I'll mark this as resolved, and add the site to meta:Live mirrors. :-\ --Amalthea 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin please help and hit the big red stop button at User:PDFbot. I have noticed it is running through many pages on my watchlist and changing them, and have posted at bot owner's talk page to stop and discuss first. Cost of restarting bot later = 0. Cost of fixing lots of bad edits = considerable, perhaps. Thanks, doncram (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the specific problem with the bot? Hiberniantears (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is running through articles on NRHP sites and messing up the NRHP text and photos references, in my view. It replaces a standard reference that has 2 PDF links, one for a text document and one for an accompanying photo sets, by 2 differently formatted PDF links. I think it is malfunctioning in doing this. I have posted at User talk:Dispenser. doncram (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked. Request reactivation here or on my talk page.

Tan | 39

22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interim naming of

December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes

We're having a problem where a fresh set of eyes might help. There is some discussion of what to call the article about the recent events in the Gaza strip. The article began as "Operation Cast Lead" named for the Israeli code name for the operation and some editors felt that this was a violation of

here

.

At issue is what to name the article in the interim, while we attempt to build consensus about a long term name. Specifically, that

changed back for now

if not forever, but that could be my own bias on the subject,

The general sense that I'm getting is that people are frustrated and unsure as to how to proceed both on the short and long term. So I'm asking for an admin to take a look and give us some feedback.

Lot 49a^talk 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with

Operation Cast Lead? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk

23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had a few arguments raised: that an incident that involves killing civlians shouldn't be named after a poem, that by using the IDF name for it, we're endorsing their view, that no one in the media is using Operation Cast Lead to describe the events etc. There are screens and screens of arguments [[

two main places if you want to read more. Lot 49a^talk

23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lot49a, we do not discuss content here at ANI, we discuss behavior needing admin intervention. It is sufficient to mention that you are misrepresenting the views you do not share. Interested editors can see the arguments, for and against, in the

talk page. I am responding to your behavioral claims separately, as it seems you do not have the full information available. It is also obvious from your post you do have a side to pick, which is unfortunate, as I haven't seen you argue in the talk page as one should. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk

) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to all of this and wondering if instead of AN/I I should have gone to RFC? It honestly doesn't REALLY matter what we call the article in the interim while we wait to decide about the long term name. Both names redirect to the same page.Lot 49a^talk 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article started as

. I believe none of us did, but I believe RyanGerbill is mistaken in thinking he operated with consensus. He didn't.

Yes, I was

Operation Cast Lead

makes a great redirect, and should be mentioned in the lead, but both the immense majority of the reliable sources and a need for editorial neutrality make it invalid as an article name choice. Consensus cannot operate against policy on a per article basis: systemic changes on policy are to be by systemic consensus. I stand by the judgment call made, as it makes us a better encyclopedia.

As to a generalized sense of frustration, I disagree. I think we are all discussing this, and we disagree and agree but this is normal. There has been two users I have had issues in particular,

WP:SNOWBALL

closed as irrelevant, and then posted some stuff about "talking to Jimbo" in my talk page. Otherwise, I have seen no other expression of frustration, just disagreement.

As a reminder this article falls into the Discretionary Sacntions ruling of the ArbCom for all Israeli-Palestinian articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"we do not discuss content here at ANI", you say just three minutes before posting a comment that... hm... discusses content on ANI. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to explain my behavior, from my perspective. My intent was not to raise a content debate, but address my behavior. I am sure you are capable of understanding the difference. (no thanks! because you find them sarcastic) --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original title was Operation Cast Lead. There were about 6 members discussion the title, resulting in a lengthy 10 paragraph debate. But Cerejota completely ignored the discussion, and unilaterally changed the title to Dec 2008 Gaza Strip Airstrikes. He said the original title wasn't neutral, but even if that were the case (which it clearly isn't), he had no right to change the title without discussing it in the talk page. The title could have been Israel is Evil and he still would have been obligated to look at the rationale. In any case, Gaza Airstrike doesn't even reflect the article, as it now contains heavy infantry and ground-based finding. It's been more than 20 hours and nothing has changed. This is just ridiculous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, wrong forum. In reponse to Cerejota's bevahior, it was completely unprofessional. Changing the title of an article before a consensus has been reached is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. In addition, the strong claim of lack of neutrality carried no weight, no merit, not even evidence, other than opinion/perspective that doesn't belong in such a controversial article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, whenever I called him out on his behavior, he told me to "Chill out". Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are factually incorrect, and if you are going to assert things to uninvolved people, at least have the common decency of providing evidence:

1. The article started as
   he doesn't own the article, nor its name
   .
2. It was moved within 4 and a half hours of creation by user
   2008 Gaza Strip Bombings (because it wasn't just Gaza City) only to be changed by User:Joowwww
   to 2008 Gaza Strip bombings as per MoS capitalization.
3. This remained the name for almost four hours, until the debate that Wikifan talks about.
4. It was changed by User:RyanGerbil10
5. I reverted his change, first to the last version by User:Joowwww, then to a slight refactoring, and then upon a suggestion from another user, to the present name, that has remained due to a move-block in order to prevent a move war.

This tells us a couple of things, one that the "original" named had

. The other is that at least three users had endorsed variations of the article name that were more similar to the present version, but neither their opinions were solicited, nor enough time was given for them to give an opinion. Since they operated uncontroversially, at the very least the discussion should have lasted as long as their version did, but in reality, it should have been longer. Wikifan's allegations are weak and without evidence: he has claimed in multiple occasions that I reverted the original name. I didn't. I reverted the name as it stood before the discussion happened.

So having fixed the chronology, an exploration of the discussion referenced by Wikifan also reveals he is misrepresenting facts by simple assertion:

DON'T SUPPORT THE CHANGE

I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk • contribs • email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION BY ANON USER

Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? 77.127.144.240 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RANDOM COMMENT?

If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER SUGGESTION

What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WEAK SUPPORT BECAUSE RELIABLE SOURCES DO NOT NAME IT, OPEN DISCUSSION

Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

NO OPERATION NAME (IE THE POSITION THAT MH HAS)

I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz

LETS WAIT FOR THE EVENTS TO UNFOLD (ie keep current name for now)

We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previously fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. Chesdovi

FOR

"I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (notice how from the start, his attitude is not about having a discussion, but impossing his views by denigrating those who disagree with him) Happy138 Kormin RyanGerbil10 tariqabjotu topynate (this user has since changed his position, showing that consensus can change: WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that "operational codenames generally make poor titles." The exception given is if the operation is amongst the 'most well-known' of operations, e.g. Barbarossa. Based on this, I retract my prior opinion in favour of Operation Cast Lead, and urge a name that follows WP:MILMOS.topynate (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six users "for", one of which changed upon learning about our guidelines changed. However, seven users where either ambiguous or seemed willing to discuss the matter further rather than change right away.

: this is hardly the wide discussion and strong consensus that Wikifan claims. In fact, it is a weak discussion among editors, and ignored arguments against and operated on a self-contained block, with RyanGerbil10 being the operator. It was not long enough, it didn't have enough participants (notably those who had agreed with the previous title).

Hardly a consensus, we can all agree.

So when

that lead to my actions: if the consensus of 4 hours was not going to be respected with having a wide reaching discussion because it was opposed, then there is no reason to respect the opinion of six guys who discussed this for one hour and a half. Wikifan's histrionics are just that, pure theater and do not stand to the facts.

Furthermore, Wikifan engaged in unproductive behavior, in spite of I calmly explaining my actions. I could understand why he might be non-plused, so I didn't escalate at the time. But his expression of exasperation are nothing compared to having to endure his trollish shenanigans.

Here is the specific thread and actions right at the beginning:

Cerejota

(at this point, I restore the previous name, with minor refactoring)

Wikifan12345

Cerejota

Wikifan12345

He threatens me with a "higher authority", beginning what would be a series of sarcastic remarks, and borderline incivility. If curious for more,

Cerejota

I respond that he should bring those higher authorities instead of threatening to, because threats are a million.

After a suggestion from another user pointing out how "bombings" was not really what went on, I changed it to the current name.

As you can see by the evidence,

. It is a common-sense thing. Others my ponder my actions, but I didn't do them neither without discussion, nor without justification. There is no sinister plan, there is no ill will. There is the need to move forward.

Furthermore,

have agreed to put a kind of a moratorium in place, and have continued productive discussions aimed at developing article quality. Wikifan, unfortunately, has assumed the role of a troll, sometimes responding to serious, well thought replies and counter-arguments with unproductive sarcasm. I am sure all of you can at least empathize with this.

(Note: I am a great believer and admirer of sarcasm, but Wikifan's use of it is both amateurish and POINTY - it took me a while to realize, me

and fetch him a wambulance.)

When I have called him to chill, it is precisely because he needed to, and in every occassion I did so in context and pointing to

on him, but didn't. I showed mercy and restraint, and should be commended, not attacked for it.

I am willing to let the matter drop, as this has not been really an important focus for me (see the talk page of the article), but Wikifan should agree to refrain from personal attacks and commentary, and should be careful to not misrepresent the reality of the events, as he just did. We need to be

with each other, if we are to advance encyclopedic quality. Misrepresenting events doesn't help with that.

My apologies for the length, but if assertions and accusations are going to be raised against me, I will defend myself. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, am I actually expected to respond to this? You are the one being accused, NOT me. Surely with someone with more time will respond, as I wasn't the only one who noticed your blatant abuses. There a number of a users, check the archive and current discussion. This is a habit of yours, someone accuses you of something, and you respond with a well-crafted (almost pre-planned) defensive campaign, riddled with fallacies and subtle lies. Lol. I'm not even going to troll with you man, someone here who has the nerve to argue with you will. Your claim of NEUTRALITY is false, period. Operation Cast Lead was the title of operation as reported by the IDF, period. You made this more of a problem then it should have been and now you've put yourself in this hole. Obviously your concerned about your risk of losing admin which explains everything. Remember, I was plenty cordial and civil, but dealing with people like you makes me wonder if wikipedia is truly capable of hosting extremely controversial articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I have no idea from where you got this idea, because I have never presented myself as such. As to me being "accused", well, if anyone is accused, the least any rational person has to expect is that they will defend themselves, no? I do appreciate that you think my responses are well-crafted and take it as a compliment, but they aren't preplanned, just well crafted because, probably, I pay a lot of attention to what other people say, and read and interpret it quickly. In fact, I would rather spend my time editing and discussing editing. However, my actions are always motivated (correct or not) by a very clear purpose, which I always state upfront, and perhaps this lack of randomness gives me some clarity that seems preplanned. I already replied in the talk page with some peace-pipe stuff, do feel free to smoke it. .:D--Cerejota (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits

This is unacceptable. Someone do something about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[17] is also interesting. I find him amusing, like a return to Noddy or Mr. Men books.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|upright|WikiNoose Guess you'll be needing this. Toodles. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like twat is the new word for the day [18].Die4Dixie (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that word went out with buttonshoes, 23-skidoo, and Negro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently The Republican Party didn't get the memo. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cunt" would get me blocked :D Sceptre ^(talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

/EC/ Nah , 'prolly not, I think you're golden. You are a welcome and amusing diversion from tense edit and content disputes. I don't think that there is an admin willing to block you, and If I'm wrong, I'm certain one will unblock you posthaste. Carry on.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then try "Berk", as John Cleese did on Olbermann, talking about O'Reilly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then again Cleese's from the (Very) Silly Party. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually "twat" will get you blocked, too. Applying crude, demeaning terms to your co-editors is inappropriate, and in this case seems to be part of an escalating pattern of incivility. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was going to say that he'd find himself blocked. In any case, Sceptre knows better. WODUP 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This editor is untouchable. I have seen blocks for considerably lees. There is nothing to see here folks, I bet he'd be unblocked faster that it takes Gnasher to gnaw a bone.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to visit his website, "The Sceptic Tank". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Describing another user as acting like a twat is clearly unacceptable and I doubt that any ordinary editor would get away with it. We have developed a culture where certain editors do get away with offensive behaviour simply because the drama caused by blocking them considerably outweighs the benefit gained by blocking them. Generally said civility blocks don't work and it would be quickly overturned if he were blocked. It is extremely disappointing that a genuine complaint about something that is clearly genuinely upsetting to another user is not being taken seriously by participants in this thread. If Sceptre had any decency he would redact his immature comments now that he can see that OrangeMarlin is offended but of course he won't because being sensitive to the impact of his behaviour on other users simply isn't in his make-up.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that Sceptre has now been blocked for this therefore striking through last comment because he can't actually change what he said now.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Twat" is an incredibly mild swear word in the UK at least. I've never heard it being used in a seriously derogatory manner, merely mild name-calling between friends. It's about as harmful as "idiot". Majorly talk 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remarks posted on the Internet in the UK, however, do not seem to stay in the UK. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended. You're only looking at the result here, not the intent. Majorly talk 08:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He was informed it was offensive, and continued calling his co-editors "twats". There's no ignorance involved. Calling your coeditor a "twat" is not civil; it's not appropriate, and it will get you blocked. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you blocked him. Majorly talk 08:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you also saw that the block was reviewed and maintained. - Nunh-huh 08:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that someone as offended as OrangeMarlin was would be "ROFLMAOing" at the original comment. Majorly talk 08:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I thought another UK attribute was the ability to detect satire. So, do you really want to advocate for a "right" to call your Wikipedia co-editors "twats"? - Nunh-huh 08:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't satire. And no, I never said it was right to be name-calling, but it's not something to block someone for 3 days over. Majorly talk 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're agreed about the wrongness of the offense, then, at least. I'd hate to see a "request for comments" on whether it's OK to say "you're a twat" to a supposed colleague. I take insults that demean not only those they are directed at, but also an entire class of persons not directly involved very seriously. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hostile environment, especially to entire classes of persons. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was wrong (as is any kind of name-calling) but the length is my issue. I think three days is beyond preventative and is becoming punitive. Majorly talk 08:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I reviewed the {{

cool stuff

) 08:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My handy dandy Oxford English Dictionary informs me that it is a slang vulgar term for the external female genitalia, just like it is in the US. His comment about using it instead of "cunt" shows that that was his exact intent, to call users "cunts", and get away with it. I don't expect you would call your grandmother a 'twat'. My mother is from Scotland, I attended school there for some years, and I would never call my gran a "twat". Why not? Because it is a vulgar churlish word that demeans women and relegates them to the role of sexual objects, that's why. Die4Dixie (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, dixie, would you say it's worse to call someone a "twat" or to imply someone you're in a content dispute with is a pedophile or a homosexual like you did here? [[19]]

talk

) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we've determined well enough that "twat" is an offensive word. Let's not keep discussing it for the sake of discussing it. Majorly talk 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I'm not exactly Spectre's number one wikibuddy, I can't help but find this exceedingly absurd. Are we really blind to the difference between somebody saying "you're a dumb twat" and "you're acting like a twat"? The British "twat" is analogous to the American "dick" - a term that, while slightly off-color, is hardly so grossly insensitive as to cause severe emotional distress to any but the most already-traumatized of human beings by its mere

) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single off-color remark, but rather several remarks which were problematic for being insulting to co-editors rather than merely off-color. And, for what it's worth, not all of them were similes rather than metaphors. As for 72 hours, it is, if anything, a bit short given the durations of the prior blocks. Blocks are supposed to escalate, not get shorter. - Nunh-huh 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the entire sequence of events "Spectre says something about OrangeMarlin having acted 'like a twat' in the past" -> "outraged editors pounce on Spectre" -> "Spectre gets a little outraged and defensive himself and drops a c-bomb on AN/I"? Generally, blocks should escalate, but there exists a balancing act between "law of diminishing returns" (see: Betacommand, above) and establishing a "one and you're done" zero-tolerance no-win situation. This particular case - as I currently understand it - is a bit too close to a "no-win situation" for my personal comfort. Badger Drink (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your original point was interesting; however, the continued and deescalation shrillness (edited by user )of your message detracts from it and makes me ask quid bono. Your advocacy is passionate on the issue. You also conveniently forget the bad faith assumptions that he made about some Obama meat puppet thingamajig that's linked to above. Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's "shrillness"? That's "escalating"? I guess you have me on "continued", but your statement seems so disconnected from the flow of reality as I know it as to almost seem like a Mad-Lib. I'll assume good faith. If you poke around, you can see that I have defended Mr. Marlin on numerous occasions, and was against un-blocking Spectre during his original three-month block for sockpuppetry and actual incivility. I don't believe users are typically blocked for making bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs, but if you have examples of precedence, I would be glad to look them over. In any case, the block summary says, in full, "Incivility: escalating pattern of incivility, as demonstrated in thread at AN/I. A working environment in which crude sexual terms are tolerated is not conducive to production of an encyclopedia", which leads me to believe that he was not, in fact, blocked for bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs. Badger Drink (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[20]Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaawwwwwwww, you unarchived it, ok Badgerdrink, if anything productive comes out of this in the next 20.5 hours, OM and I will help you write a Featured Article....XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Majorly's comment, specifically, "So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended." I must concur with this, the first time I said the big C on IRC I got shot down for saying a word that it apparently extremely offensive in the US, and is sort of up there at the top as far as profanity goes. In the UK it is thrown around very liberally, even in a reasonably polite and mature conversation. I had not done research on how the word was taken in the US beforehand, and nor should I have, because why would you look for a cultural difference that you didn't know existed? —

neuro^(talk)

10:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this had been a one-off brain explosion on Sceptre's part, I'd probably have felt comfortable unblocking him with a stern warning not to do it again. However, it seems that the term was used multiple times. It's one thing to drop a word when you're genuinely unaware that people will find it offensive due to cultural differences, it's entirely another to re-use it for dramatic effect when you know that it they will. This takes it beyond "boys will be boys" and up to the level of a serious civility violation or intent to intimidate or offend, in my mind. As always, I suggest applying The Grandma Test before pressing "Save Page". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

• Lankiveil is right - "twat" has varying amounts of offensiveness depending on how it's used, and also where in the UK you're from. It's not just a synonym for "idiot". Black Kite 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if Sceptre doesn't have a long history of attacking Orangemarlin, or me for that matter, both here and at Wikipediareview. His comment is simply another instance of his long-running personal ax grinding against OM. It's Sceptre's choice of "twat" to describe OM that needs to be dealt with here. It's use is simply unacceptable, and the fact that he's from the UK is no excuse; Sceptre, as a former admin, has been on Wikipedia dealing with US sensibilities for years. Sceptre simply knows better and yet still deliberately chose to employ the term here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly offensive. Good block. Sceptre has been here at least 3 years, but just this past spring he started accumulating blocks. What's the story there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Burnout is my usual diagnosis. Thing is, sometimes you can call someone a twat in fun and it's fine, other times it's not OK. In this case Sceptre seems to be harbouring a grudge against OM. That's a really good reason to keep well clear and leave it to other people, especially if (as with Sceptre) the spotlight is on you already. It's really not a great idea to go using invective when trying to recruit admin help against people with whom you clearly have a long-running dispute. You might as well just post {{blockme}}. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at his block log, he was indef-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded; then long-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded. All of that since last spring. You may be right about the burnout. Maybe a moderate block that doesn't get rescinded would be what the doctor ordered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sceptre is (or at least was) fundamentally decent, I think he needed and needs a break, I think he was unblocked / came back too soon, before the pressure had wound down. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given its Anglo-Saxon meaning, the only time I ever utter that word (which isn't too often, maybe thrice a year at most?) is when talking to friends who were brought up speaking English, I'd guess wontedly to make them smile about some dumb thing someone has done. The way Sceptre used it could easily be taken as a personal attack by many editors. As to why he slips like this, I can only say that maybe in a year or two or three, he won't. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never heard the word "twat" until I tried using the word "saltwater" on some message board a decade or so ago and it got rejected because of the word it contained. Someone had to explain it to me, with my big, wide, wondering eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old

Scunthorpe Problem :-) the wub "?!"

17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I still remember first hearing it in the dining hall at boarding school when I was 14, uttered spot-on with its etymology (as I look back). That was a fit school :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are all acting like saltwaters :) --Tom 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was used to using the word in its lesser sense ("you're being a silly twat") until I managed to completely offend most of the members of my girlfriend's family when using it in front of them to describe someone who was drunk and being a bit of an idiot at a family wedding - which was when I realised that it is far closer to the c-word in certain parts of the UK, let alone in the US. (Luckily, I managed not to use it at our wedding)... Black Kite 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, you may have been luckier than Robert Browning, who seems to have thrown it into a poem, thinking it meant a nun's hat. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder if Sceptre even knew what he was saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When we were younger and more innocent a friend of mine believed that "twat" was just a variation of "twit". So when our art teacher called another student a twit, he promptly followed up with "Yeah, you're a right twat". Needless to say he soon learned the error of his ways. the wub "?!" 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There aren't "degrees of insults" we should be using to rank such words. Its silly. If he called someone a "fool" or an "idiot" or a "poopyhead" it should be seen as the same level of

15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Who let you out of the cabbage patch?" is funny and kid-friendly (so far as it goes), but still a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was once blocked for several days for calling people "idiots". If that T-word is supposed to equate to "idiots", then it's certainly blockable for several days also - especially given the editor's blocking history, along with his complete lack of understanding as to what constitutes a personal attack (see below) and thus his complete lack of any regret at having said any of that stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing (not LOL funny, more ironic) is that I didn't care about the word one way or another. I may use fuck rather liberally, mainly because it's fairly mainstream these days, functions as a verb, adjective, adverb, and noun so readily that it's hard not to use. But demeaning words against women show a total lack of class. That being said and not being a woman, Sceptre's word choice was immature rather than anything else. It was his unnecessary attack that bothered me, considering he has been blocked before. This was an interesting conversation however. Oh, and when I wrote LMAO in my edit summary was that I couldn't believe Sceptre would actually write something. I was being ironic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too fussed about the words, but the noose I didn't think too much of...anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sceptre

Moved by MBisanz ^talk

Can someone post this on AN?: Regarding OrangeMarlin, that was hardly an insult. In that context, I was using it analogous to the word "dick". You don't need to get into hidden long-past grudges; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I left OM alone after he agreed to the parole, and only brought the matter up on ANI precisely because it's the behaviour he exhibited pre-parole that he admitted wasn't the best of attitudes. Maybe "twat" wasn't the best of words, but I'm using it in the context of "bleedin' idiot" instead of "fucking asshole". So as it stands, a 72 hour block for one non-insult and one relatively tame insult where I've arguably been provoked, even given past history, and with no-one just to point it out and say "dude, what the hell?", is way way overexcessive. As I wasn't planning on doing any major editing tonight—a book I've ordered hasn't come yet (why should it? It's Christmas)—I'll be fine with a 24-hour, or even a 31-hour block. But really... 72 hours is reaching into the bounds of punishment rather than prevention. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't want to buy into that, but there's also still the outstanding problem of OM's User_talk:Orangemarlin#Warning vicious ranting against User:Skomorokh. Granted this was initially because of apparent problems/miscommunication on Sk's part but OM's continued abuse of him (after everyone else had worked it out) was way over top. Misarxist 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not on parole. This is about Sceptre. I'm done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sceptre made baseless allegations about me on the workshop page of WP:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, repeated on the talk page. He was asked by the clerk Daniel to either justify these with diffs or withdraw his attacks. He replied, "Ugh, fuck this for a game of soldiers." [21] Daniel refactored his comments and archived that part of the talk page. Sceptre's behaviour seems to have been purely disruptive; his comments (on scientology, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein) made it quite clear that he had no interest in contributing to the ArbCom case. As a fellow Briton, I can confirm that "twat" is an insult used by British adolescents; if used to an adult, it would usually result in being sent to bed early without hot milk or, in extreme cases, a clip round the ear :) Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, as another fellow Briton, in my neck of the woods 'twat' wouldn't even earn you a clip around the ear. It's on a par with 'idiot', really. Certainly 'c*nt' is much, much worse, and 'dick' somewhere inbetween. _TalkIslander 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat bothersome that Sceptre doesn't realize that the issue is that "twat" and "bleeding idiot" and "fucking asshole" are all equally bad personal attacks. Its not the word choice, its the act of using namecalling as a part of discourse. Its just not right. If you wanted to say "Dude, What the hell?" then say just that. But don't try to back-justify namecalling, especially given the past history. If there had been no massive explosion a few months ago, and if there was no history of this, there may not be the severity of this block. But for 72 hours, Sceptre is not calling anyone names. For that reason alone, the block seems purely preventative. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with Jayron32 and endorse the current block.  Sandstein  19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wasn't Sceptre on his last chance here after his last block-and-sock party three months ago? He's fortunate to only get three days instead of eternity. Some people only get one last chance. --B (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I personally find it ironic that people have an issue with "twat" but we throw around
  WP:DICK. Yeah, I just think 3 days is too long for the crime considering this irony. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo
  21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who throws around
    WP:DICK like that is a fucking douchebag, no exceptions. --Cyde Weys
    22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never, ever refer to

that other word, I think it's untowards, doomed to forever skirt on the bounds of personal attack and kinda dumb. Gwen Gale (talk

) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You may never, ever refer to it, but that fact is, a lot of Wikipedia does. In light of that, I don't see the difference. He could have called him a

WP:DICK instead of a twat and it wouldn't be here on this page. That's the irony. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo

23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but he didn't wlink to

you-know-what and there's more to the block than that. Gwen Gale (talk

) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports is requesting unblock

) 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He's banned or blocked? His userpage says both. Majorly talk 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, that looks like the kind of editor where a second chance is likely to yield good results. The tone is apologetic, he makes no attempt to hide or deny past misdeeds, and has given examples of the contexts in which he has learned the error of his former ways. I am inclined to accede to the unblock request. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A rare example of contrition on the part of a blocked user. It would be worth a try, to unblock him. He knows he'll be watched, and could always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock, Gp75 seems to be willing to contribute constructively. Hermione1980 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give him a chance, with the caveat that the projectspace topic ban that was previously imposed be re-instated (it can always be removed later if he shows himself to have reformed). Black Kite 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what Guy found, whats the harm or the worst that can happen? --Tom 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on last time, being a massive time-sink for a lot of admins and editors. Hence my suggestion that he concentrates on article-space for a while to see how it goes. Black Kite 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to support unblock, but the contents of his user page over at Simple worry me a bit. The actual editing looks to be solid and drama-free enough, but the fact the page is still there gives me pause. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I'll support a conditional unblock. 90 day projectspace restriction. I won't translate activity on other projects to this one, I would not want that done to me. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we maybe get a checkuser run before deciding to unblock or not. This editor did have issues in the past and it would be a pity if we went through the whole unblock process and then realized he was still socking. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While I respect my fellow editor, Mbisanz, I do not support any preemptive checkuser without evidence of socking. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I generally was going off Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports which as a positive confirmation, but okey. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had not seen that. Then a check would not be preemptive. There was already an issue, I'll support a check in that case. I'm not a checkuser however. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a check too; I thought it was standard when any banned user with a history of sockpuppetry requests a second chance. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Deskana to look into the possibility of a check, in order to prevent disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, but IIRC, Gp75 was indeffed for his social-networking behavior and his disruption outside of the project space. He was under a restriction to editing ONLY the article space, and not user name spaces or wikipedia name spaces, if memory serves me right, and as such if he is returned, I think that those restrictions should remain in place for a limited time (say a month or two) while he proves himself probationarily. Given the socking problems that led to the June block, we should seek out a checkuser to give us the "all clear" on this one; that is standard procedure (I can think of 3-4 cases where we did exactly this and then unblocked them in the past few months) before issuing the unblock. However, if the restrictions stay in place, and the checkuser comes back clean, I would support an unblock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with this caveat of him only being able to work in Article and Talk spaces. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result  Completed: I can confirm that, for at least the past month, Gp75 does not appear to have used other accounts and has made a single logged out edit (and uncontroversial typo fix). — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I propose an unblock with a restriction to editing in (a) article-space, and (b) usertalk and talk space only where it relates to article editing. If there are no major objections I will go ahead and do this shortly. Black Kite 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Go for it. A grand and noble AGF experiment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okey dokey. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• OK,
  done. Black Kite
  16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who came to the consensus. I had no problem with this action, so long as others are willing to stand by this restriction and enforce it. In the past, Daniel and I were the only ones really willing to make the blocks based on the topic ban and would often get attacked and questioned by others because of those actions. Every time we'd point back to the original ban discussion, people would object to the original ban. So, can we all agree to stick to this this time? Thanks, either way (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have suggested to Gp75 that we give the restriction a month to see how it goes. That's not necessarily saying it will be lifted at that point; that would be down to the community to decide. I think he is quite aware that any more silliness will result in a community ban. Black Kite 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, whatever, but as Either way says, it's now your job to block him if/when he breaches it, unless you want me to do so, and my blocks will likely be on the longer end of the scale. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Are either Matt Lee or the historical, pre-redirect versions of Matt Lee (musician) substantial copies of deleted versions of either article? If so, please speedy-delete them and look into the possibility of sockpuppetry with the current version. If not, especially if it's about another person altogether, please say so. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 28. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it stands now, seems to be marginally compliant with

WP:N requirements at a first glance. A recent speedy-G4 request was denied as the article with a recommendation for a new AFD. It looks like the same person as in the deleted articles, HOWEVER, the article appears to currently be substantially expanded from the September 17th version deleted via AFD (I checked), which would indicate that, if deleted again, it should be handled under a new AFD. Any sockpuppetry issues should be handled seperately. If you could perhaps list some diffs to compare between different accounts, that would help us see if there are sock issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it needs to go, it is the same vanity autobiography, the
  WP:SPA and IP that are the sole substantive editors are clearly the subject, who was also the creator and pretty much sole editor of the various previous deleted versions. Guy (Help!
  ) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. My main concern was that it was mere re-creation of deleted material. Since it's not, I'll treat is as new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both

doused with sodium cloride. I was probably going to AFD anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Best I can reconstruct, following the brief discussion at
  G11 that can't at least be stubbified. Can someone please review this article? I've tnulled removed the {{resolved}} for now.
  Thanks, Amalthea
  17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
    Nonetheless, none of the editors listed above is banned, it's not a recreation, it's not blatantly promotional if the userfied article is any indication, and he certainly has an assertion of significance. Enough, in my opinion, to earn the article at least an AfD. --Amalthea 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• And my bad: should have been G4 and IAR a bit, not G5. Nobody is banned, it's just a point and click issue with somewhat diminuitive dropdown text. Either way, it's a long-term campaign of
  vanispamcruftisement by the subject. Guy (Help!
  ) 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the blocks involved thus far with this article see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. EDIT: While not included at the time of those checkuser/sockpuppet issues it appears that Special:Contributions/69.231.39.97 (69.231.39.97/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/69.231.50.49 (69.231.50.49/Dan Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.25.192 (6.94.25.192/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.31.7 (76.94.31.7/Dan Schneider dif) and most likely Special:Contributions/Joeyboyee are all the same person. In what may be a little "slip up" a few posts made in September at User talk:Spartaz/Musician by user/sockpuppet Guitaro99 are text "signed" as "D Schneider" ("D Schneider logging of till tomorrow.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) (Guitaro99 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC))" followed by four more posts by "Guitaro99" but all text signed as "D Schneider". And now we have Special:Contributions/Bill Blake990 who has just recreated Matt Lee(guitar player) as I type this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
    Nonetheless, that's a little too much IAR for my taste. If someone works on a userfied article for three months and tries to address the problems from the last Afd then I'd give him the courtesy of an AfD, even if it's worked on only by the topic himself. After reading it, I see that the article certainly still has deficits, in particular since the sources don't support all the facts in the article. The topic *might* pass
    The Divine Horsemen and X (American band) – probably not though since he wasn't a member, so it'll only be redirected.
    Amalthea
    17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add on that the entire road to userfication as a result of
  Spartz the article was userfied. THere is no mention of the article being userfied in that DRV, and it was not really closed so the conversation continued September 28 where Lifebaka said "I suggest you create a userspace version of the article (at a title that's nice and easy, such as User:Joeyboyee/Matt Lee) and work on it there. Then, when you believe it meets all the relevant guidelines, bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace." The only hint that the article may have already been userfied was the comment by Tony Fox who said "Look, the article has been recreated many, many times at Matt Lee, Matt Lee (musician), Matt Lee (guitarist), and various other places. It exists right now at User:Spartaz/Musician in the condition that it has been in through most of the most recent deletions - basically, the article's been identical through the last I don't know how many recreations (and, essentially, the same since the last AFD)." User:Joeyboyee made several posts, never commenting the article had already been userifed, (See User talk:Joeyboyee, very first post made on September 26 by User:FisherQueen who said "Hi! You've created an article with an error in the title; User:Sparatz/musician. I'd move it for you, but I see that you already have a version of the same article under the correct title, so I'll just delete the one with the wrong title for you.") Out of all of this the most logical comment seemed to have been made by Lifebaka who said in reply to User:Joeyboyee that once the article was userfied and worked on to "bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it". From what I could see that was never done and the userfied article was simple moved to mainspace by User:Joeyboyee on December 25. In all of this I also found out that there was a User "Matt Lee(musician)" at one time as well who tried to post/repost both Matt Lee (musician) and Matt Lee(musician) on November 27. Soundvisions1 (talk
  ) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

user:cyclePat has been, in my opinion, a continually disruptive editor on this article. Could some uninvolved parties please have a look?
I personally think that a short topic ban would be useful in encouraging him to edit more constructively.
Behaviours that I have found disruptive (Parts of this list is from another editor commenting on his behaviour, the diff's are mine and probably incomplete):
Refactoring other users comments on talk page, including comments on his conduct
[[22]]
Persisting in dredging up long-settled issues.
[[23]]

Not recognizing WP:RS, WP:V [[24]]

Not WP:AGF of others' edits
[[25]] [[26]]

WP:WIKILAWYER'ing and Tendentious editing.
[[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]]

Not abiding by WP:CONSENSUS or WP:FRINGE .
[[31]]

Thanks for your attention.
Please also consider my edits for scrutiny as well, however I am far from the only editor to be in conflict with CyclePat.
Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I'm a somewhat-involved party). I don't normally like to "team up" against other editors, but in this case I feel have to second the opinion that User:CyclePat is being disruptive on this article. He has had more than the occasional tendency to argue way past the point of consensus or common sense (usually by needless Wikilawyering) and edit against clear consensus. I could provide specific diffs, but I believe that a perusal of the talk page (and its recent archives) should be indicative.

Unfortunately, CyclePat seems to have a history of this sort of behaviour, which in the past has led to long blocks. However, if there's a way of breaking the cycle, persuading him to stop expending all his energy on pointless lost causes, and to respect consensus, then I think progress will be made. I hope that doesn't sound too patronising! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh bugger, not again. There is no known way of making Pat drop one of his crusades other than blocking him and talking it out on his talk page. Pat is prone to excesses of enthusiasm. Sorry, but that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I deny all the above accusations. The complaints lacks seriousness and does not belong here. Also, if there is a grievance to be filled. Since, I do not wish to clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion that is all I have to say for now. Also, I would like to remind Wikipedian's that before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page. Guyonthesubway has failed to notify me of this grievance, both here, and on my userpage. Per the discussion on the articles talk page... this is a matter of conflict resolution and there is no need for an administrator. I reserve the right to present various contentious edits from the other side as well (but since this isn't really the proper venue), I will leave it at that (References to the differences upon request only). --CyclePat (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I put a notice on the talk page of the article when I posted this, either you've been notified or you don't actually read the talk page. Take your pick. I thouhgt it might be safe to assume that the 20 or 30 warnings and requests to cease all over the talk pages should have been sufficient. Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A pair of editors, User:Illyriandescendant and User:Tadija have been battling over whether places in Kosovo are part of Serbia or not. I don't know if we have a policy on naming such places, but we need to put an end to this battle. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have they been incivil or has this been a good faith dispute? Or have they been revert warring and not discussing at all? Please provide links to the discussion and diffs of incivility or edit warring if there has been any.--Patton123 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rapidly escalating edit warring is occurring, each believing they are right about treating places in Kosovo. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

note that this topic is still under "arbcom probation", and edit-warriors should be slapped with warning blocks immediately. --

22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been warned, and neither has edit warred since the warning. I don't think a block is required at this time, but I suggest a block as soon as one or the other starts this mess up again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Koni crop.jpg is currently on the main page, not uploaded locally, and not protected at the Wikimedia Commons; administrators there were unwilling to protect it: [32]. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading it locally. Thanks. John254 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

C-uploaded}} for more info. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk

) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think non-admins could upload an image with a name already existing on Commons? Or did I imagine that? Black Kite 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, though, only administrators are able to upload images at the same name as images on the commons. Additionally, once the image is placed in a "did you know" queue, it is fully protected locally via cascading protection, even if it is not uploaded here. Template:Did you know/Queue/4, the contents of which will be placed on the main page in less than 24 hours, currently contains the image File:Church of Transfiguration Mount Tabor200704.JPG, which is neither uploaded here nor protected at the commons. John254 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've fully protected the image for abut 30 hours, per request by NuclearWarfare. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:198.24.31.122

Can somebody please give ban or never ending block to this IP. His talk page is who is who in warnings. If this IP has not learned wikipedia civility rules in 2 years he will never learn. His last attack is saying everything [33]--Rjecina (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a year (which is as long as I am comfortable in doing, anyone wishing to extend it is welcome to do so.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An unprotected image is scheduled to appear on the main page

Resolved

File:Giuseppe Piazzi.jpg is currently included in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1, and will thus appear on the main page tomorrow, but is not uploaded locally, and is unprotected on the commons. Since the selected anniversaries page and the image filename are protected locally due to cascading protection, I cannot upload a local version myself. Could an administrator upload a local version, or protect the image on the commons? Thanks. John254 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what is going on with this as of late? Is there a reason for the lax protection? (I suppose it could be partially because MPUploadBot ceased operating, but I don't think that is the whole of it.) —

neuro^(talk)

01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected that one. We need that upload bot! :)

T

) 01:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued Copyright Violations

Resolved

 – Nothing worth worrying about here.

Even though Uofalbany has been warned many times about uploaded copyrighted images, such practices persist as can be seen on their talk page. --68.246.52.177 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The images in question were uploaded 2-3 months ago and the user has not been active since October. These are not the droids you are looking for. You're free to go. Move along. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page picture is not protected

The commons version is transcluded... please change ASAP! --84.125.135.8 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected the Commons version temporarily. Can someone do a local copy please?

T

) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)File:Thylacinus.jpg is now also locally protected.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[34] is also currently unprotected, and transcluded into the main page. John254 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein got that one. Why are all these commons ones sneaking on there? I thought we always did local copies.

T

) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not greatly mistaken, protecting an image locally, without uploading it locally, will not prevent vandalism of the commons version from appearing directly on the main page, in which case the problem with File:Domestic goat kid in capeweed.jpg hasn't actually been remedied. John254 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it less time-consuming to just protect both the Commons file and the corresponding Wikipedia page for a day or so. That's what I have now done.  Sandstein  19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If an image is protected at Commons, there's no need to also protect the corresponding Wikipedia page; non-sysops cannot upload a new local file under the same name as one at Commons. (And when the image is on our main page, the cascading protection will prevent creation/vandalism of a local description page.)

In other words, if a main page image is transcluded from Commons, protecting it at Commons is sufficient. —

David Levy

22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting an image file housed on Commons, though, because it's on en.wp's Main Page isn't appropriate, though--we just did that since no one uploaded a local temp copy here that was locked down.

T

) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's entirely within Commons policy to temporarily protect an image for exactly that reason; we even have

David Levy

22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? That seems... backwards, since this is one site out of many. And that's not the template on

T

) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Neither protection method has superseded the other. The two have long been used interchangeably, depending on whether the protecting English Wikipedia sysop happens to also be a Commoms sysop (which is more likely to occur with TFA, OTD and TFP images than it is with ITN and DYK images, as the former usually are known much further in advance).

2. Commons protection arguably is preferable, as local protection can insulate the English Wikipedia from important developments at Commons (such as improvements to the image and copyright concerns). If an image is protected at Commons, such an issue must be addressed by a sysop there, who should notice that the image is on the English Wikipedia's main page and respond accordingly.

3. The template to which I linked is used at Commons.

David Levy

22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, that bot would be turned back on or some new one drawn on to automatically upload these locally and protect them, so that there is never a long period of time where any Main Page content is unprotected, is my point. Doing it by hand still relies on someone paying attention at the right time to do it, which isn't that efficient, and protecting it on Commons still prevents people from improving the images in any event. :)

T

) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an automated process would be good, but I've cited reasons why it's debatable whether local or Commons protection is preferable. (Commons protection only delays improvements for a short time, but local prevention can prevent all sorts of important developments—including legal issues—from reaching the English Wikipedia while the image is transcluded on our main page.) —

David Levy

00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example just arose.

David Levy

16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since they're locked down coming and going now, it's sealed off till someone replaces the transcluded commons versions with locally protected ones.

T

) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. [35] is still transcluded onto the main page, and unprotected at commons. John254 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check them all, but I protected that one now on commons and left a note on the main talk page.[36] Do we always do these right from commons...?

T

) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we usually bring them in from commons, if that's what you mean. If something is going to be on the main page someone always seems to think of transferring to commons beforehand. —

neuro^(talk)

19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? I always thought for our main page we used a local temp copy that was protected here.

T

) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did too. Did we once do that, but now have changed, or are both Rootology and I senile? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you have misunderstood. Usually people are attentive enough to transfer PD images to commons before they go to the main page, I didn't say that they should be at transcluded from commons when on the main page - they shouldn't. We should have a local copy. Hope that clears it up. :) —

neuro^(talk)

20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, see

T

) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They are only uploaded a few hours before it goes live, AFAIK. —

neuro^(talk)

00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected images displayed on the main page, again

[37], [38], and [39] are currently displayed on the main page directly from the Wikimedia Commons, without being protected there. While any local content displayed on the main page is automatically protected, cascading protection does not extend across projects. Could these images be uploaded locally by an administrator, or protected on the commons? Thanks. John254 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All protected, and the previous batch unprotected by me. We need a more efficient way to do this.

T

) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially believed that I could remedy this problem by uploading, say, tomorrow's picture of the day locally, so that once it was transcluded into the main page, it would be protected. While non-admins are apparently not permitted to upload images at the same filenames as existing images on the commons, I was able to improvise a solution by uploading a local version at a modified filename, then changing the image in the picture of the day template before is to be protected. Specifically, I uploaded File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC.jpg at File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC LOCAL COPY.jpg, then edited Template:POTD/2008-12-31 to use the local image. John254 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that the main page templates are set up so as to prevent most cases in which images could be locally vandalized immediately before being displayed on the main page. For instance, the picture of the day template transcluded into the main page tomorrow is not Template:POTD/2008-12-31, but rather Template:POTD protected/2008-12-31, which is currently protected via transclusion into Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. John254 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I CANNOT do anything to protect [40] and [41], which are both already transcluded into Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, but displayed directly from the commons, and not currently protected there; an administrative remedy is requested. John254 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've protected both at Commons. —

David Levy

01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, it appears that you may have missed [42] -- please see [43]. John254 01:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I have no idea why the protection didn't go through. —

David Levy

06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not by any means an uncommon occurrence. About 30 days ago, I uploaded images with {{

c-uploaded}} nearly every day for quite some time, as this is the only way a user who is an admin here and not an admin on Commons can protect images from vandalism. I eventually gave up because it is extremely tedious and time-consuming. It is far, far easier from the Commons end, because all they have to do is [edit=sysop; move=sysop] it. To do it from this end, you have to download the image from Commons, upload the image to en.wp, fully protect it, copy all the licensing and sourcing information from the commons page onto the en.wp page, add the c-uploaded template, and then the next day, you have to delete it off en.wp, and restore any legitimate local revisions, such as featured picture designation, categories, or whatever. Tedious, and extremely annoying, because there are so many people who are incredibly active on this project who are also admins there, who could do it, but no.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds

02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only we had things that automated this stuff with no

T

) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta just pointed out

T

) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that previously we did not have this problem because of the use of commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page and Zzyzx11's efforts for over a year to keep in running. (ITN, not being planned in advance, had to rely on local uploads the most.) While I haven't been following matters, it appears that it was superceded recently by User:MPUploadBot up till it was blocked a month back, leaving us in our current mess and the current proposal for a replacement bot. I think the lesson is that there's no job a bot can do that Zzyzx11 can't do better. - BanyanTree 09:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What I learned today: never be 100 percent complacent with a bot, or else I won't exactly pat attention when it will malfuction and be blocked. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. --Smashville^talk 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

in the interests of aiding Bwilkins' digestion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am currently in an edit war/conflict with Bwilkins. This all started with a question I had for WT:NCSP . Instead of answering my question, he assumed bad faith and simply removed the comment. I reverted that decision and added another comment telling him to just answer my question and to stop removing my comments. He went right back and reverted my comments, assisting that I am not good enough to have my comments on that page. Instead, he tried to deflect it back at me by trying to put it on my talk page. He went right back to reverting my contributions as vandalism no matter how many times I tried to reason with him about the situation. I am currently talking to him on my talk page, but that is besides the matter. He thinks that I am a vandal no matter how I try to reason with him, which is being impeded by the fact that he doesn't even want to talk to my on his talk page. I took it to 3RR, but they said to take it here, so here I am. Here is the links to his reverts: 1st revert: [44] 2nd revert: [45] 3rd revert: [46] 4th revert: [47] I am basically looking for people to show him what he is doing is wrong, and if needed a block may be necessary. He needs to be shown that he is in violation of WP:AGF, which I have failed to communicate with him, partly thanks to his removal of my comments. Thanks in advance. Tavix (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Addition: I gave him a kind heads up about his actions and he told me off. He really needs to learn to be polite. proof Tavix (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm signing off to have dinner with my family. I asked the above user to stay off my usertalk, and to keep the discussion on his own talkpage. He then continued to revert my removals, while the discussion took place on his. He decided to file a 3RR report about my own talkpage. More later. ♪BMWΔ 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC) There was no reason to revert my comments. I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you about a comment you made to WT:NCSP, and you reverted my comments as vandalism. The conversation was taken to my talk page as requested, but that doesn't give you permission to explicitly remove my comments. Tavix (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Reverting Tavix's edits as vandalism seems inappropriate to me. — Aitias // discussion 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC) The second or third time he re-added them, it had become disruptive. The first couple of times, I did it politely. I have a right to ask someone to keep the discussion somewhere else. After a half dozen times of asking, it became tiring. I even advised him to file a WQA if he felt I was being uncivil. Let's look at the whole thing, shall we please? ♪BMWΔ 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I took it my own talk page and we discussed it there. I do have to disagree with you doing it politely though. The fact that you reverted my comments as vandalism, when I clearly wasn't vandalizing anything is wrong. Also take a look here This took place after the first revision. To me, that doesn't look very civil/polite, does it? Tavix (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (ec x 3)Tavix, you are aware you are not exempt from breaking 3RR on his talkpage, correct? Also, Tavix conveniently left out the fact that he seems to have initiated the conflict here by referring to BMW's comments as "evil". This was the so-called "evil" comment. Bwilkins also told him here to stay off his talk page - probably not in the nicest manner, but the discourse really isn't civil from both sides, considering Tavix responded to the request to stay off of his talk page by edit warring on his talk page...Please note that Tavix didn't include all of the diffs from the page, just the reverts where BMW started referring to them as vandalism (after BMW had asked him to stop posting to his page)...while anyone can post to anyone's talk page...when you are in an active angry dispute with someone on another forum and they specifically tell you not to post on the page...going to the talk page and starting an edit war is rather pointy. --Smashvilletalk 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Just to let you know, that was a separate event that happened when I was particularly ticked off. After I calmed down, I realized my action was a little over the top and I apologized on his talk page, knowing that it was the right thing to do. Coincidentally, that was my only edit he never reverted. I fulfilled the request to stay off the talk page, and the conversation continued on my own talk page, the only thing that happened past that point was reversions. I am also aware that I am not exempt of the 3RR rules, but I never broke it so I don't really see your point in the matter... Tavix (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I think this is a nonevent. This might not have been extraordinarily polite of Bwilkins, but as far as I'm concerned, established editors have the right to control the content of their talk page. Tan | 39 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Good lord. Don't know these fellows (I think i commented on something about Tavix here recently, though) but.... Tavix is edit warring to prevent someone else from deleting comments on their own talk page and ignoring their requests to stop posting there? Just leave it alone and move on. talk ) 22:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC) At the very least, it has been established time and again that anyone can remove content from their userpage. When you also take into account what Tavix's question is (it's essentially..."Why did you use the word 'many'?"), this borders on WP:LAME. Plus, BW has a right to be curmudgeonly: he's Canadian. --Smashvilletalk 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) If he would have just answered the question and be civil about everything, this would be a non-event. The entire question comes from WT:NCSP, BMW knows the context... Tavix (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC) And what policy says he has to meet your demands? What is civil about being told to stay off his talk page and then going to his talk page? He clearly doesn't feel the need to answer your question and your hounding him only increases the drama. --Smashvilletalk 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) He was clearly uncivil by removing my comments as vandalism. All I wanted to do was to have him answer my question. Instead, he escalated it into an edit war. I respected his decision to take the question to my talk page, but he didn't have to be rude and remove my comments as vandalism as well when it was clearly in good faith. Tavix (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Ahem, it was his talk page. You can't edit war on your own talk page. The only one edit warring was you. What is good faith about edit warring on a user's talk page when you were asked not to post there? My WP:AN3. No one is in the clear on this one and it seems like the best thing to do would be to forget about it because there is no admin action to be taken here. So...do you want to drop it or do you want to keep causing drama? I mean, what admin action do you wish to come from this request? --Smashvilletalk 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC) There is obviously some more history here, but looking at the Bwilkins' talk page it looks like he's been excessively rude, though I doubt it would be considered uncivil enough to warrant any actions at all. I understand Tavix's desire to get his opinion out, but it seems unnecessary to hound someone on his talk page. However, Bwilkin's approach here was not very helpful. He once told me (about warnings on your userpage and not about posts, but still) "you should always archive your talk page instead of delete". If he were more polite and patient and listened to his own advice, I doubt this would be an issue. But then again, it's not really an issue as it is. This does seem like much ado about not that much.LedRush (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Tavix is the one who decided to change a bunch of "John Smith (football)" names to "John Smith (American football)", based on a consensus of 1, namely himself. That was on this page within the last week or so, I think. His general approach is "my way or the highway". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) No, actually it is called "policy". I made those edits do to paragraph 3 in WP:CIVIL, which is a policy, mind you. Tavix (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC) You lie like a rug. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC) How so? Seriously, if you want to get in my face about my actions, you can take it to my talk page. This is a matter about Bwilkins. Tavix (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Nope, we'll discuss you here as well, considering there are generally two sides to every conflict. WP:FACEVALUE (sorry Bugs, Plaxico was considered BLP-questionable). Again, what admin action are you looking for? --Smashvilletalk 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (ec)When someone raises an issue here, their own behavior is also subject to scrutiny. Re: Plaxico - understood. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Okay, that is fair. So, what else do you want to scrutinize me for? Tavix (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Don't forget that Wikipedia:BLANKING#Removal of comments, warnings says that he has the right to remove the comments from his own talk page. Repeatedly re-adding them could certainly be viewed as disruptive - potentially even harrassment. I wouldn't have labelled it vandalism myself; but given the repeated re-addition of the comments despite requests to take it elsewhere, the disruption was clearly yours. --- Barek (talk • contribs ) - 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Take a look here. That comment is clearly uncivil and is one of the reasons I reverted my comments. I did take it elsewhere, as you can see from my own talk page. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) You very clearly did not take it elsewhere...otherwise, you wouldn't have posted the 4 reverts at the beginning of this section. Unless you tell use what admin action you expect to be rendered here, I am closing this discussion since it is accomplishing absolutely nothing. --Smashvilletalk 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [48] Please tell me this is somewhere else. Tavix (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Tavix, I must request that you keep the discussion compartmentalized to this page here instead of going off to various user pages. As they say, if you have something to say, say it in front of the whole class. If for no other reason than it gets confusing when the discussion has various tangents going to various other pages. --Smashvilletalk 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Will do, sorry. Tavix (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Not that anyone cares, but somehow i find this amusing. Here's the timeline. Tavix makes a post to wilkins talk page about some comment wilkins made on a project page here [[49]]. Wilkins deletes it. Asks Tavix to keep it on the project page and to stay off his talk page here at almost the same time [[50]]. Undetered, Tavix returns to his talk page and is reverted as "vandalism" here [[51]] and here [[52]]. In the midst of this, wilkins asks tavix to leave his talk page along at Tavix' talk page here [[53]]. Then tavix tells him he's edit warring [[54]]. While i'm not generally sympathetic to the "he goaded me into it argument" a complaint by Tavix over this seems ridiculous. talk ) 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) A user can remove comments from his own talk page at will. Also, a user is not bound to respond to anyone in any forum. A user does not have a "right" to force others into a dialogue. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not "forcing" him to respond as such, as he is in no obligation to respond to me no matter how many times I ask. The question of the matter is his uncivil behavior while doing so. Tavix (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Tavix, please. Please let it go. There's nothing an admin can or will do here, and we're all just wasting time. Tan | 39 22:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Okay, if you insist. Sorry for wasting your time. Tavix (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) sigh I finally get an ANI report after almost 3 years (and umpteen thousand attempts to resolve problems at WQA) and it gets resolved before I even get a chance to really respond? I was ready with my links showing how civil I was at the start, then had to say "leave me alone" after enough hounding and everything. sigh I appreciate everyone looking further into this while I was eating soft tacos and drinking red wine. ♪BMWΔ 23:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Not so fast. I don't think this thread will be resolved until someone tells me how a soft taco is meaningfully any different from a burrito. Gwen Gale (talk ) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC) More to the point, what's the proper red wine to go with Thunderbird. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One is folded in half and spills out all over the place and the other is folded two more times and is less sloppy. I hope that they were delicious and please bring enough to feed the class next time :-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh ... with the entire discussion collapsed, it sounds like you were discussing the punishment given ...who exactly was folded in half, and who was less sloppy? LOL BTW, they were home-made (Old El Paso brand) with all kinds of extras, and it was a Clos Jordanne 2006 Pinot Noir.

♪BMWΔ

00:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The other night when I was up late playing cards and under the influence, I opened a bottle of '97 Machiavelli Riservo Chianti that I had lying around. Oops.

Tan | 39

03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Stan Shebs

WP:Flora

, saying And you are now one revert away from being blocked - I suggest you cool your jets. This raises several points of concern:

• Most seriously, Shebs is using admin powers in a controversy on which he has strong opinions, and has !voted to end discussion.
• I have edited
  WP:Flora only twice, not merely in 24 hours, but in the past week, here and here
  . They address different parts of the text, and I do not believe either is a revert.
• I have asked him for an explanation, and received none.

Could somebody straighten out Shebs as to when an admin should abstain from acting on his own behalf, and what

WP:3RR actually says? Septentrionalis PMAnderson

22:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed he was referring to this and this, although now that I look at the edit history, he may have conflated those with two edits by User:Born2cycle, this and this, which happened shortly thereafter, and would have been a clearer case for 3RR had there been more. I always forget that Stan is an admin; I know that I or any other editor can report a 3RR violation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding if there was an edit war, or who may have been involved, there is a lot of difference between saying "you are one revert away from being blocked for 3RR" and "do that again to my edit and I will block you". The first is a warning that there is an incipient 3RR violation, and the second only is a threat to use sysop powers in a content dispute/edit war. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While there's no requirement that a long-term user like PMA be warned when he or she is in danger of violating the 3RR, it's polite to do so. Stan didn't threaten to block PMA. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of reverting going on, and when 2/3 of the sentences in the page are changed in a matter of minutes, it's unlikely to be original content. But in truth, the back-and-forth exceeded my fascination with who said what and when; if everybody wants to deadmin me, I won't resist. Stan (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Such assumptions are often unfounded: There were reverts between two different versions going on; but my edits were not. Will Stan Shebs, hereafter, look at the diffs actually involved before issuing such warnings? that's the point of

WP:AN3 and its requirements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DoomsayParodySpoofMovie2009

Resolved

 – Bagged and tagged. —

neuro^(talk)

04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who've been following the seemingly neverending

talk

) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. —

neuro^(talk)

04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

another grumpy admin Request for Assistance

• Clarification: I am NOT editing the article, nor have I been involved in any of the discussions, except to give my $.02 when an editor asked for input as to the notability of a certain poll. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On Christmas eve, I slapped the hands of a few people involved in an incipient edit war on Talk:Sarah Palin, involving a long post with no clear explanation of how it might be utilized to improve the article. It read like an essay or blog post; it had excerpts from two offsite articles which also read like essays or blog posts, and the first one was even labeled an essay and the second described as "another" - although I have since been informed that one was a book review, and I have been much maligned and chastised for daring to refer to them as essays. I confess I didn't read the linked sites very carefully; my interest was in stopping the edit war and getting the editors back to discussing the article, preferably civilly. I re-removed the long post[55] and posted a rather snippy warning[56] and templated (yes, I templated) Writegeist[57] and warned Factchecker atyourservice[58] With one exception, this (getting back to discussing the article) has mostly happened. The exception is Writegeist. You will possibly recall that very evening he brought his unhappiness with my actions here, as "User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behavior by this admin at Sarah Palin talk."[59] Not much happened with that, naturally, as I'd been a bit brusque but not unreasonable, as that article is on what seems to be semi-permanent snipefest, and if it isn't on probation it should be. A campaign of ABF has ensued, in which every little error I make is blown into a malicious lie. He has since posted about desysopping admins on his user page[60] and inquired elsewhere about me (from Bedford, of all misbegotten trolls to ask)[61] and has inquired of Kelly information regarding the "IDCab". Kelly stated s/he prefers to put that in the past, yet helpfully pointed Writegeist to Wikipedia Review. Please also feel free to read my attempts at some kind of discourse here [62] on User talk:Writegeist, as well as this (since removed) section from others to Writegeist, primarily regarding his ANI posting[63] - in which, interestingly, Writegeist states that "Having followed countless ANIs it's pretty clear to me that pandering is in fact exactly the technique for getting admins "on side" and encourage them to break ranks with findings against their co-admins". Hrm. Back on topic: I post this heads up as I fully expect harassment and nonsense from this source, up to and including a renewal of that tired old meme about the IDCab. If anyone has any clue-stick which they think might actually make an impression, I beg you to use it before this becomes Yet Another Lame running war on OMG the Evil Admin (me.) I notify you in advance that I have no patience for another of these bizarre little wars from Wronged Editors. I'd like to avoid Rfc if at all possible. ty in advance, KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• He continues his campaign to malign my actions and accuse me[64] stating I had "singled out" the user to whom he is posting, when in fact I struck, rolled up, or removed three editor's comments[65] in an attempt to improve civility. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

comment - KillerChihuahua has been trying fairly to play referee in the hornets nest that is the Palin article and talk page with little thanks or support from others. I support this admin for trying to do a thankless job that others have shied away from and will try to abid by his/her oversight and recommendations. Thank you, --Tom 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate that, especially as yours was one of the affected comments. I think several editors there have become somewhat heated, and as I've said, its calmed down a great deal - with the one exception. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to also offer thanks for rational behavior in a somewhat strange environment over there (even with the weird comments from WG et al <g>) I consider the BLP flagging issue as something for which the time has arrived. Collect (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I got burned at Sarah Palin, and am supportive of KillerChihuahua and any sysop attempting to keep the peace at that place - but I think KC could refactor his comments regarding Bedford (who was also an effective admin, other issues notwithstanding). As for Writegeist... I suggest ignoring with extreme prejudice, such things very rarely produce much in the way of content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could indeed refactor my comment regarding Bedford. How would you characterize this: "I have her listed on my excrement list, but I don't recall off the top of my head what her transgression against me was" if not as trolling? I welcome suggestions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for your support as regards T:SP and SP; while I would certainly love to "ignore with extreme prejudice" my experience has shown that when editors seek to involve others in their campaigns, ignoring becomes impossible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's response didn't exactly do him any favours, to be honest. Black Kite 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems intent on a suicide mission: [66] was enough for me to block them until they can satisfy people that they are not going to behave like that any more. Anyone is free to unblock if they think the user has returned to rationality, but that is just not on. Anyone who feels motivated to co-sign the barnstar I just put on user talk:KillerChihuahua should also feel free to do so, policing that ocean of toxicity is a tough job and I'm glad someone's doing it. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Drat! You missed his best posts! <g> Collect (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG OPPOSE BLOCK YOU'RE CENSORING PEOPLE WHO LIKE SARAH PALIN, ELEVEN. Uh, rather, endorse block. Incidentally, someone might want to look into meatpuppeteering beteen Bedford, Writegeist, and Die4Dixie. They seem to be banding together a lot, and the Confederate/Palin4President/anti-Obama trifecta of userboxes (the third, presumably, either because he's black or they buy into the bullshit about him being an Arab terrorist, rather than genuine concern, but I digress) is a bit worrying... Sceptre ^(talk) 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed beneath contempt. Please provide some evidence of your pathetic claims, other than my encouraging you to quit wikistalking user Bedford. there really needs to be a childrens Wikipedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

???This isn't it??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ach, I am a sucker for a little drama. I'll clue you in, Sherlock Holmes. I'm ecstatic about the block. His use of the user boxes was to poke fun of the users who used them. I figured that out when I first saw his user page. As far as Obama and black goes, I love me some Clarence Thomas, and maybe take a little gander at the rest of my boxes, might help you solve the mystery, since you still seem to like to play The Famous Five (series).Die4Dixie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of puppetry, without concrete evidence, are crossing the line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at their contributions last night, and I don't see any evidence of meatpuppetry. While all three of them have similar political viewpoints, Writegeist seems to be more vitriolic than the other two (as evidenced by this old version of his user page). Other than some like-minded discussion at User talk:Bedford, in which all three of them are reinforcing their beliefs that Barack Obama is evil, the South was wronged in the American Civil War, and Wikipedia admins are also unspeakably evil, I don't see any evidence of collusion. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to Bedford's page where I said that Obama was evil. I asked about a user box, and decided that I did not want to use it. Other comments were made later that I had no part in. You have misrepresented and mischaracterized me. Another not, If you look at the page you linked to, you will see that Writegeist and I have nothing in common, and I expressly repudiate the views that he expresses on his page. I feel the views are unamerican ,treasonous, and dangerous. And some are suspiciously Marxist, definately not my confederate ( tongue in cheek). A deeper examination would prevent your erroneous assumptions before posting!Die4Dixie (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WG is far from a Palin person -- his positions on all political issues are strong, and antithethical to Palin or any Republican, or anyone he finds pro-Israel. As to him being a meatpuppet -- he may well be one, or have one (I am never sure which usage is correct) but his use of userboxes was to poke fun at them, not to use them as intended. Collect (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh

There have been some incidents in the history creation of the article, but that's not really important. What is strange to me is that out of all this, only two users came out "clean" and most were banned for sockpuppetry. Again, not my business. But these two users, one of which has given a barn star for "protecting against vandalism" to the other seem bent on having the article without sources and it would be no surprise to me if they would ask it to be deleted in the near future, and if not them, mostly anyone could, because it was chopped off of most of its sources and content.

I have tried addressing this matter on the talk page, only to take a snappy reaction from one of the two involved, where I was (in my oppinion) attacked by expressions similar to "what's your problem?" or "you're newer than us" (see here).

I don't really care about that, but the fact is the article, as taken by the path of the two, is going to be deleted, it lacks sources and most of the content and the sources are removed by them. I would like someone neutral to oversee that article and see from the history pages what can be salvaged and if that "anti-vandalism" frenzie was with any positive consequence for the article. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just an outsider's view, but you would get a lot more help if you were specific about who you think is messing around, including diffs indicating your view. I see an article without no 'outside' sources (i.e., the only sources are going to have a conflict). Other than the references template, was your concern this template you added back? If so, I suggest discussing it at Template:The Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and edit warring

Ok, I'm done with this. User:212.103.241.89 seems dead-set on canvassing on the articles and on talk pages about my edits and edit-warring to include things like this weird coloration, extra columns, whatever they want. If anyone else feels like discussing this, go ahead. In the morning, I'm going to suggest merging all the smaller pieces into a single article. The main article may be notable enough. The rest are just massive of unsourced repetition and extraneous information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio photo of Roland Burris

The article

Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal. The infobox photo, File:RWBphoto.jpg, is labeled {{PD-self}} but is almost certainly a copyvio. I've nominated it for deletion, but in the meantime I've noticed the photo propagating around the blogosphere and news sites - I'm almost positive those folks are taking the photo from here, that's pretty common. Should we wait for the IfD discussion to play out, or does someone want to be bold and delete the likely copyright violation? Kelly ^hi!

07:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. First, I identified the copyright holder as the office of Roland Burris. The same photo appears with the proper credits. Second, as a work of a state government, not federal, it has copyright protection automatically. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problematic IP

I have been watching 90.62.19.215 on the article Marie Antoinette. His edit summary looks like an edit war between two editors under the same IP, but the edits show quick changes of info to the article. This might be of interest to further investigation. I'm not sure I'm in the right place, so if I am in the wrong place, please tell me. Leujohn ^(talk) 11:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How does "his edit summary looks like an edit war between two editors under the same IP"? It doesn't to me... :S —

neuro^(talk)

12:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Revertion, blithering photo attacks, blah, blah

Resolved

 – Account indef blocked, lets see if they are open to discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone get this editor to stop removing images from articles and replacing them with his own long enough to discuss them? I've asked him over and over to discuss the images on talk pages first, not remove other images and replace them with his own, and leave off the silly captions. So, now it's a revert war, which won't do. All his contributions are adding the same images over and over to multiple articles, replacing other images, no matter what. He appears to largely be promoting his own strain of medical marijuana, hence the multiple pictures of his strain of medical marijuana. This is from an article I asked to be deleted, where part of his user name, the 420, was also the handle of a major marijuana blog discussing his strain of medical marijuana, which isn't discussed anywhere but stoner blogs. User:Coaster420 --KP Botany (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll take the high road on this one and discuss/achieve consensus.

♪BMWΔ

12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive language and personal attacks by User:AP1929

TALK

) 08:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User was topicbanned for six months from these articles by FutPerf. Perhaps it's time to do it again? // roux   08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it... --

TALK

) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His contribs show him to be essentially a SPA- blocking him would have the same effect as topic banning him, but with the added bonus that it's actually enforceable without a whole bunch of dramaz.

✡| talk

19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, topicbanning would hardly be an appropriate response to calling a User a "piece of shit" on his own talkpage. Such action is not really related to any particular topic. --

TALK

) 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't made an edit since this thread was posted. If he comes back and is anything but a sweet flower in the spring rain, I'll give him a little vacation, how does that sound?

✡| talk

05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means anything, he edits from time to time only. I doubt he thinks he's been noticed at all, in fact, I think he's under the impression he may do whatever he likes on non-article pages of Wikipedia (he's led me to believe that in any case). I'm not pretending to be 100% objective, but in my view he's been asking for a holiday for quite a while now when we add his persistent section-blanking to the equation. [68] [69] --

TALK

) 12:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't feel comfortable blocking a user who hasn't edited since his last warning (being notified of this thread). Maybe another admin here doesn't share my qualms?

✡| talk

19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think L'Aquatique's approach is the best one here: there's no harm leaving a final warning on this user's page, then giving him a "holiday" if he returns with an unchanged agenda. Because (1) we gave him a chance to change -- which ought to appease anyone who may be tempted to revert a permanent block/ban, & (2) if he doesn't return ... then the whole issue is moot. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well, all the best in 2009 :) --

TALK

) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put in my two cents here -- I edited my unnecessary comment to the user at view immediately after I had made it. User:DIREKTOR is simply trying to fight other battles in order to get me banned so that he can cast his views over any NDH topic as he pleases without any objection. Users such as DIREKTOR are dreaming of their former communist state and are used to eliminating opposing views with such methods of silencing. Not once have I supported fascism -- not in wikipedia nor in my actual personal life; I am not a fascist. I think that a non bias administrator should take a look at the Ante Pavelic talk page and come to some type of rational conclusion. I figured Wiki was a network where the world could share various forms of information in order to create neutral encyclopedic entries. I am not looking to create some type of entry praising any political group or party, but am simply trying to create a neutral article; however, eliminating bias adjectives such as "fascist" or "puppet-state" from NDH related articles is unfavorable to users such as DIREKTOR in order to glorify communism and yugoslavia and tito himself. Why doesn't DIREKTOR; a native speaker of the Croatian language edit the Croatian versions of these articles where there is hardly any mention of "fascism". It is generally known that terms such as "fascist" are used by political opponents of any given political entity in order to blacken their image -- as outlined even by the wiki article on fascism. Thank you all for your time and all the best in 2009. AP1929 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point of this thread. The problem is not your politics are -- in fact or perception -- it is in your language. Your use of abusive language towards other Wikipedians will lead to you being banned from Wikipedia, so I would dial down the rhetoric. BTW, if calling someone "fascist" is abusive, so is calling someone "communist"; there is ample legal precedent for this being considered slander in the US, so unless another Wikipedian identifies her/himself as a communist I recommend that you avoid using the word here. In short, I echo L'Aquatique above -- you need to be "a sweet flower in the spring rain". -- llywrch (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Bagged and tagged. —

neuro^(talk)

04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussion, but the trolling here and here ring a bell. Anyone know who Themeatpopsicle (talk · contribs) is a sock of? — Satori Son 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Themeatpopsicle seems to be looking for an indef block. I have notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Freetibet84 (talk · contribs)? --B (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Themeatpopsicle under the belief that Freetibet84 = Themeatpopsicle. --B (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser came back likely, I have blocked the user per this result and the editing patterns, which make it pretty obvious anyway. --B (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much everyone. — Satori Son 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An unprotected image is scheduled to appear on the main page, again

Resolved

 – [70] [71] [72] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Giuseppe Piazzi.jpg is currently included in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1, and will thus appear on the main page tomorrow, but is not uploaded locally, and is protected on the commons only until 09:44, 1 January 2009, though Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 will not be removed from the main page until January 2. Since the selected anniversaries page and the image filename are protected locally due to cascading protection, I cannot upload a local version myself. Could an administrator upload a local version, or protect the image on the commons for the duration of its appearance on the main page? Thanks. John254 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys

Resolved

 – Big fuss about nothing

It appears that

canvassing by way of misrepresenting a single AFD discussion as "removal of all criticism articles". Wasn't sure how to handle it, so I'm bringing it to ANI. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c

) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was another user who suggested deletion of all "Criticism" articles: [73], and perhaps he is absolutely right. If this article will be deleted, one can reasonably argue that all other "Criticism" articles must be deleted -simply based on the precendent. Therefore, I informed other users who might be interested in this discussion.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And a lot of them are, like "in popular culture" articles, spun out by people who don't like the fact that the sections keep getting justly pruned down to manageable proportions. Almost every "criticism of" article I've ever seen has been a POV-fork to at least some extent, and nuking a bunch of them probably would improve the encyclopaedia quite a bit. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all, though. The O'Reilly article, for example, was simply spun off from the main article because the section was getting too large in the main article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, that was precisely my argument why all such articles have every right to exist. But there is nothing wrong to mark all such articles for deletion, if someone thinks otherwise.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos provides no edit differences, so thus far his accusations are baseless.travb (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[74], [75]. // roux   22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My message was neutral and non-partisan. Hence this is not canvassing.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message was wildly inaccurate and

WP:POINTy, and yes it was canvassing. You were attempting to get people to support keeping the Putin article by falsely implying that all Criticism Of articles would be deleted if that one was. // roux  

23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing false in my message. It was not me who indeed suggested to remove all such articles [76]. I did not suggest to keep or delete anything specific in the posted messages, but only to participate in discussion, as obvious from the diffs.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And he is now being

Dialogue

23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Instead of merging, the content of this article has been effectively deleted by

point. Nominating this article for deletion however would be fine.Biophys (talk

) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements may be removed by any editor at any time. // roux   23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But deleted text was sourced.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As per

Dialogue

23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Russavia:"

It became necessary to destroy the town to save it

" I find it incredibly ironic and Orwellian that an editor who deletes well referenced material by misquoting established guidlines is accusing the very editor who is attempting to stop such misconduct of being disruptive.

I must admit, User:Russavia, your command of acronym soup is impressive, but as I clearly showed in this AfD, the central guidelines you quote to justify your AfD contradict your reason for the AfD in the first place. As User:Digwuren wrote in the AfD: "...since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order."

I believe with a little investigation, User:Russavia's claims that he "did a selective merge, only merging that information that was referenced", will also be found to be lacking.

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (

WP:Canvas

violation.

Personal attack. travb (talk

) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (

AfDs created: 54 Articles created: 11

)'

And that has anything to do with anything because? Some articles should be deleted. Some shouldn't. I have made absolutely zero opinion on whether this particular article should be deleted; I was commenting on the canvassing by Biophys. Kindly don't try to... I don't know what exactly you were trying to do, but it's obvious that you were trying to discredit me because I happen to have nominated some articles for deletion. Don't do it again. // roux   01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

given the general context, and the other articles selected, it does indeed seem like WP:POINT. Given the way the Putin AfD is proceeding, I do not think the article will be deleted, nor will the one of Bush or O'Reilly articles. As for McDonald's, the claimed consensus to merge is based on an old poll with half the supports being anons/SPAs, and no real discussion, so it would seem reasonable to reopen the issue. If anything, like many attempts at canvassing, this will prove counterproductive, so I think no action is necessary. DGG (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My selective merge of only sourced material will be found lacking? Care to back up that statement with a little evidence there Inclusionist? Here's the diff, the only thing that was referenced is the environmental section. The rest is for all intents and purposes

Dialogue

01:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies Russavia, I was absolutely wrong. travb (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, although it is better if

Dialogue

03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion here be archived. Clearly this discussion had gone off-topic, which was originally about alleged canvassing (my two cents is that the original messages were neutral though probably placed in the wrong spot, perhaps in the respective wiki-projects may have been better), and the discussion has moved to a confusing content dispute which the best place for it is on the respective article talk pages.

talk

) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't confusing about it Martin. I have laid out the details, as I was advised to place it here by an admin for other admins to look at, and I would rather have some resolution to this here. The question above remains, and I really would appreciate an answer as to intentions of the 3 editors I have addressed, yourself included. --

Dialogue

04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read through the above twice and it's about as crisp as mashed potatoes. Exactly what are you asking regarding editor Marintg's "intentions"? I have found him to be an upstanding editor who backs his editorial contentions with reputable sources. PetersV       TALK 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

to source it now.

On Vladimir Putin,

However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6.

Is completely unsourced.

As is:

Since 1992, Putin has owned a dacha of about seven thousand square meters in Solovyovka, Priozersky District in Leningrad Oblast, which is located on the eastern shore of the Komsomolskoye Lake on the Karelian Isthmus near Saint Petersburg.

And other info re-inserted. Because they have lacked

WP:BURDEN is now on them to source all of that, including the 7,000 square metres, unsourced information. As one can see from the article history

, there was a series of 24 edits done by myself, with all sorts of fixes and removal of unsourced info, and the entire lot has been wholesale reverted.

If they don't want these edits to be called as

assuming good faith

with their own edits, and work with me instead of against me.

Can it be said any clearer? --

Dialogue

05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has all but confirmed that he has no intention of sourcing anything that he re-instated, nor has he addressed anything raised here, so one can only assume that this was a deliberate

Dialogue

08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, citing every single Wikipedia policy over and over again in caps doesn't add veracity to your allegations. You need to step back and take a deep breath rather than continue with this wikidramu. Of all the policies you cite, I recommend a review of

talk

) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, OK, I read your rant here. But this is simply not an appropriate forum. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then where is the appropriate forum to discuss the disruptive edits the 3 editors have partaken in? Just where and when do the questions get answered? Article talk page has gone unanswered. User talk pages have gone unanswered. Just where do people have to take responsibility for their edits around this place???? --

Dialogue

02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 05:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And your edits have made you look like a

Dialogue

12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse if you had actually read

talk

) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, do stop it people. Find somewhere else to flame. There's nothing actionable here, although there probably will be in a moment if Martin and Russavia keep on going. Moreschi (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

Hello, this is not strictly an administrative matter, but I have requested input at

WP:NPOV; it's is starting to become a handful and I want to avoid any edit-warring or further mudslinging. Any help appreciated, thanks, Skomorokh

18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your ownership issues surrounding this article have become very clear, and your discomfort with calling neo-nazis "neo-nazis" was made very clear, as well, on that talk page. I think more editorial overwatch, by admins and others, would be a very good thing.

talk

) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Witness my fierce desire to own the article by solicitating input at the most widely-watched page on Wikipedia, and my aversion to the using the term "Neo-Nazi" in the article by my active support for it :) Seriously folks, enough eyes should make all non-neutrality shallow, please take a look. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, if no-one wants to get their hands dirty (forgivable considering the circumstances), a temporary full protection might be in order to force involved editors to discuss the issues and reach consensus on the talkpage. Skomorokh 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation: nobody else is interested in hosting an advertisement for Stormfront. --B (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article were an advertisment, then surely the fine editors of ANI would be keen to get in and beat it into neutral shape? Skomorokh 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale for protecting the article. I am now in the unenviable position of being latest commenter in 17 of the 18 talkpage threads, so hope others will examine the sources and the text of the article closely and join the discussion. Skomorokh 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about having protected the article and did so only to stop the back and forth editing for now. I've commented further on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A trawl through the history is... illuminating. I think we could justly say that Skomorokh has erred on the side of sympathy to the subject, a subject which is, by general agreement in the real world, nauseating and toxic. Some kind of restriction may be necessary. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I have no strong opinions on the subject of the article, but very strong ones about the standard for verifying claims. If you can point out to me where I have taken content from sources and then distorted it to be more sympathetic to the subject, I'll try my best to re-examine it and reflect the sentiment of the sources. It's a little dispiriting to spend days adding content about how Stormfront entices children to download games in which they can kill Jews and blacks, distorts its message behind coded phrases and subtly invoke neo-fascist iconography, quotes historical figures out of context to support its arguments and sympathises with mass murderers...to be accused of treating them sympathetically by editors who always seem to flee the scene when you ask them to specify where exactly I have departed from the reliable sources. Thanks for looking at the history though, and if you have any more to offer you're welcome at the article talk page. Skomorokh 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a philosophical level, perhaps the difference between you and I Guy is that I think there is a very important difference between neutral point of view and mainstream point of view. You, me and the dog it the street might agree that Hitler was a genocidal dictator, but the Wikipedia entry on him says he was an Austrian-born politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. I don't understand why "just the facts, please" is not an appropriate way to handle controversial topics. Skomorokh 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a research level, maybe you should get out more? Descriptors in the lede section of

talk

) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the opening sentences :) Skomorokh 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A lede IS the opening sentences of an article. ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant the opening sentence of the Hitler article compared to the opening sentence of the Stormfront one; two opening sentences, in two different articles. Hope this clarifies, Skomorokh 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sdtill don't see your point. One article's lede says it faster than the other? So what? ThuranX (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked thoroughly through the edit history and talk page, I don't think protection is the way to handle this and have set the page back to sp for edits, fp for mv. I've asked Skomorokh to think about not making edits to the article unless they are already supported by consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good start. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, on this subject, mainstream POV is the neutral POV - Skomorokh, you seem to be confusing the sympathetic POV for the neutral POV. They are not the same. Any article on StormFront that does not leave the reader with a complete understanding that it is reviled, and why, is a failure. It is a neo-Nazi site and a leading source of hate speech. You know that. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think both mainstream and sympathetic pov's are distinct from neutral pov. Neutral POV should be wertfrei, free of value judgements and pejorative terms used disquotationally. I agree that "Any article on StormFront that does not leave the reader with a complete understanding that it is reviled, and why, is a failure" but I strongly disagree with the notion that the article should take the stance than Stromfront should be reviled, which is what you and the recent flush of editors to the article in the last few days seem to feel. I spend most of my time on Wikipedia merrily editing away at the

extreme other end of the ideological spectrum; be under no illusions that I sympathise with the views of the subject. Thanks for the stimulating discussion. Skomorokh

22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at it, Skomorokh seemed to have sanitized various things. For example, the details of the incitement to racial hatred by Doug Hanks ("rabid beasts"). Skomorokh's version of the lurid computer game "White power doom", on what he and stormfront term euphemistically "stormfront for kids", read like a blurb in a mail order catalogue. But wasn't it a rather nasty computer game, also inciting racial hatred, as described in an academic source? The treatment doesn't seem balanced while statements like this are left unchecked. (I later modified both these entries.) The reporting of "race hate" has to be done in a far more careful and balanced way as Guy says and Skomorokh must realize that he is not the ultimate arbiter of this. His use of the phrase "stormfront for kids" in an edit summary is already not helpful. Wikipedia should not appear like a mirror of stormfront's website, even if a few secondary sources have been cited. One thing that I still don't quite understand is the template that Skomorokh placed on the talk page of the article declaring himself to be an expert (since removed). Is he himself involved in the website and, if so, would that not be a COI? As he himself inserted the template and started this ANI report, it might be worth him giving an explanation. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not "sanitise" anything (intentionally at any rate). Regarding Doug Hanks, I corrected that claim that he referred to African Americans as "rabid beasts" to what the source said - that he said they should be treated like "rabid beasts". When I added the sentence about Stormfront for Kids (which is the name of the website), it said "Its children's section, Stormfront for Kids, hosts a link to "White Power Doom", a downloadable white power

computer game that allows children the opportunity to hunt and kill characters from minority groups". The source, a scholarly paper in an academic journal said "The only direct link to a downloadable white power computer game was on the Stormfront's children's page, a link is to a zipped file containing "White Power Doom," a computer game that allows children an opportunity to hunt down and kill minority characters". Another editor then found another source regarding White Power Doom that was more specific on its content, an improvement to the article. Everything I added to the article has been from reliable sources, and as close to the wording of the source as I could make it. I didn't add a template saying I was an expert on the article, I added {{Maintained}}, which explicitly refutes the notion of ownership and says the ediitors (in this case me) may be able to help with questions about verification and sourcing. I thought I could be of help, seeing as I added most of those sources and was familiar with what they said. I have added this template to dozens of other articles without objection, but another editor pointed out that it should not be used on controversial articles so it was probably a bad idea for me to have added it to this one. Regards, Skomorokh

17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[Reply requested on my talk page by Skomorokh] Part of the quote from Hanks (now in the article) reads, "Let's treat all the Blacks like the rabid beasts they are." I don't understand what would be the point in trying to paraphrase or interpret this. As regards the game, the reference in the academic report from Tel Aviv University wrote that the purpose of the video simulation game was "to hunt and kill Jews and blacks". These are minor points. I still don't know why you inserted a template stating that you were an expert on the stormfront website. If you don't want to say, we can let it drop. Mathsci (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I used portions of the Hanks quote instead of the whole thing because I thought the meaning could be conveyed adequately in prose, but I'm happy with the quoted version. Yes the Tel Aviv reference refers to hunting and killing Jews and Blacks, but that reference was not added to the article until after I added the line about the game - I did not know of the existence of the reference, so how can you expect me to have included it? I was quite happy with the wording you introduced when adding the Tel Aviv reference, and I don't understand how this is indication of my sanitising the article – I used virtually identical phrasing as the only reliable source on the issue I was aware of. I did not insert "a template stating that you were an expert on the stormfront website"; I added {{Maintained}}, which reads (and read) "The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources". I was actively involved with the article, and familiar with the sources (since I added most of them). How does this show I professed myself to be an expert on the Stormfront website? Skomorokh 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was on the verge of refactoring the last two sentences. Perhaps you might consider having a pause in your intensive edits for a little while as others have suggested, since this is a controversial subject. Oh, and far more importantly, Happy New Year! (I suspect it will come sooner for you than for me in the fog of the Bay Area.) Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. There's a tentative proposal on the article talkpage for editors to refrain from making changes until there is consensus for it, so hopefully that will be agreed to and we can all relax and take a closer look at things. I certainly agree we have far more important things to be worrying about (and I'm already late!) so I wish you the happiest of new years and an acrimony-free Wikipedia volunteering in 2009. Peace, Skomorokh 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since Skomorokh began editing, the article has grown from 13.5k to 42k, 90%+ of that growth at his hands. In that growth, the article has become the most sanitized and Stormfront friendly article it could be, short of blatant praise and agreement. the article definitely needs a rewrite for tone, but I'm not sure where one could start without doing months of research. He's been careful to find citations for a great deal of the material there. ThuranX (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's something about his "flood of edits" style that makes it so hard to come to grips with the article. A few editors were trying to get involved a few days ago. But if, say, i made one edit, Skomorokh would A. quickly delete/substantially change it and then B. Make 5 or so edits right behind it. What are these edits? Good ones, bad ones? It becomes almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff and you very quickly feel like you're chasing your tail. In the past day or two he's made a few more or less innocous edits -- but i'm almost certain these are edits to changes he made (his latest edit changes the word "coverage" to the better "controversies;" but I think he changed "controversies" to "coverage" a few days ago). He's made 125 of the last 150 edits dating back to December 28, with the other 25 edits spread out among 8 or so other editors (plus smackbot). I think at the very least its time to review its GA status; if i have a vote, it's an inappropriate tag now.

talk

) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No votes here, this is Wikipedia :) I've already twice supported the idea of a GA re-assessment; do you want me to put in a request for you? Skomorokh 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

original research. Gwen Gale (talk

) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist making possibly POINTy AFD noms

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the AfDs were not POINTy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:ScienceApologist appears to be nominating as many articles relating to the paranormal as possible, with many of the nominations being nuisance nominations. When I queried him on this he was noncommunicative[77]. Possibly something is up with him in relation to thisWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science arbitration case. Artw (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC) The first 2 I've looked at have been pretty bad articles, whether or not the subjects are notable. An article that says 'this is a magazine' and maybe links its website isn't exactly what we want. I know at least one of these though and am trying to rescue the article by adding some substance (eg adding its full title). talk ) 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocation for an example of a truely bad nom. Artw (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Agreement with Artw on this, the last one seems particularly bad. I'm not sure if it is entirely pointy or if he's just interpreted the recent Arbcom ruling to mean "all fringe articles must die"; given his attitude beforehand I'm inclined to believe the former. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC) WP:AGF please. DreamGuy (talk ) 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC) He's now focusing his efforts on vandalising Bilocation, presumably to make it seem a better candidate for deletion. The guy needs some kind of time-out, block or ban. Artw (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC) HE just vandalised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocation as well. Artw (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, he withdrew in that AFD. And as to what he did/was doing to good faith edits are not vandalism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's / 09:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Possibly he just doesn;t know how to withdraw properly, and that is why he broke that AFD several times. He seems to be having similar trouble with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (2nd nomination) - another terrible nomination, BTW (see the previous AFD from him). The edits to the citations in the Bilocation article were, IMHO, flat out vandalism. Artw (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) So you're of the opinion that his goal was to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC) For ease of checking to see whether there is pointyness here or not, here's a list of SA's AFD noms for the past week. I'm not commenting on the merits or lack thereof, just providing the list. Bruce Moen - Albert Coe - Aliens from Space: The Real Story of Unidentified Flying Objects - Angel hair - Animals & Men - 3rd Stone - Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena - Barbara Brennan - Bill Moore (ufologist) - Black Alchemist - Brad Steiger - Open Skies, Closed Minds - Operation Thunder Child - Operation Lightning Strike - Georgina Bruni - You Can't Tell the People - Veljko Milković - // roux   08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Meh. SA has about as good an AfD record as I do or as most people do. He focuses on fringe stuff because that's his bag. I don't see incident requiring immediate administrator action here. Protonk (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I just reviewed three randomly - two with neat sounding names, and the first in the list:Bruce Moen, Angel hair, and Black Alchemist, and all three ought to go, for reasons I made clear in their AfDs, with one delete vote and two redirects, though the Angel hair redirect is basically a delete and create a redirect, because the target is unrelated to the topic. gthere's nothing wrong with his nominations, esp. when you factor in the 2 withdrawls as well. Move on. ThuranX (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what's going on here. I think User:Artw is upset by the nominations I'm making for some reason, but I don't know why. My hunch is from looking at his talk page is that he is involved in the paranormal/alt med wikiprojects. That might explain his acrimony (which is really quite astonishing... he's definitely hounding me from article to article and calling a lot of my attempts to clean up articles "vandalism".... check his contribs). By the way, apparently there is this culture in Wikipedia now where people are supposed to "withdraw" nominations when they change their mind. Back in the day, we were supposed to let AfDs run their course to get as much visibility as possible. You see, when someone AfDs an article, it is likely that there is something about it which made the nominator want to AfD it. The more visibility (and AfD gets a lot of visibility) you get, the more likely it is that the issue will be resolved. Even on the articles I now think probably could be kept since different people have commented, I'd appreciate keeping the discussion periods open so that people can comment on how to fix the problems associated with said articles. But apparently wikiculture has changed so that the order of business these days is to withdraw nominations. That's fine, except I don't know what the "withdrawl" process is. talk ) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what you mean, since i was you that initiated the "withdrawal" of those AFDs. If you wnated them left up, why not leave them up? Artw (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC) A little birdee told me that this was the new culture. His name is talk ) 09:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC) By the way, before this thread gets closed, I'd like an administrator to look at the contributions of User:Artw. This isn't just getting back at him, and in fact, I don't want him sanctioned. I just want to let people know what it's like to be me. [78] (does that look like vandalism to you?) [79] [80] [81] (check the edit summary) [82] [83] [84] (check the edit summary) [85] Is this hounding? talk ) 09:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC) You're presenting the reversion of an AFD which you blanked with the note "that is not how you withdraw" as evidence of wrongdoing? Seriously? Seriously? As for "is it hounding?", no, it's bold follow ups to erratic behaviour by a user who at the time was noncommunicative, blanking AFDs, and making a large number of AFDs that included a number of obvious no-hopers. Artw (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC) He communicated with me. And the result will almost certainly be fewer bad articles and some improved articles. Is that a bad thing? What some people call 'bold' others may see differently? talk ) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I just ran through all the rest of his nominations as listed above. Most I concurred with, a few I felt needed merging to a related, more notable topic, and a few were, discouragingly, snowball closed just hours after opening. I find the early closure after just hours to be insulting to the rest of us. I wont' reopen them, but do ask for administrators to review those and consier reopening for fuller community review. ThuranX (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Aside As an aside, my understanding of how withdrawal goes in AfDs is that if you believe you've made a mistake in nominating, you should withdraw your nomination. Usually this comes as a result of you being informed that your nom was illogical or otherwise against guidelines, or that you were borderline in the first place and someone's convincing argument pushed you towards keep. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC) That should be in the deletion policy then. It's a different culture for AfD than what I thought, and I've been here for a while and done a fair share of AfDs. talk ) 10:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) That's a reasonable understanding of afd 'culture', but it shouldn't be written in the policy nor is it there. There is no requirement that an AfD be withdrawn for any reason and (as some people forget) a withdrawn AfD is not a speedy keep candidate (it only is if there are no good faith delete votes). Protonk (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC) The withdrawal procedure is for AfDs in which the nominator is the only one requesting deletion, and the nominator changes his or her mind. In that case, the nominator can express a keep opinion (either as a keep or, more obviously, as withdraw) and strike their previous nomination statement. A passing administrator (or anyone else) should then close it as a speedy keep. But if anyone other than the nominator has expressed a delete opinion, withdrawal is not possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC) AfDs in general One problem we may be facing is that some people think that AfDs are "very serious" while other people (like me) simply view them as chances for discussion. I think part of the issue may be that people see AfD templates as highly visible while other similar processes (such as talk ) 10:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Quite. Looking at XfD's for other namespaces, the "D" typically stands for "discussion"; that is, the process is a method for discussion of a particular page rather than the deletion thereof. While AfD is not a cleanup process, it may be likened an "emergency peer review" to confirm that subjects actually belong here. I'm not sure moving AfD notices to the talk page would be particularly helpful or necessary. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's / 10:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC) As Mendaliv points out, AFD is not cleanup, do not treat it as such. Not sure why hiding a notice that may resul in the deltion of a page on its talk page would be a good idea. As for the idea that AFDs result in the improvement of articles - sometimes they do. One very effective way of preventing that is to flood AFD with as many aricles requiring attention as possible, another reason why I was concerned. Artw (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC) AfD may not be cleanup, but the focus of an AfD very often results in massive improvements to an article. I have advocated for a long time an outocme of "expedited cleanup" for AfD, too many articles get "keep and improve" without ever being improved. The rationale that a bad article on a good subject should be kept because it is better than no article seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. I do not think a crap article is better than no article. A long crap article will deter newcomers from writign a good article much more effectively, IMO, than a redlink, where people might actually pitch in and write something good from scratch. Few people have the balls to scythe away reams of junk in order to start afresh - and I wish more people did. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Guy, I agree with you completely. A crap article is worse than no article at all. They serve as horrible examples, trying to improve them can too often lead to edit wars with the original author, etc. And as Mendaliv says, the 'D' is for discussion. talk ) 11:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, it is worse to misinform our readers than say nothing on a topic. To paraphrase that Jimbo quote in WP:V, text and articles that don't have RS should be "aggressively deleted". Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Move to close Sorry if I'm slamming the door on anybody here, but it seems pretty clear that there is no need for administrative intervention here. Both editors appear to be operating under AfD process should be addressed to their appropriate talk pages. Further argument on what's present here will only result in yet another lengthy, argument-laden, unnecessary ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's / 10:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC) It doesn't seem that SA is correctly following the process laid out at WP:BEFORE which, among much good guidance, says emphatically, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. This is very clearly the case at Angel hair, for example, where a search soon turns up several scientific reports on the topic. If editors can freely engage in prejudiced deletion sprees without following the process then it seems too easy to overload AFD which is supposed to be a last resort. Since SA seems uncertain about the AFD process, he should read and follow the relevant policy pages before making more nominations. Colonel Warden (talk ) 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC) That's just process-wonkery. Articles that fail policy should not be here, however meritorious the subject. This is explicitly recognised in terms of attack pieces, for example. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed. There is very, very little support to keep talk ) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I think it is best to say that, if you disagree with an AFD nomination, just vote 'keep'. If you agree, just vote 'Delete'. If it is deleted and you feel that it is in error, please take it to DRV. No administrator action is required here. seicer | talk | contribs 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC) It's very clearly not clearly the case for WP:POINT violation or whatever is just wikilawyering to try to get one's way. DreamGuy (talk ) 16:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed. I've closed a few of these AfDs as SNOW cases, but most are valid nominations and several are obvious deletes. SA has done the encyclopedia a favor with this sweep through the paranormal dust bunnies that accumulate in the nooks and corners of this website when nobody is looking. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Yeah, might as well close this up. Behavior last night set off a lot of alarm bells for me but does not appear to have turned into the rampage I feared it might be. The issues in AFD appear to be the result of a misunderstanding – though I disagree with the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (2nd nomination) as it breaks the namespace and hides the record. Artw (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) "Breaks the namespace"? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Never mind, since esentially the same AFD is filling that namespace now. Artw (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn AFDs -- how would I un-withdraw or resubmit? Personally, I think SA withdrew the articles merely because of the backlash of some people assuming bad faith and blow it into something it wasn't. Georgina Bruni, for example, is absolutely deserving of a discussion about whether it should be deleted. She is only notable if at all for a book, so should normally have the article be redirected to the book, but the book itself is up for deletion. The article has absolutely no sources of any note, just a link to a gossip column in an online-only magazine that doesn't have a Wikipedia article showing that she signed it as editor in chief, which is not what the article deals with. I've tried to relist, but the directions for relisting just say afdx in the template, and that automatically links into the AFD that was marked as withdrawn, and there's no easy way I can see to make another listing. Of course I think it'd be easier just to unwithdraw the nomination, but the thing is so muddled from the above dramafest that I don't know how to handle it from here. And I fully agree with the abov that AFD is primarily discussion. When I list something for deletion it's with the understanding that someone might be able to edit the article to make it worthwhile enough to stay. I this particular case I'd find that very difficult to believe could happen, but am willing to be proved wrong. What should not happen, however, is having a particularly poor article that likely has no reason to be here hanging around just because a couple of people assumed bad faith and raised a fuss that SA would dare to nominate articles for deletion discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I've deleted the withdrawn nomination under Wikipedia:CSD#G6, since it wasn't serving any useful purpose. Please feel free to re-nominate. Tim Vickers (talk ) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the prompt attention. DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC) DreamGuy, at least one AfD, Bilocation, was legitimately withdrawn, so not all were 'bowing to pressure'. ThuranX (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I don't mean to try to paint things as all black or white, and if I came across as doing so I apologize. I think that one was made in good faith and withdrawn for legitimate reasons. Certainly, though, the discussion could have remained open to facilitate a discussion on improving it (I already did make some much-needed changes) at no harm to Wikipedia. It's sad that some of the comments on that AFD just claimed it was a WP:POINT violation and dismissed the whole thing asif it were made in bad faith. We're here to improve things, and AFD is a legitimate part of that process, and I appreciate all the editors who do get that point. DreamGuy (talk ) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Need 2nd opinion

Y resolved for now, sockpuppet taken to cleaners, but watch for more

Shortly after CT Productions got the ax, Americanidolwatcher (talk · contribs) added what I assume is the same or similar material to User talk:Americanidolwatcher. The user has since been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I'm torn if I should remove this material as spam/recreation of deleted material or just leave it. While it is inappropriate for user- and user-talk page content, it's not really harming the project beyond wasting bits and possibly setting bad president. On the other hand, I think removing mostly-harmless material that people add to their own user talk pages also sets bad precedent. Should I take this to MfD with a recommendation that the content, not the page, be deleted, should I just drop it, or should I be bold? Going to MfD for a partial-page-delete sounds like a misuse of MfD, but the other two choices aren't good either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it as I think it was very spammy and not an appropriate use of a user talk page. Feel free to revert if anyone feels that is inappropriate. Davewild (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was torn on this. I'm not sure how common spamcruft on user and user talk pages is, particularly for blocked users. If you know enough precedent to know what common practice is, documenting it on

Wikipedia talk:SPAM or even as an essay might give visibility to historical practice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It was substantially the same, yes, and it had been deleted 3 times previously in the last 2 days. If it pops up again in user space let me know and I will protect the page to stop it (and if that means the user/writer cannot request unblock then that is their own fault) or report it here. (nb. User space is also Google indexed - look up your username; that is why spammers and vandals do this.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SimonCowellLuver (talk · contribs) and SimonCowellFan (talk · contribs) may be the same person, as well. Same article, same obsession with American Idol/Simon Cowell. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So, although I doubt it's notable ... why not move it to their sandbox and show them how to use it?

♪BMWΔ

23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --Smashville^talk 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU - User:name is indexed by Google, User talk:name is not but other web sites that nobody has ever heard of copy it and they are indexed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

More eyes please

Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, which she or he is now citing in a content dispute at Glider

(incidentally, without alerting the participants there that the relevant section of the guideline is something that she or he has recently added to the guideline).

Since the addition seems to be instruction creep at best, and frankly disingenuous at worst (and I'm still willing to AGF at this point), I've removed the problematic section twice now. Wolfkeeper has re-added it on both occasions; most recently, with this remark.

Wolfkeeper insists that this is an uncontroversial addition to the guideline; however, his ongoing difficulty with implementing exactly this concept at Glider demonstrates otherwise. Based on a comment here, I surmise that Wolfkeeper created this addition to the guideline based on opposition to similar acions in the past on other articles, further indicating controversy.

I have been and continue to be substantially involved in the dispute at Glider and am not going to edit war over this, so will not make any further attempt to remove the addition to the guideline. I would, however, appreciate other opinions. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD. He was bold. He was reverted. Now you need to discuss. I will say it's a little troublesome to add to a guideline for the sole purpose of using it in an argument...I went ahead and undid his addition...considering changes to policies and guidelines absolutely need discussion if they are reverted. --Smashville^talk

23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

user:TIMBERFALLSFAN

I left a warning for TIMBERFALLSFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He only has 3 edits visible to me, but I realized from his talkpage that he must have deleted edits for attack pages. An admin might want to take a look and see if with his deleted edits if a block is needed instead of another warning. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously vandalism-only. I turned him in to

WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

00:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here.. I'm thinking that any user who does nothing but create speedied attack pages against admins is probably never going to be a useful contributor and should be blocked on sight. I'd suggest a CU to root out the blatant sockdrawer too, because I doubt that a block will have much effect. // roux   00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him, but the sock thing is still very much worth looking into. Why he was never warned/blocked for creating multiple attack pages on an admin is beyond me... --Smashville^talk 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 related protection requests

There is a bunch of requests for protection regarding targets of banned user

WP:RFPP. I personally would decline all of them for not much activity but I am unfamiliar with the user so I'd like some more input. Regards SoWhy

21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101, aka "The Disney Vandal", uses dynamic ip's to attack favourite articles - the ip accounts are quickly stomped upon, but usually not before they are abandoned. If the major targets can be sprotected without too much (preferably no) collateral damage then it would remove a lot of potential damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would grant the requests. The Disney Vandal is persistent, and does a lot of damage with edits that aren't obviously vandalism, making it difficult to get his accounts dealt with quickly through AIV and other more normally useful techniques.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked his /17 range (it's fairly high traffic) for 72 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan101 nearly exclusively uses named accounts. Soft-blocking is of no help.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is if the accounts are new. Black Kite 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Meh, forget that - I was having a "softblock"/"semi-protect" senior moment... Black Kite 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Softblocking is anon. only, account creation blocked. This block will prevent him from harassing users anonymously and hopefully stymie his rampant account creation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, "limited help". An editor that has been this dedicated for this long with this many accounts probably has a nice collection of socks pre-knitted. If soft-blocking only permitted confirmed editors, I'd be a lot more optimistic.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had been reading this as being instead of protection. As an addition to protection, I have no strong objection.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Against; last week another user requested a semi of all of the vandal's user talk pages for the simple reason he wanted to deny him ANY pages to edit and thus bore him (No, seriously,

WP:DENY issues here as well (though I'm probably the LAST person who should be speaking of that...). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v}

) 12:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this issue. Despite my attempts to get away from this crap, I ended up doing some reverts of his latest round of vandalism. To my shock, however, established editor

WP:BAN.[94]. Unfortunately, CW's responses were less than encouraging.[95]

• Comment My interest in this matter arises from User:SoWhy's post at the head of this section which caught my eye yesterday. I looked into the topics in question and found them in need of some content-editing attention. One of them, for example, is a Number 1 hit single in the UK which has sold over a million copies, making it a platinum disk. Furthermore there was some seasonal relevance in that it was nearly a Christmas No.1 which is a perennial topic at this time of year. I have been fleshing this out but Collectionian seems so incensed by this that she has now proposed that the article be deleted altogether - an absurd proposition. Anyway, this is just an ordinary content dispute and the only special feature is that we have this Bambifan chap buzzing around in the background. I have no particular interest in them - it is the topics which concern me. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary alone is sufficiently deceptive that it renders Colonel Warden's motivations suspect.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly. I was adding to the article, working from the previous full version. Collectonian had interposed a redirect and so, of course, this was overwritten in adding additional material to the article. The point here was that another source was being added, so making the redirect moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evasion in response to having your deceptive edit summaries pointed out doesn't help. The major impact of your edit was to undo a redirect. You and

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles both try this nonsense of pretending that redirects don't exist and your edit summaries don't need to take them into account. It's disruptive when he does it, and it's disruptive when you do it. I think that behaviour alone is worthy of a block until you agree to stop doing it.—Kww(talk

) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I gather that you are an enthusiast for such redirections and so are not impartial in this matter. Please indicate a relevant guideline/policy regarding edit summaries and I will be happy to consider it. Currently I tend to be brief and indicate with words such as "etc" or "&c" if there is more than can be easily summarised. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Undoing redirect" is beyond your ability to type?—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted the

relevant guideline which says, "Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).". This is what I did - I summarised the changes which seemed important to me - the addition of sourced material - and appended ", etc." so that editors with other priorities could consult a diff if they wanted to know more. Colonel Warden (talk

) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect people to believe that you find the redirects unimportant. If they were unimportant to you, you wouldn't spend so much of your editing energy searching them out and undoing them. As usual, your response to criticism is to attempt to be evasive and glib. I don't think that you fool anyone.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I mean...what is the point of lying in an edit summary like that. It isn't like people with half a brain are going to say "Hmm, he says he's making minor changes but the file size changes from 234 bytes to 5600, I guess I won't check up on that". What do you gain? Protonk (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The suggestion that this was deliberate deception is ridiculous because it is obvious that adding content will override a redirect. Collectonian watches over articles quite closely and, as in this case, you can expect immediate counter-action when making an edit with which she disagrees. I have had content disputes with her before and am quite familiar with the pattern. Rather than engaging with the substantive issue, one has to deal with a torrent of

bitten hard and is now retaliating in a correspondingly immature way? Colonel Warden (talk

) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's nice. Now you continue lying. The AfD is not an abuse of process. You undid a very valid merge for no other reason than because you saw that I was the one who did it. Even the AfD is only saying keep (it was already kept), rather than delete. Sucks, but the merge was still valid. The article was tagged for merge TWO MONTHS without a single voice of complaint, so the merge was performed. How you can actually believe that one paragraph stub is somehow better in its own article than merged into the Teletubbies article is beyond me, but considering you are running around helping a vandal who has been active for over a year, nothing you do surprises me anymore. As for your final implication, to be blunt, F you. If anyone is acting like a fanatic, its you with you continued decline from at least a semi-respectable editor to pulling the same sort of crap I'd expect from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Nevermind that you totally ignored

WP:BRD as the merge had been in place long enough that you should not have continued reverting its doing, but instead should have started a new split discussion. and As for the vandal, he was active long before I got involved (and would be the first to tell you) and he continued being active long after. I just amused him more because I caught him faster than anyone else bothered too, so he likely felt he had a challenge for the first time. He also vandalizes at least 5 other known Wikis, but of course, here he now has a new best friend (you) who will help him re-ruin many articles. Good going! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs

) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- It is my experience that Collectonian knows what she is doing here. As far as I'm concerned, when she makes protection requests or sock reports, I take them seriously.

Tan | 39

18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and to note, I primarily did protection requests on those sub-articles which have been merged for quite awhile and which he seemed to be amusing himself by un-doing the merge, then redoing, then undoing. Protection seemed the best route. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Tan said for me. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, whilst Kww is quite right about the "sneaky" undoing of redirects by certain users, this one is undoubtedly independently notable. The edit summary should've noted it, though. Black Kite 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is notable, does it really need its own article when all there is to say about it is what is there? That same information was already merged to the main article over a month ago, with no issues at all. Sometimes, even notable stuff can and should be combined into a more notable piece. And shouldn't a discussion have occurred before just arbitrarily undoing it under false edit summaries? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My previous experience with Collectorian is that she appears to have serious WP:OWN issues regarding articles that she has unilaterally removed from Wikipedia (frequently via blanking rather than formal process), and though she may lays down a paper trail in talk pages she actually pays very little attention to consensus. She may talk the talk, and have a firm grasp of wikipedia politics, but she cares more about preserving her own edits than whether or not the articles or wikipedia itself. Admitedly my experience with Collectorian is restricted to deletion disputes, she may do great work elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a personal issue with me, take it elsewhere, but this really has nothing to do with this issue. I have no personal stake in the article, and only did the merge as it was in my watchlist from dealing with this vandal. I do damn good work and I won't have you sitting here disparaging my editing character when you admit you barely even know anything about me, which is pretty obvious when you say I don't care about articles or Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems I'm a little late to this party, my invite must have been lost in the mail. I'm the one who tried to get pages blocked in order to obstruct and bore the Bambifan socks. I still don't quite understand the resistance to this idea. This banned user's latest blocked sock was using their talk page to "suggest" changes they might like to see. That is ban evasion and a clear abuse of multiple accounts. I let
  talk
  ) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding AGK, I assure you that it is  Unrelated, as he has told me personally. (He's not posting himself because that'd defeat the purpose of his retirement.)

"I've been pondering the retirement for a good while. I've banned enough users in my time to not become totally disillusioned with the project because one banned user fails to reform" is basically my thoughts. - AGK, as told to Penwhale, posted with his consent

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that makes me feel a little better anyway.
  talk
  ) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• My question is why we haven't dealt with this at the ISP level. Can't someone from the office call whatever the ISP is and notify them of the continued abuse? They should be able to track down who the user is and throttle their WP access at the source. // roux   20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I filed an

abuse report months ago, no one did anything with it. I also emailed the ISP abuse line and got no response at all. One of many reasons I got tired of dealing with the mess, seeming impossible to really do anything about him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs

) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The abuse reports seem worse than useless. Isn't there someone at WMF who can handle these things at an 'official' level? One would think a letter on WMF letterhead from Godwin would be enough, no? // roux   20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection's a definite here--the only question is how long? I'd personally go indef, given the level of disruption.

96

20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Collectonian, can you post a list of currently unprotected, Bambi-sock-target articles to my talk page, and I'll indefinitely semi-protect them?

Tan | 39

22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List posted. In the last AN/I thread I participated in about this, I also posted a basic summary of his editing style and indicators its probably him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi does nothing. I've seen it happen on Simple. One of his original targets was The Fox and the Hound, which Majorly protected. Once Cassandra semi-protected WALL-E and Charlotte's Web 2, Bambifan jumped around to Teletubbies (those had to be protected as well). It's been so long ago that I can't remember all the targets that he's hit. Synergy unprotected those articles about a month ago, and I haven't been back to check to see any history of disruption. Indef semi will only block valid anonymous user edits and really doesn't stop him. He also puzzlingly became productive with his Touchpath account (riddled with typos, but he was creating articles where none existed) and was only blocked by Majorly when Collectionian informed them that he was, in fact, the Disney vandal. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for a comprehensive list of pages I semi-protected indefinitely. I agree that this is not a complete fix, Hbdragon. However, I disagree that it will do "nothing". It at least creates another hoop for him to jump through, at minimal blood and treasure for us.

Tan | 39

16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a regular editor of two of the pages just semi-protected I was surprised to learn they were targets of "persistent vandalism". They aren't... not by Bambifan... or anyone else. Both articles received trivial and harmless edits many weeks ago from one of the suspect IPs. It wasn't a problem then, and is certainly isn't now. They do get a fair number of IP edits of dubious value by overly enthusiastic children. Now, I find children as annoying as any other childless thirtysomething male does (my interest in these two articles is their connection to Edwardian literature), but I put up with them. And I think it sends a very negative message about Wikipedia when those kids are blocked from editing all of their favorite movie pages like this, just in case those articles might become future targets of vandalism. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the list, I included all of his regular targets, as well as recent ones. While I see your concern, I think it is important to protect them now, as he has shown in the past that when his old favorites are blocked, he moves on to the newer films, including these two (which is why he hit them last time). This isn't blocking kids, this is blocking one. The rest are free to make accounts or make edit requests to the talk page, same as any other new editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, can you drop by my talk page with a link to that list? I'll look at semi-protecting a large number of them it if seems reasonable and would fall loosely withing

WP:PROTECT. Protonk (talk

) 02:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted the list earlier at User talk:Tanthalas39#Bambifan101 favorite targets :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Close please It feels to me like this issue has been more or less resolved, and leaving this thread up may just add "fuel to the fire". Let's just get back to
  talk
  ) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway we can get some more range blocks for his current set of IPs? He's hitting from them like 2-3 times a day now. Most recent ones I found that seemed to have been used within the last four or five days: 65.0.178.65, 65.0.175.197, 65.0.191.174, 65.0.161.84, 65.0.169.163, 65.0.161.84, 65.0.175.60 (self identified[97]), 68.220.189.30, 68.220.187.88, 68.220.190.65, and 68.220.187.133. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

Resolved

 – Edits were not harrassment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:List_of_Naruto_antagonists#Quit_saying_Pain_looks_cool I removed where an artists says he drew a character to make him look cool. Sounds like another artist on a soapbox to me.

I am tired of Snapper2 offensive behavior to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. Saying "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" to discourage me from editing anything is harassment.

Plus

talk

) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed piped link to make it clear which page was being discussed CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And this requires administrator intervention how? JuJube (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While a touch rude, it certainly isn't

harassment. I'm assuming you're the IP editor on that Talk page? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't log in at first, since it seemed like a minor case of an over zealous fan. Telling someone you shouldn't be editing, especially on a discussion page, use to deserve at least an administrator's warning, because no one is suppose to "discourage them from editing entirely" as thaken from the

WP:Harass

page.

If Sephiroth_BCR was threating with hitting me with the old ban hammer on editing just because I removed the words "designed to be cool", a member telling someone to never edit entirely including disscusion and talk pages, seems more serious.--

talk

) 08:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As a defense, consider the following explanation of my comment:

• "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion" - This is certainly true. You and you alone are in opposition to (currently) six different editors. Add that to the fact that precedent in regards to "opinions" is clearly against you and you're just arguing for argument's sake.
• "your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" - Your argument is that "opinions" do not belong on Wikipedia. That in itself is an opinion. Following your own logic you should not be giving your opinion about opinions on Wikipedia, hence my statement.

As for Sephiroth, you were

blockable offenses. ~SnapperTo

05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please familiarize youself with
  WP:NOT#DEM
  .
• A discussion page is not an article page.
• No, even Sasuke9031 commented that I am following
  WP:BRD
  .

--

talk

) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warring. In any case, there's no reason for this to stay open. There's no need for administrator action, and you're not going to get the change you want here, as ANI isn't for content issues. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse

) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth, I never said it was. Just because 6 people agree, some of wich could be sock puppets for all I know, doesn't matter since that's not what we're talking about. It's still their interpretation of wiki policy. That's why we have talk pages. I reverted once after I was told "we may as well go ahead and delete what has been said for both of them".
• This is a collaboration of volunteers, it matters what everyone thinks in this situation. You have no right to censor anyone durring a discussion.
• Again, don't say that I said something I never said. I never mentioned making the change here. I posted here because Snapper2 was trying to discourage me from posting. --
  talk
  ) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not been following this issue, nor have I got a single clue what is going on, but I would like to point out that accusing people of being sockpuppets is an extremely serious offense and should not be done so lightly. Please, if you wish to accuse people of being sockpuppets, substantiate the request. I highly doubt there are sockpuppets working against you in this case; you seem to be fighting six separate editors from what I can tell.

DARTH PANDA^duel

21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anyone. It's just that I'm trying to discuss the civility of one of the replies, and sephiroth bcr keeps derailing that with everything else. He keeps saying six against one when as if it means something in a community this large. He'll say anything to change the subject and it's really wearing thin on my patience. --

talk

) 13:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets, really? Six well-established editors?

WP:AGF in your vocabulary? How pathetic. It's one thing to count numbers when there's six people agreeing against five, and another thing when you're the only person attempting to push a point forward. Move on. Discussion over. You're not going to get your change. At that point, you're discussing only to exhaust the patience of those in the discussion. If you try to revert the inclusion of the content again, then I block you for edit warring. Coming here and whining about Snapper's comments (and characterizing them as "harrassment"? Really?) isn't going to get you anything either. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse

) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You never listen. I said nothing about change here. It's about someone trying to discourage me from editing entirely. Quit trying to change the subject. --

talk

) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And you're getting away from the subject with your baseless accusations. You tend to evoke a less-than-congenial response when you accuse six well-established editors of sockpuppetry. Snapper's statement isn't harassment, as pointed out above. See

what harassment actually is. If you believe so, then grow a skin or pay attention to his explanation above. In any case, what is the point of you continuing this discussion? You're not going to get anything out of it, and I'm pointing out that further discussion on Talk:List of Naruto antagonists is pointless anyways so you're doing nothing on two fronts. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse

) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I said no names just that it didn't matter if they were because votes are not what we are debating here, even though that's the only thing you'll talk about.

It defines one type of harassment as "discourage them from editing entirely", and that's what he tried to do.

Again, when is the last time I mentioned changing Talk:List of Naruto antagonists? Even I dropped that, you should too.

--

talk

) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being rude to each other for little apparent reason here on ANI. Especially here on ANI. It's violating

WP:CIVIL and not a constructive way for either of you to solve your conflicts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 02:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to be, but they have been aggresive to me since their first post to me and has since been trying to make it personal. --

talk

) 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check

This user keeps making unsourced alterations to film articles without sources or not once having placed an edit summary in their entire history despite several warnings. It's becoming hard to keep up with what this user is doing to these articles. Too many manual reversions for me. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i am in the process of revertin all og his edits Smith Jones (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "Resolved" template; given the exceptionally unusual writings of Smith Jones, I am uncertain that he or she has really helped. Can someone more familiar with either these specific topic or these editors please look into this further? --ElKevbo (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved

I don't beleive Smith Jones is addressing this properly. I have reverted numerous edits by ObsessiveJoBroDisorder which were unsourced alterations to film budgets without sources or edit summaries, never in their history. Several requests have been made to stop without any effect they are continuing it presently. Many articles on my watchlist are being altered and I have no idea if they are good edits. The user hasn't slowed down to learn the policies yet and should be indicated to do so. Mjpresson (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonation

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet of User:Americanidolwatcher --Smashville^talk 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this user, User:MissPiggyLove is an admin as s/he claims here. Could someone take a look? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

She isn't an administrator, I'll ask her what's up. Nothing much to do here unless they start claiming it everywhere. —

neuro^(talk)

04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If the user was an administrator, the username would have "(Administrator)" after it here. Somno (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the administrator category off of the user's user page as well as some barnstars the user place there that she didn't earn, either way (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else find it odd that her first edits are to whip up some user boxes (including an admin one), some barnstars referencing AIV, and contribute to 2 completely far out and soon to be deleted articles?--

Crossmr (talk

) 10:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if Miss Piggy can marry Kermit (Bob Crachit) in The Muppet Christmas Carol, and have pig daughters and frog sons, then anything is possible...

♪BMWΔ

10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, you do realise that this is the movies? These were just juvenile actor piglets and froglets (you can't use tadpole actors, I understand) pretending to be their children... Wow, some people are so gullible! LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

They were adopted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But imagine if you could cross a pig and a frog. For breakfast you could have eggs and green ham. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, How do you come up with this stuff :) --Tom 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a gift. Or a curse, maybe. It's a fine line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

At least he didn't tell the joke about why Miss Piggy can't count to 70.

♪BMWΔ

15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We try to keep things G-rated here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that "because at 69 she gets a frog in her throat" is not G-rated?? Have you watched evening TV lately? The new 90120 maybe?

♪BMWΔ

18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no accounting for the public taste anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- Now she created an (untranscluded) RfA page for an account with no edits. This should get interesting.

Tan | 39

16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

She has a better chance than some already LOL

♪BMWΔ

18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He/she popped up as a sockpuppet on a checkuser... --Smashville^talk 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there an actual SSP report or statement from a checkuser? I'm not really arguing -

Tan | 39

19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. [98][99]..and another. --Smashville^talk 20:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Duh. Didn't realize jpgordon was a CU.

Tan | 39

20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What's funny is I never would've caught it if he didn't forget to log out when he edited the sock's talk page, wouldn't have had to post an unblock request to which jpgordon wouldn't have had to run a CU...Plaxicoed. --Smashville^talk 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The poor man's checkuser. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

apparently +1 for my spidey sense..--

Crossmr (talk

) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Help required being treated unfairly by an Admin

Resolved

 – No further action required.

I don't wish to make a big issue of this but an admin

Silent Gig removing content that needs work but is valid all the same. I restored the content and have begun the process of finding suitable references etc. I have left a comment on PhilKnight

talk section explaining what I was doing and that I felt blindly removing the content was not the correct course of action. I feel it is important to point out at this stage that I did not author the content nor do I know the author but I feel it is valid if written in an unconventional way.

PhilKnight then responded quite bluntly by threatening to block me from wikipedia. PhilKnight did not respond to my comments regarding my planned attempt to bring the content into line. I feel this is grossly unfair, as without any discussion I was threatened in this way. I was under the impression that user opinions and information was what wikipedia is all about not a single admins perspective on a subject i doubt they are familiar with.

This is not why I donate to wikipedia and would like this issue addressed. Bigruzzy (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil was correct. content needs sourced before being added. if their are no sources it will be removed. re-inserting without sourcing violates our policies.

Canis Lupus

17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you copy the material to User:Bigruzzy/Drafts and work on it there? Once you have assembled the necessary references, you can copy your draft into the article. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you've just admitted that you don't know the author of the content, it is a copyright violation and should be instantly removed. See WP:Copyrights for more information. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The material was unsourced and written in a non-neutral tone ("it's the next wild craze!"). Wikipedia policy demands removal of such material. Dendodge, I think that Bigruzzy is just saying that he doesn't know what user put the material on the article; I don't really understand your copyright warning there.

Tan | 39

17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I thought the user was saying they took it from a website. Struck. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Phil was right to remove the content. It was blatantly expressing your own
   peacock terms
   , to say nothing of the decidedly non-encyclopedic writing style. (The event was a great success, One highlight of the night most certainly had to be the almost deafening sound of over a hundred people bleating like sheep at the request of The Good Reverend and the Nuts boys, experimental night that was a success, Quite Rightly: The Silent Gig is the very next craze!)
2. Whilst Wikipedia welcomes your donations, donating money to wikipedia doesn't buy you a right to flout policy on content.
3. If somebody reverts your additions, the correct action is to discuss (
   WP:BRD
   ). Simply re-adding the content is disruptive, and you were warned for it.

Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld, remind me to give you a shout the next time I need someone to tactfully and thoroughly explain something.

Tan | 39

17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, very well explained Mayalld, except for the Whilst part, didn't you mean While? I am kidding!! --Tom 20:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, seems like calling someone King of Wikipedia is "the next wild craze".--Atlan (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

apologies for the "king of wikipedia" comment but with no open discussion straight to a warning of a ban not being a wikipedia expert I did not know where to turn. I am assuming this is the right place to bring this issue? I have offered to edit the article to the best of my ability but due to this reaction by PhilKnight I am reluctant to as I do not wish to be banned. I know the topic area and will do what I can to bring the users content into an acceptable addition to the article. However PhilKnight has added incorrect information and I feel removing it will only result in me being banned by him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigruzzy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you show us where is the "incorrect information" Phil has added? Also, have you read

Tan | 39

17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only apologise if there is a better way of doing this but the article states "A silent gig is a progression of the Silent Disco concept, but instead of DJs playing out over two channels, a silent gig showcases two bands at the same time." the one that philknight has added was DJ's and a band (DJ on one channel the band on the other), so really a merge of two concepts the standard silent disco and the silent gig. This may seem trivial but from a sound engineering point of view (my area of knowledge) they are very different and should remain separate. I have read the verifiability document and I realise the text has many issues but it also has accurate information. bethyn elfyn of BBC Wales discussed the event at length and interviewed one of the bands involved which is something I wish to reference (once I work out how to reference a radio show). The text has good valid information its just written in a bad way. When I return from my trip mid January I will do what I can to bring it into line with wikipedia standards. Bigruzzy (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea, and your help with improving this article would be greatly appreciated. We're not here to yell at you; we're here to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. Let me know on my talk page if you need any help!

Tan | 39

17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Two bands playing at the same time? Didn't they do that already, in Xanadu? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I will leave a message for the original author and on my return begin work. Thanks tan I'll be in touch if I get stuck Bigruzzy (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

Resolved

 – The gallant admin smites the uncivil heathen with the Wrath of Indef Block

On a talk page I am watching, I saw this rude attack. I do not like these kind of statements on our project pages at all, because they disrupt its reputation and the motivation of fellow editors.

I have not put messages here on ANI yet, so I would also appreciate a feedback whether such an incident is worth being reported here. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I'm afraid. If it had got to, say, death threats, or despite being warned repeatedly he was still being offensive, maybe then. Warn him for his use of language, then see where it goes. Ironholds (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

After 1, 2, 3 prior noticeboard complaints about incivility and two blocks, I'll consider a block in the morning but I think he deserves something. Notified him as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, didn't see that; ignore me people. Advise block as well. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

His response should be sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block. His next-to-last comment before being blocked was, "annoying me is a quick way to get insulted," and his last comment before the block was a warning that anyone who edits his little list of rules "shall incur my wrath." As Guy's followup comment to the block shows, he who wraths last, wraths best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That was wrather clever

♪BMWΔ

11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying saying it 3 times quickly. Just typing it was difficult. We need a bot of some kind that would smite the uncivil heathens with the wrath of wikipedia rules. I'm thinking it could be called The Dan Wrather. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrath upon you, you wricked Wrikipedia Wrascal! // rouxbot  

Yeth, I am a wrathcally wabbit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My doctor told me to stop wrathing, as I was getting a wrash. // roux   12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's wrough. Ya know, we have various essays in wikipedia. Maybe we need one to collect parting comments from users just before and/or just after they get indef-blocked. There could be a whole section about "evil roommates", for example. The two unwitting parting shots from that guy fall into an "infamous last words" category you could title "D'oh!". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have bested me, sir, yet again. I cannot possibly top that. // roux   12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can. I liked the "defeats and dehands" comment. He who bests lasts, bests best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another "D'oh!" moment was this one [100] posted by the soon-thereafter-blocked Carol Rubenesque, or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Language

Resolved

 – Blocked by an admin.

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

User:Zampafan has just carried out five edits using abusive language. Three on English Football Clubs, the other two are more serious with the insertion of "Orange Bastards" on Northern Ireland and Belfast. --Snowded TALK 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Belay that, the user was indefinitely blocked --Snowded TALK 13:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The place to take something like this is

WP:AIV. That is probably some alternate account, since it was created 2 1/2 years ago, made a few vandalistic edits [101] and then did nothing else until now. It should have been blocked in 2007, but it was probably overlooked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need history check for Matt Lee

Resolved

 – Guy (Help!) blocked users and closed DRV due to rampant sockpuppetry and block evasion Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Someone deleted this entire thread before it was resolved. I have replaced it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It was archived [102] because nothing new had been posted for 24 hours or more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I did not see where it said that it was archived so quickly, we were waiting for checkuser results to "come in" which they have now - see below. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are either Matt Lee or the historical, pre-redirect versions of Matt Lee (musician) substantial copies of deleted versions of either article? If so, please speedy-delete them and look into the possibility of sockpuppetry with the current version. If not, especially if it's about another person altogether, please say so. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 28. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it stands now, seems to be marginally compliant with

WP:N requirements at a first glance. A recent speedy-G4 request was denied as the article with a recommendation for a new AFD. It looks like the same person as in the deleted articles, HOWEVER, the article appears to currently be substantially expanded from the September 17th version deleted via AFD (I checked), which would indicate that, if deleted again, it should be handled under a new AFD. Any sockpuppetry issues should be handled seperately. If you could perhaps list some diffs to compare between different accounts, that would help us see if there are sock issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it needs to go, it is the same vanity autobiography, the
  WP:SPA and IP that are the sole substantive editors are clearly the subject, who was also the creator and pretty much sole editor of the various previous deleted versions. Guy (Help!
  ) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. My main concern was that it was mere re-creation of deleted material. Since it's not, I'll treat is as new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both

doused with sodium cloride. I was probably going to AFD anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Best I can reconstruct, following the brief discussion at
  G11 that can't at least be stubbified. Can someone please review this article? I've tnulled removed the {{resolved}} for now.
  Thanks, Amalthea
  17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
    Nonetheless, none of the editors listed above is banned, it's not a recreation, it's not blatantly promotional if the userfied article is any indication, and he certainly has an assertion of significance. Enough, in my opinion, to earn the article at least an AfD. --Amalthea 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• And my bad: should have been G4 and IAR a bit, not G5. Nobody is banned, it's just a point and click issue with somewhat diminuitive dropdown text. Either way, it's a long-term campaign of
  vanispamcruftisement by the subject. Guy (Help!
  ) 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the blocks involved thus far with this article see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. EDIT: While not included at the time of those checkuser/sockpuppet issues it appears that Special:Contributions/69.231.39.97 (69.231.39.97/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/69.231.50.49 (69.231.50.49/Dan Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.25.192 (6.94.25.192/D.Schneider dif), Special:Contributions/76.94.31.7 (76.94.31.7/Dan Schneider dif) and most likely Special:Contributions/Joeyboyee are all the same person. In what may be a little "slip up" a few posts made in September at User talk:Spartaz/Musician by user/sockpuppet Guitaro99 are text "signed" as "D Schneider" ("D Schneider logging of till tomorrow.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) (Guitaro99 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC))" followed by four more posts by "Guitaro99" but all text signed as "D Schneider". And now we have Special:Contributions/Bill Blake990 who has just recreated Matt Lee(guitar player) as I type this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
    Nonetheless, that's a little too much IAR for my taste. If someone works on a userfied article for three months and tries to address the problems from the last Afd then I'd give him the courtesy of an AfD, even if it's worked on only by the topic himself. After reading it, I see that the article certainly still has deficits, in particular since the sources don't support all the facts in the article. The topic *might* pass
    The Divine Horsemen and X (American band) – probably not though since he wasn't a member, so it'll only be redirected.
    Amalthea
    17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add on that the entire road to userfication as a result of
  Spartz the article was userfied. THere is no mention of the article being userfied in that DRV, and it was not really closed so the conversation continued September 28 where Lifebaka said "I suggest you create a userspace version of the article (at a title that's nice and easy, such as User:Joeyboyee/Matt Lee) and work on it there. Then, when you believe it meets all the relevant guidelines, bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace." The only hint that the article may have already been userfied was the comment by Tony Fox who said "Look, the article has been recreated many, many times at Matt Lee, Matt Lee (musician), Matt Lee (guitarist), and various other places. It exists right now at User:Spartaz/Musician in the condition that it has been in through most of the most recent deletions - basically, the article's been identical through the last I don't know how many recreations (and, essentially, the same since the last AFD)." User:Joeyboyee made several posts, never commenting the article had already been userifed, (See User talk:Joeyboyee, very first post made on September 26 by User:FisherQueen who said "Hi! You've created an article with an error in the title; User:Sparatz/musician. I'd move it for you, but I see that you already have a version of the same article under the correct title, so I'll just delete the one with the wrong title for you.") Out of all of this the most logical comment seemed to have been made by Lifebaka who said in reply to User:Joeyboyee that once the article was userfied and worked on to "bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it". From what I could see that was never done and the userfied article was simple moved to mainspace by User:Joeyboyee on December 25. In all of this I also found out that there was a User "Matt Lee(musician)" at one time as well who tried to post/repost both Matt Lee (musician) and Matt Lee(musician) on November 27. Soundvisions1 (talk
  ) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed sockpuppets at play. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. Suggested blocking of all offending usernames and I.P.'s. Current DRV was opened by Special:Contributions/Bill Blake990 and mostly is being argued by I.P 76.94.31.7. This entire thing was kicked off really by User:Joeyboyee creating a new article in mainspace. Checkuser shows that all three are the same. User talk:76.94.31.7 shows a conversation where user is asked directly "Are you connected in some way with Matt Lee?" and the reply is "No" and a further question is answered with a story about being a fan who does "punk rock memorabilia collecting and buy and sell posters, guitars, amps and other instruments owned by known punk rock icons" This directly conflicts with comments made by confirmed sockpuppet Bill Blake990 who said, in reply to another editors question posted on a talk page (Now userfied at User talk:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player)#WP:COI), "We don't manage him, we manage one of his old bands." Connecting the dots shows that blocked user Guitaro99 made the comment on a talk page (now userfied at User_talk:Spartaz/Musician) that "my band that I'm still signed to The Divine Horsemen is out here. I ave more refs I'm searching for to help out too. I just have contacted some publishers for the pages that I'm on. I will have more stuff soon." Shortly after 76.94.25.192 started doing work, posting as "D Schneider" (as I showed above), at one point Guitaro99's posts were also signed as "D.Schneider". Now, following the confirmed sock path - we see 76.94.25.192 was confirmed as a sock of Guitaro99 on September 9, 2008 and today it was confirmed that 76.94.25.192 is a sock of 76.94.31.7, Joeyboyee and Bill Blake990. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have boldly closed the last of the three running DRVs, since the request was logged by a blocked user evading his block and the IP was also the same user evading the same block. I have commented that I think we should wait a while, allow userfication for good faith rework, and then ask for a new DRV (in a while, please, to allow the dust to settle). There is no doubt in my mind that if we simply unsalt the multuple deleted titles, the abuser will simply come back and start again. If we ever do have an article we need to eb explicit that the multiply-blocked sockpuppeteer is topic banned, arguably he is sitebanned anyway due to multiple block evasion and sockpuppetry. As with many articles like this, the input of
  WP:SPAs makes life near impossible for anyone who wants to write an article in god faith. Once the SPAs have been ealt with, and the dust has settled, then I am sure a rational discussion can be had. Guy (Help!
  ) 11:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

90.201.141.202. Disruptive user, showing no regard towards other editors, etc

talk|contr.

) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I left an LTA warning on his talk page, since he was last warned on December 26. If he edits again, he definitely needs a long time-out--though I won't object if another admin feels inclined to block him now.

96

16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an assigned ip, so the next time it vandalises it can be hit with an long term sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Hasdell, User:ClaudioProductions

Resolved

 – Will bring to

WP:COIN. --aktsu ^(t / c

) 18:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether to take this to the COI noticeboard or this one, but here we go:

User:ClaudioProductions has written most of if not all of the Lee Hasdell article. This was the state I discovered it in back in August; lacking reliable sources for 90% of the article, and written in a very pro-Hasdell/non-NPOV tone. I made an attempt to clean up the article (diff), adding cleanup- and fact-tags as necessary. I also switched out his (unsourced) fight record table, to a reliably sourced one. My edits were promptly reverted without explanation by ClaudioProductions (diff), cleanuptags and all, so I reverted him and explained to him why the edits were made. He reverted again, another editor reverted to my revision, and he reverted back to his again. He explained to me his main problem was my changing of the record table to the reliably sourced one from Sherdog, since it was missing fights. I accepted to let the record table stay as long as he accepted the edits to the prose, and took a break from the page tired of arguing.

I came back to the page in the start of December and saw the page was mostly back to it's former state, so I made another attempt to clean it up (diff). Most of the changes was reverted over a couple of days (diff), readding statements like "Hasdell was unfortunate", "After his close defeat", (after a loss) "which is one of the toughest no holds barred events in the world", "with a spectacular flying knee". I was getting tired of editing only to be reverted, so I decided to take babysteps, and simply added an articleissues-tag. It was then removed, so I readded, and it was removed again, a third time, a forth time etc, over a few weeks even with my explanation of why they were added.

In the middle of this you have discussion on his and my talk page with me explaining the basis for my edits (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc etc.), without him budging much on his view that the page is OK as it is. After some more discussion, we had a "breakthrough" with him finally realizing the need for sources to prove his claim. With this I decided to try my luck with a third copyedit, which he again promptly reverted (my edits, diff of before and after my copyedit (no change, because it was reverted). I restored my version, and asked what what wrong with my edits. The answer was:

Well it is not presented as well. It seems to contain more mistakes. date of birth for example. In fact it is less reliable then my version. please can we just use my version as I find more sources. Him being my father, I take this page very personally. I understand where your coming from but because I know a lot about him and his career its not like an average fan etc lol. So it bothers me when the page gets changed away from my liking. ClaudioProductions (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

... and again reverting the page. In light of this COI issue, and with no resolve in sight I decided to take this here.

To conclude, I feel ClaudioProductions has been taking ownership of the article, not allowing me to improve it by giving it a NPOV, remove the more spectacular unsourced claims, source it as far as possible (my latest copyedit included <ref>-tags for all reliably sourced claims), and generally improve it. The article as it is is using http://sfuk.tripod.com as it's primary source of reference, obviously not a reliable source. To try to resolve this I've tried to compromise, leaving unsourced statements inn but with a fact-tags - without getting anywhere (relevant quote after me asking reason for removal of tags: "How many times do you want me to tell you! There is no sources, everything is fact. Most of the information is direct and i have used wikipedia as a way of getting this information on the internet."). I feel this has been going on for way to long, and would like help to get it resolved. Especially the COI issue is something I hope others can take a look at to determine whether it's an issue.

Sorry for not including more diffs of the discussion. Please take a look at both the article history as well as his and my talkpage to get the full picture. Thanks in advance for anyone who decides to take a look at this. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

... or do this belong at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, or someplace else? --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this one is more suited for

WP:COIN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Will take it there then, as a start to resolving this. Will see what comes out of it and start off with a blank slate. It it continues as it has, I'll follow the steps at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and eventually bring it up here if needed (as a new case, forgetting the above). Thanks! --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is currently unbiased, i am also finding more sources. So it is work in progress for once. Do you have anything better to do with your life ? ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:KillerCroc101

Can someone with fewer champagne bubbles take a look at KillerCroc101 (talk · contribs), please? He's added some freaky templates to random editors' pages, made a half-assed accusation(? but not really) of sockpuppetry re. a Satipo (talk · contribs) wannabe, and has generally been disruptive. I find the Satipo sockpuppet accusations weird; I'm naturally inclined to think this might be Satipo himself. Anyhow, happy new year; a pair of eyes with more experience looking at this kind of editing pattern would be much appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

His edits don't seem to match the patterns of Satipo, but if his main aim is disruption then it wouldn't. They do have some SW edits in common, though. He's been repeatedly warned; I'd advise a block myself, although it is up to admins to decide how long that should be. With the absence of YES i AM SATIPO HAHAHA posted on his userpage or a CU result you can't really block him as a sock. I don't understand why a sock would open a SSP request on someone though; way to put yourself in the public eye. Ironholds (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to review his image uploads. File:09 - welcome to camp slither.jpg is not an example of proper copyright law. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely. Re. him being a Satipo sock: this, combined with the random sockpuppet "accusation" for an editor whose activity I think didn't overlap with his, still itch the back of my head; I guess we'll see if anything comes up later. Thanks again! --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He also added himself to the CU and Admin listings, which I had to revert. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

fellow admins, what would you do?

I know this issue doesnt concern English WP, and is therefore probably not the place to post, but I am very interested to know the input of english wp admins (since you have the most experience):

I'm one of the admins on Persian wikipedia.

Recently, a report on Radiofree Europe mentioned plans of "Baseej" groups (semi-government paramilitary groups in Iran) for mass mobilizing online presences to "bring back Islamic values to the internet" and mass filter "problematic sites on the web". Many of our pages are already filtered inside Iran.

However, lately, we have noticed a massive flux of peculiar users (who seem to know their way around well despite their new accounts), and who have caused chaos on fa:wp

Some have uploaded an anti-Israeli flag and have used it on their userpages to declare their hatred to Israel. Others (such as this user who warned of "washing away Israel with a bucket of water" are even proud to display their intentions on their user pages, proudly depicting "our long-range missiles during operation the holy prophet"). They even proudly profess being members of the "baseej".

These users constantly use ad hominems but are evasive in their edits. They're net (overall) presence is highly disruptive, and have stirred up unrest in our AN/I and village pump.

Our sysops are often absent from all the management, maybe because I am omnipresently dealing with them, or maybe because they do not wish to get involved, as the "Zionist" and "Israel" issue is a sensitive one, and is off limits to many users (for fear of being tracked down inside Iran).

The problem is, the wave of anti-semitism and disruptive editing is turning out to be overwhelming. My job has now become debating them 24 hours a day about this or that law, and its interpretation. As if they intentionally wish to erode the rule of law and the people enforcing it. They are literally turing wa:fp into a battlefield of good vs evil, and they keep using every seeming loophole they can find (wiki-lawyering) to justify their edits and position. They go around creating pages with titles like "Imam Khamenei issues a Jihad to help Gaza" (even though there was no official declaration of Jihad), and spend hours and hours of everyone's time endlessly debating all the sensational news they put in it (like "students in so and so cities have signed up for suicide bombing Israel"), and ridiculous crap like that. And they object when I tell them such crap is not encyclopedic.

We are way past the "discuss" stage. It is a massive recurrence now. Do I block these people for displaying rhetoric and polemic material on their user pages? What if they keep refusing? How much of a free hand do I have in restoring order and the constructive flow of a proper encyclopedia back? What do I do if they keep throwing "This is an Iranian wikipedia. and therefore we have a consensus to do this and that." ("we" meaning the 10-15 new users who in unison seem to be causing havoc everyhere)? Is taking a more heavy-handed position acceptable for me (as an admin), in order to bring back order? Is adopting more stiff and strict policing methods (and I hate the word policing) acceptable, inorder to stop these people from gaming the system with their agenda? Theyve even accused me of being "an Israeili agent", for trying to stop anti-semitism on fa:wp.

What would you do, and how would you do it? I'm just interested to know ideas and some general tips on what other experienced admins would do.--زرشک (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Giving a distinctly non-administrative opinion, but speaking as a experienced editor, I would note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a foundation-level policy for all Wikipedias. As use of the Persian-language Wikipedia as a forum for the advocacy of antisemitism is incompatible with this policy, editors who seek to subvert the encyclopedia in this manner may correctly be blocked. Furthermore, the use of any Wikipedia as a forum for antisemitic propaganda has the potential to bring the entire project into disrepute. Therefore, should remedying the situation exceed the capacity of local administrators, it would be appropriate to contact User:Jimbo Wales or an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation for further assistance. John254 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, Jimbo exercises very little special authority outside en-wiki. See Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While decisions made at en: are not binding anywhere else in the Wikimedia universe, there are several ArbCom decisions which make it clear what standard procedure in this sort of situation. I would take this before whatever equivalent of ArbCom is at fa: (if there is one) or propose something at the fa: equivalent of this message board, and propose a "warn once and block immediately afterwards" for actions that appear to be part of these semi-coordinated attacks. Also, you may want to find ways to get some more admins up and running at fa:, you could probably use the added help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like some of the nationalism issues that we have here on en, issues that regrettably we have been unable to deal with decisively so far. I'm not sure whether fa.wiki has an ArbCom or similar body, but you could try opening a case there and get some solid injunctions against the sorts of pages and edits they're making. Failing that, if I had a free hand, I'd adopt a "one warning, then indef block" policy to get rid of them (assuming they're not contributing anything of value in the midst of their disruption). Note that NPOV is mandated across all language versions of WP, so they cannot possibly have a consensus to engage in the sort of blatant anti-Israel polemic that they appear to be engaged in.

However you choose to deal with it, good luck! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).

Concur with Lankiveil that taking the hard line is probably best with a "one warning, then indef block" dictum if that's within the scope of your responsibilities. For one, I'd delete the anti-Israel image and for all users who have anti-Israel polemics on their user pages, warn them once to remove the material. If they refuse, block them. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the advice given above. I don't know if there are any Farsi encyclopedia projects that do allow POV (something like the Jihadist equivalent of Conservapedia?) that such disruptive users might be told to contribute to, rather than Wikipedia. You might also want to work on expanding the Farsi admin corps with people that do not have to fear persecution in Iran, such as Iranians abroad, to help you out.

Given that NPOV is Foundation-level policy, the Foundation might eventually be forced to close down the Farsi Wikipedia (or to restart it from scratch) if it becomes apparent that its community is, for one reason or another, unable to adhere to NPOV and that this Wikipedia is instead systematically used as a vehicle for political and religious advocacy. You certainly have my thanks in your efforts to prevent this, and I wish you the best of luck.  Sandstein  07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein; Wikia is not permitted to host a biased wiki, and may need close any that is being conducted outside the terms of service. This may not stop a wiki (which is a concept) being created and hosted elsewhere with much the same bias, but it will not be part of this family. How this helps our Iranian colleagues I am not sure, as it appears that zealots often would prefer to bring the edifice down around their own ears than have viewpoints that differ from theirs allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I too echo the sentiments of others in thanking you for taking the stand. First, since I don't see anyone else saying it, I'd like to respond to your comment that they say "This is an Iranian wikipedia". It is not. It is part of the Wikimedia project, and thus is it a U.S.-based non-profit organization. It is subject to foundation-wide policies, specifically NPOV, and it is subject to U.S. law, not islamic law. You are entirely within your right to warn once then block. In some cases, just as it is here, sometimes even a warning is too lenient, block on sight (such as we do with aggregeous vandal-only accounts and sockpuppets) If there are especially problematic pages, protect them. And if you're worried about being too drastic, maybe it's time to start the Farsi equivalent of the Order of the Rouge Admins. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, a Commons admin might like to have a look at commons:File:No_Israel.svg, I am pretty sure that racist polemic is outside the mission of Commons. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• The history at Commons:File_talk:No_Israel.svg indicates that it was already deleted and then undeleted - through what seems a not entirely transparent process - and would presumably need a new discussion, probably together with several others from Commons:Category:Anti logos.  Sandstein  12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not having read the deletion and undeletion dialog, I see that flag as no more or less problematic than a Nazi flag flying over the Reichstag or the same flag being burned in protest. Having such material on the commons can useful for documenting historical events and pro- and anti-whatever organizations in an NPOV manner. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is a crossed out Israeli flag racist? I'm certain the other stuff is no good, but I'm not sure the tern racist applies to a crossed out flag. In fact, a sysop is using it here [[103]] Die4Dixie (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, User:OsamaK is not a sysop on the English Wikipedia or Commons. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • We Americans have tried to cross out the
      Union Jack for over 200 years, but it has no effect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}
      13:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am not an admin, but I would have ZERO tolerance for "folks" who would try to "take over" any of "our" foreign wikis in order to push ANY agenda. I would drop nukes on them(block), pardon the pun, like no tomorrow until they ran back under the rocks from where they came. NPOV and non agenda pushing are our equivalent of star trek's prime directive. Bets of luck since it sounds like you will need it. --Tom 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is exactly like the Prime Directive; it is something we talk about all the time but have great trouble actually implementing. Jon513 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. Israel crossed flag issue, which is related to me, is a clear one: we discussed it more than once at Wikimedia Commons, and finally, with supports of many admins at Commons, it has been kept: fairly after discussions. So please let's never file this issue in a place where it's not helpful.. The issue must take its size, it has nothing to do with NPOF (which is fully respected), fawp (where I haven't work before) or the "Islamisation web group" (No Israel flag shouldn't be understood as a religious matter). If I expressed my (and hundreds of millions' on the real life) opposite of Israel, as long as it is in the user free space: his or her user page, and without attacking our contributors, then it shouldn't affect the project at all. So please never link anti-things in user pages with NPOV, a contributor's nationality or religion has never affect my judgment while building our great encyclopedia.--OsamaK 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli flag people do not equal racist. They just don't like Israeli flags. We all need to assume good faith here. Is it ok here too?Die4Dixie (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if fa.wiki has an arbcom. If it doesn't, you can only do what's in your power. What's in your power and rights is to clear all such people away with blocks, i.e. ideologue crazies who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia. If the admin community there is viable it can decide if this was the correct thing. If it's not viable, then you got nothing more to worry about and should clear them as you please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying people who don't like the Israeli flag should be banned? Does not liking the flag=racist? I'm academically curious.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For your academic curiosity, I said that people who've got no intention of respecting the spirit of an openly edited encyclopedia should be banned. Banning is a purely practical solution to a wikiproblem; so long as no policy violations or disruption is happening or likely to happen, no-one need ever be banned, and that's whether they burn Israeli flags in private or worship them as deities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point; however, does a crossed Israeli flag in and of itsself rise to the threshold to which you refer?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for (short) editorials here if they are not helpful to the case.--

talk

) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. I have responded on your talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which was the right place. Thanks.--

talk

) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the wondrful responses. Our ArbCom is practically non-functioning, and we only have 7 admins, 1 crat, with 110,000 registered users. The place is practically being run amok with "jihadist" ideaologues and their edit wars and disputes and eroding tactics and wiki-lawyerings. We are practically unable to successfully admit any new crats or admins, due to the inability to reach any consensus from the pro-Islamic users and the more moderate ones. I squeezed by, thanks to the intervention of the stewards. My greatest achievement was nominating and supervising the admission of our first and only female admin. And that took my time for an entire month. Sysoping Persian wikipedia is one hell of a daunting task. Please wish me luck.--زرشک (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you as much luck as you need. Unfortunately we are not "in charge" of the Persian wikipedia thus our hands are tied up in either direction.--

talk

) 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)