Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive516

Can someone please look at User:Lawyer33 contributions? He seems to be making legal threats in his edit summaries. • \ / (⁂) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears so, but seems to have stopped when asked not to. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But not to have retracted them. Legal threats don't get any more clear than that. I've indefinitely blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavy on the socking, too - I see User:Lawyeruniversal2 and Lawyergeffen doing the same things. The names suggest this person is at least ostensibly representing record labels; I'm going to give the latest iteration a note regarding OTRS and the proper way to report problematic errors. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigate before posting, Tony. A sock investigation already got the other two. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this person represents anyone. Real lawyers use the mail and the phone, they don't create new accounts after being blocked on Wikipedia. At least if they did they should be fired.

Chillum

14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I suggest that you take the effort to add "istan(i)" to the (likely insulting) diminutive "Pak" if you wish to be taken seriously as desiring a neutral consideration of this problem. I would further suggest that you take this complaint to

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for review by sysops who are better able to disregard the nationalistic rhetoric of the differing parties. I trust you will update your notices to the above mentioned editors to reflect the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pak" is a common abbreviation for Pakistan used in English language publications both in India and Pakistan; it is no in way shape or form pejorative or insulting. E.g. "Pak-Afghan border situation needs urgent attention: US" The Daily Times, "Pak serious about fighting extremism: NATO chief" The News International (both Pakistani publications), "With Pak alleging links between the Samjhauta..." The Times of India. 87.112.89.175 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would note that the diminitive "Paki" is considered an extremely pejorative insult in British society and, this being the English language Wikipedia, similar terms may strike the readership as antagonistic. Cultural sensitivities should work both ways. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pak is short term for Pakistan,but "Paki" is not acceptable.User:Yousaf465

If I see no rationale given for the block, and his contribution history looks fairly legit, and the unblocking administrator makes no comments regarding the block in a reasonable matter (I did notify the blocking administrator), then I will unblock in most instances. Case closed for YM's old block.

It should be noted that I am not "soft" on anti-Indian propogandists. I frequently get asked to block or review the contributions of specific editors (check my user talk page), and I have done sweeping blocks on this in the past. Perhaps you didn't bother to do a little check of my contribution history??? seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone thanking you is evidence of "being soft" then we are all soft, and that's the way I like it. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm just confused. seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

will replx in detail.User:Yousaf465

I havent used the term 'Paki' anytime above ,instead used only "Pak/Pakistani" terms which are generally considered acceptable. Secier, you have unblocked a

good faith block by YM and allowed Yousuf to continue with his disruptive edits like [2][3] [4] while you blocked an IP editor who has been reverting yousuf's POV push. -- Tinu Cherian

- 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Personal commentary in edits/synthesis/OR/POV 2) Engages in IND/PAK battlefield mentality per the main page gripe, also assumes everyone else is campaigning/soapboxing, per his complaint ages ago that DYK people were promoting homosexuality 3) nominating pictures for deletion on bogus criteria (images were US govt -> PD, the other was already marked as FU as a magazine display of Pakistani terrorists but he keeps on saying it isn't needed and replaces it with a another magazine display that doesn't show related at all 4) per battlefield/sectarian mentality, has an Israeli flag on his talk page, with the Star of David replaced with a swastika.... 5) Also BLP violations and personal cynical commentaries inserted on this page along with another Pakistani Strider11 with battlefield mentality which Seicer reinserted; although it is a banned Hkelkar IP, the Pakitani edit needs to be excised because of a BLP violation implying a terrorist conspiracy on the part of the subject "it is worth noticeable..." YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One dynamic to watch out for in admin discussions with multiple issues is that one hot button point dominates the discussion, and if that gets resolved as a nonissue the other outstanding issues may get overlooked. This discussion has determined that 'Pak' does not carry the derogatory connotations of 'Paki'. What it has not resolved is whether this person is edit warring. And it may be arguable that block-worthy edit warring has been going on within the last few hours. Please examine all issues at hand before declaring a determination. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Yousaf for 48h as he continued disruption after his previous unblock. If the block would not help, I think a longer block is warranted Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC) here is my reply

the main page controversy is baseless.I wasn't trying to be natinalist or any such thing.My only point was that it should be diversified.2)If you see the file history it can be seen,that,this file at first had dead links.I tagged it that way.Another editor provided the links to it.I asked him to check with the mentioned lab. whether they provide it for wikipedia.The herald has also been questioned by other non-concerned editors[5] ,[6],[7],so there is no point in blaming me for that.4)Be sensible and Read carefully a)Image description b)Tag description c) talk pages[8].Before accusing anyone of racial bias.5)I didn't revert this any further because a valid reason was given.I can't see any reinsertion by User:Seicer at this [9] User:Yellowmonkey is going out of his mind.He and other involved editor didn't even took pain to discuss these articles and file on the talk page.Instead have constantly removing content while hiding behind ips as it mentioned here.[10].Taquiyya is actually Taqiyya. I myself removed content which was questionable but Instead of making on it they just kept on reverting edits.User:Yousaf465

I don't know about the other issues, but this tagging (repeated 3 times) is simply disruptive behavior in Yousaf's part. Despite being reminded that the image is work of a US Federal agency, Yousaf retagged the image again with a meaningless comment. He also tagged a fair-use magazine cover as "possibly unfree image", despite the presence of a fair use rationale. These actions are all correlated, and not isolated events. --Ragib (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While PUI is not quite the right venue, the fair use rationale on the Herald image is complete bogus. This is an understandable error. I'll put it up for

WP:NFCR.--Stephan Schulz (talk

) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New Vandlism account/possiable sockpuppet.

Resolved

YLHG IS BACK AGAIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Vandalized these pages: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also, the user first redirected thier user page to Youlittlehandsomeguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a user who was indef blocked [15]. Then the user finally simply put this message on their talk page [16] saying they were a sockpuppet.

This account needs looking at. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Kevin (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of edits to the Juris Doctor article, it is apparent that a user has been making disruptive edits. The user has been insisting that the J.D. is now replacing the LL.B., but have not provided any support for the claim, and have ignored discussions. This began on 19 June 2008, was particularly strong in September, occurred again in December, and persisted in January. This user has recently begun aggressive editing on this issue again yesterday and today. An attempt to open a discussion with the user after numerous reverts in September of 2008 was made by initiating a section on the talk page addressing the edits, and reference was made to that discussion every time the change was undone. Posts were also made on the user pages. The user has promised in edit summaries on numerous occasions that she or he will keep correcting the error she or he perceives until it is "right." In fact, it is from the pattern of edits, and the comments in the edit summaries (which say things like "flies in the face of facts," "get it right," "wow! is wiki truth or fiction," and "this is a lie"), that it becomes apparent that all these edits are from the same user. The user does not use an account for the edits, and the IPs include 38.13.201.18235.13.201.182, 68.61.196.89, 68.61.197.65, 24.11.161.213, 71.206.107.220, 76.252.71.24 and 81.208.83.242. Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it from me: the JD hasn't replaced the LLB, at least in the United Kingdom. I'll head over to the talkpage and chip in. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to be getting the message, and doesn't seem to be interested in talking. I recommend semi-protecting; if he wants to edit it he can create a single account we can track and talk to rather than multiple IPs which indicate a changing IP address, meaning we have no way of telling if he actually got our messages. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The abusive edits have continued. Please intervene asap. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

needs admin action User:Ironholds is helpful but not an administrator. Administrators please take action. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for 3 days - if this is insufficient to persuade our friend that consensus is the only option then drop me a line at my talkpage to have it re-instated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What could be controversial in the following sentence from

. And of course it needs a source which says specifically that he is "best" known for it, otherwise the word must be removed or replaced with "also" (which, apparently, is perfectly fine here).

This has been going on since shortly after Guy expressed concern that Fleischmann might fall under

It looks like he is once again longing for a wikibreak, as in November when he last edit-warred (on Barack Obama). [21][22] Now he has also started censoring other editors' comments (at an unrelated article), a behaviour that ultimately led to his blocks in September and October. [23]

I suppose some kind of admin action is in order here. E.g. checkusering me to see how many sockpuppets I have, or warning me for calling a spade a spade. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The content issue should generally be ignored here and only behavior examined. Behaviorally, Threeafterthree was insisting on a content position and wikilawyering for it, insistently, repeatedly and sometimes uncivilly, plus asserting the position with edits when it was clear that no other editor supported him. (The position unsupported by others is that "best known" is inappropriate, and then a source is demanded for it, when there is a source and it's been asserted and shown. But, please, assume that Threeafterthree is correct on the content and focus on the behavior, i.e., insisting on correct content with repetitive edits, tendentious argument, and without any support from other editors.) .I've been following this and have informally warned Threeafterthree on the article Talk page. If the behavior continues, I would warn him on his Talk, I felt that it was still short of that, though getting close. The behavior could warrant a Talk warning, and, if continued, a block. I can understand why Adler is concerned, though. Adler's behavior has not been spotless, he's been gratuitously uncivil, but also apologized for it, as I recall. --

talk

) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user should have been warned before bring this here. I recommend speedy close of this discussion as premature, unless someone has other serious behavior to report that took place after warning. This, and the notice on his talk page, could be considered the warning. On the other hand, I have not investigated this user's history, and if this is a repetition of prior patterns, with previous warnings and a block for such behavior, warning may not be necessary, I'd take back my recommendation. --

talk

) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I think Threeafterthree is a reasonable guy, you should try just talking to him, maybe even send email or something. It's certain that we need to be careful saying that Fleischmann is best known for probably the largest and most spectacular cock-up of his entire career, so maybe an alternate form of words can be found. I had a go, see what you think. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize that this has come to this board. There was a content dispute at a biography about using the term "best known for" and I pressed the issue I guess without knowing who all the players are, ect. or that cold fusion is touchy. Anyways, I really do not want to defend my prior history or feel a need to. I do remove comments from talk pages that I feel are harmful or off topic per
  WP:FORUM. Anyways, again, I think this has been overblown to reach this level but will listen to the community and try to work with the folks on the Martin Fleischmann talk page. Thank you, --Tom
  22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is a content dispute at

) 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary cut off many good content from the Warren Buffett page, especially the stock holding part and time line just because of his own taste. I try to engage talk with him but he dictated the page has to be in his way only, and reverted the page many times (4 times in 24 hours). Many people have done a lot of work and it's a shame that everything is gone and the page now looks very difficult to read. Thanks! Iifacts (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The information in the timeline is still in the article. I merged it into prose form because it was essentially

talk

) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user might have a COI with the website that they are using as a reference.

talk

) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to feel the chart was too much smack in the middle of the article there, and I don't believe I've ever seen someone's stock holdings in their article before. It seems to me to be rather too detailed, and I've said so on the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly think the stock holdings are important, what Gary did was that he cut off the stock holding info on Warren Buffett page and in the same time, change the stock holding data to his own, which was difficult to read and out-dated, with many data are plainly wrong (% of reported portfolio) on the Berkshire Hathaway page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway). As an experienced editor, he intentionally violated the 3RR rule and tried to dictate everything.Iifacts (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys and gals, what Administrative action are we looking for here, not that I am an admin, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. This looks like a content dispute? Maybe try request for comment or ask some others to look at it which you did at the top of this section, but other than that? If parties are edit warring, take it to the 3RR board and I am sure some admin will be happy to block for a bit to help cool things down. Anyways, good luck. Tom 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for further input on how to best proceed. Anyways, the user was reported to

talk

) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• The information pertains to Berhshire Hathaway, and not Buffet, also, WP appears to be against including exhaustive,
  directory-style information, and I have tried to explain it to lifacts (talk · contribs) on his talk page, along with the rest of this discussion. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this has now been resolved.

talk

) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.101 (talk • contribs)

Check out this edit on the Alina Mungiu-Pippidi page. The article deals with a controversial subjects, and Mrs. Mungiu has ticked off some far right nuts. This may be a very stupid joke, but then again it may be serious hate mail, and perhaps even be read as a serious death threat. I just noticed the same was done to the Cristian Mungiu page. Dahn (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address. Don't know how credible this would really be; moot point for me anyway, since I doubt the Romanian authorities would take an American college student calling at 6-7 AM (their time) too seriously.

a/c

) 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PM, to be exact. But, alas, you do have a point. Dahn (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really feel it's worth pursuing, you can always send an e-mail to their ISP's abuse address, listed here. Then the originating ISP (which will actually know who this customer of theirs is) can make the call on whether they want to take action on this or not. --Dynaflow babble 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

@Dahn: That's why I hate time zones.

a/c

) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What will we do about Eugene?

Earlier i started a section about disruptive editor "Eugene Krabs". Who i've finally realized is a teenager, and therefore won't listen to me. He's been blocked 5 times already and i worry that he might get blocked for a 6th time. He modifies sections on his talk page to the way he likes it, he completeley deletes my comments, adds links to redirects that lead to the same page, threantens to block someone even though he's not an admin, and requests people to be blocked here, instead of

) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seicer | talk | contribs

12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that "he is a teenager and therefore won't listen" to you. Also, saying he "made 2 enemies in one day while most users make 1 enemy in several months" doesn't make much sense. I can't take a report seriously that makes such false and generalizing assumptions. Also, since your views are so off the mark, I don't think you would make a good mentor anyway.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is inappropriate: I'm a bloody teenager, and I'd like to think I can listen when people tell me action X is wrong (see my squeaky-clean block log, f'rinstance). However the user in question obviously needs something done. I'd support a one-strike system; he toes the line from now on or we block him until he is

more inclined to listen. Ironholds (talk

) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't know. And i admit that i'd probally not make a good mentor, and i didn't mean to hurt any teenage user's feelings. It's just i once knew i teenager who wouldn't listen to any adults. And it took me months before i met my first enemy.

talk

) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've notified the user of this thread, but I don't really see anything here requiring immediate administrator intervention. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• If he continues to not respond, an RFC would seem to be appropriate.
  talk
  ) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late responding. I just woke up like 15 minutes ago. I also don't have much time to be on here until after school. I only go to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd period, so I'll be back around 11:25am (PT).

Anyway, Ebutler, when I modify my talk page, I don't delete things. I just add the "equals" signs so I can have it organized. In fact, before my last block, I restored a bunch of stuff for reference. Also, don't worry, Ebutler. I listen to adults well. I got my Learner's Permit January 31st and my mom's been teaching me how to drive (and still is). I listen and everything. At first, I didn't listen as much, but was still careful. We also argue sometimes (not in the car) about things, which is normal. I think I'd rather argue than go out and take drugs like some teenagers my age do, though. I'll talk more later, but right now I have to get ready to go to my high school. -

talk

) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The

). The IP user has not engaged in any discussion on these topics, and simply reverts changes made by anyone who he disagrees with. These edits are clearly made by the same user: the content of the changes are nearly identical and the IP addresses are all highly similar, from Japan.

These edits stem from a content dispute, but the problem is not the disagreement over content, its the disruptive editing without an attempt for consensus building. The edits meet the standards of

disruptive editing

: they are tendentious, do not satisfy WP:verifiability, not interested in consensus, rejects community input, and if the user has engaged in any discussion through a username, then he is engaged in IP sockpuppetry.

I think the easiest way to solve this problem would be to simply protect the page from IP users, forcing this user to use his own username to make these disruptive edits.

• 210.196.10.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.132.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.146.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.16.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 219.97.88.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.128.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.132.83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.200.138.38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 133.9.4.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.10.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.5.17.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 133.9.4.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1. #1 by IP #1
• 2. #2 by IP #1
• 3. Revision #1 by IP #2 Content highly similar to JeffJor's; in places it is identical (e.g., "The reduced sample space is the set {BG, BB}")
• 4. Revision #2 by IP #2
• 5. Revision #3 by IP #2
• 6. Revision #4 by IP #2
• 7. Revision #1 by IP #3 Content was part of JeffJor's original post (e.g., he deleted question #2 entirely)
• 8. Revision #2 by IP #3
• 9. Revision #1 by IP #4 Content changed was complained about by (only) Jeff in the talk page
• 10. Revision #2 by IP #4
• 11. #1 by IP #5 Same content change as IP #4
• 12. #1 by IP #6 Same content change again
• 13. #1 by IP #7 Same content change, misleading description
• 14. #1 by IP #8 Same content change, misleading description
• 15. #1 by IP #9
• 16. #1 by IP #10

This issue was previously posted here as disruptive editing by JeffJor; CU check indicates JeffJor's IPs do not match these, so I am reposting it as a disruption by an IP user. It remains just as disruptive. Thank you in advance for the help. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected the

Boy or Girl paradox. The sock charge against JeffJor was not confirmed by checkuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor/Archive). But the IPs, though they are not him, are clearly edit-warring, and do not participate on Talk. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Stappsclass

Resolved

 – Blocked

Stappsclass (talk · contribs) seems to be a vandalism-only account. The user seems to have a propensity for editing Today's Featured Article with edits ranging from questionable to blatantly idiotic. Powers ^T 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin blocked him a minute after you posted. Taunting another admin, like this [29], probably helped expidite the process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have also violated 3RR. Seems to be a content dispute over the more BLP-unfriendly (although admittedly Springfield is dead) bits in the article, but they do seem to be sourced. —

neuro^(talk)

16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An Admin is needed to block Greg_L

I just followed a link to a "Takarazuka Wikipedia" (link), thinking it was some obscure language of WP. I get there and see that it's some not-the-real-thing using the word "Wikipedia" in its name. Should something be done about this? Like emailing them and saying "Don't use that name"? flaminglawyer 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(if this is posted in the wrong place, I'm terribly sorry, but it's the place that I though it fit best) flaminglawyer 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing an administrator here could do. Your best bet would be to notify Foundation counsel, lest I'm mistaken. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cary and Mike at the WMF. For future reference, apparent fake wikipedia things should go to the foundation. English wikipedia folks aren't the foundation and can't start proper legal review etc... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a trademark violation, but a fairly harmless one, since they're visually distinct from Wikipedia. I think some people have just started using Wikipedia as a synonym for any kind of topical wiki encyclopedia. A friendly e-mail wouldn't hurt, I don't think it's worth the Foundation's trouble. Dcoetzee 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but IIRC, if you don't pursue claims against people using your trademark you lose it (Couldn't fit more bizarre acronyms in there). Protonk (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IAAL and that is generally correct. – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think there is no malicious intent there. It's possible that some people (especially with limited knowledge of English) genuinely take "Wikipedia" to be a generic term for an encyclopedia, or any online encyclopedia. (After all, we frequently see

"wiki" as an abbreviation for "Wikipedia", so why not the other way round?) In any case, this definitely makes more sense than Stir-fried wikipedia (or "Steam eggs with wikipedia" and other similar delicacies). -- Ekjon Lok (talk

) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of cobaab 2.gif

I would like to know why this file was removed and how i can get it back up on wikipedia. The file is an image of the crest of my alma-mater Calabar High School, and I contributed it so that it could be used on my school's wiki page. However I recently visted the page and noticed that the file seems to have been deleted. If wikipedia is to be a creditable educational resource, you need to be more diplomatic in the deletion of information from the site.

Please inform me of how I can get the image back up on wikipedia as soon as possible. Thank You.

--Neo returns2006 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it's still there. —

neuro^(talk)

17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Sorry bro, I see it. Thanks.--Neo returns2006 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, Hesperian and I are covering new ground today, and that link above is part of it. What consensus am I ignoring? I certainly would not want to do that. The only "warnings" I've received are from people who disagree with the view that the current flora guideline is in conflict with general naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, all I'm doing is engaging in discussion, with those who choose to discuss with me, on the talk page. How this disrupts the editing of any actual articles -- as is constantly claimed it does -- is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Discussion_statistics Gnangarra 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing new in that discussion, I didnt say your disrupting editing of article I said that your forumn shopping and ignoring consensus for the convention is disrupting Wikipedia. Gnangarra 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why fault Don Quixote for

Tilting at windmills? Much like The Scorpion and the Frog, we all do what is in our nature. --Kralizec! (talk

) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What's new in that discussion is the principle angle, and whether we're talking about "my" principle, or a principle explicitly stated, or implied, in the WP:NC policy.

Announcing what I believe to be a conflict with a given policy, and asking for help, on the talk page of that policy, is "forum shopping"? Or are you referring to something else? If so, what?

What am I doing that causes you to believe I'm ignoring consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When such actions infringes on the ability of community to work co-operatively, we

WP:BAN, as I'm involved with issues, along with many others I'm bringing the issue here to seek independent action. Gnangarra

02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How do my actions -- engaging in discussion on a talk page -- "infringe on the ability of community to work co-operatively"? Why is it no longer possible for you to assume good faith? You don't think that I, along with about half of the non-plant editors who have weighed in on this issue per Hesperian's statistics, honestly believe that the flora guideline is in conflict with

WP:NC in a way that no other guideline is? All I'm doing is essentially explaining why I believe that, and trying to understand why those who disagree with me, disagree with me. --Born2cycle (talk

) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes (he hasn't edited in the mainspace for over a fortnight). This naming dispute has now been going for 77 days, and it is Born2cycle who continues to sustain it, because such disputes sustain him. Every argument he has put forward has been responded to at length and in good faith, and numerous times, but nothing can dent his conviction that he alone bears The Truth. Everybody but Born2cycle is sick to death of this dispute, but Born2cycle will not let it go, continuing to badger us with the same long-refuted claims, insisting that the matter remains under dispute, and that further discussion is warranted, and that those who refuse to discuss it further are guillotining debate. 100% of editors who actually contribute in the field are against him, but he declares that a sign of bias, and fights on, forum shopping for "unbiased" participants, and seeking to deny a voice to the editors who actually have a stake in the decision. This has long since moved into the realms of arguing for the sake of arguing, or perhaps arguing for the sake of refusing to admit defeat. Hesperian 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that my "only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes". That's ridiculous. However, naming consistency within Wikipedia is a particular interest of mine (we all have our roles), and that interest causes me to get involved in many naming disputes. Because of this interest, I watch and frequent WP:RM and the talk pages of several naming guidelines, and get involved when something piques me interest. It just so happens that I've never seen a guideline so out of line with the rest of Wikipedia as is the current flora guideline, and that's why I'm particularly interested in it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's intransigence is made manifest by his/her response to my suggestion to table the matter for now: a link to a 3 week old post, much commented upon, itself little more than a rehash of even older arguments.[39][40] Such an inability or unwillingness to accept that the current discussion has run its course suggests that some involuntary means must be employed to achieve that end. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, folks... You are free to ignore my arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Serge, having experienced your technique for at least 3 years on

WP:NC:CITY, ignoring your arguments tend to result in you assuming that consensus has been reached in your favor and you proceeding to the guideline and modify it to your liking.--Bobblehead ^(rants)

22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically you're talking about, but there is a difference between completely ignoring a discussion and stating clearly that you disagree and then disengaging. But these guys choose to engage over and over, and even bring up new points and ask me questions, and then complain about me taking up too much of their time. For example, Hesperian has used some caustic language here, but he's the one who started this discussion with me just yesterday. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is with

) 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him for vexatious tagging of articles; it appears clear he is doing this as some sort of revenge for his article being deleted. Lets hope that this final warning encourages him to stop this disruption. If it does, there is no need to block. If he does continue, we can block him for being disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that blocking now would probably not be justified, as he has not edited in 10 days, and does not appear to be active; since blocking is only preventative, we should not block him until he has had a chance to read and respond to warnings... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was what I was implying. They're clearly not quite up for being blocked yet, but it would be nice to let admins know in case he starts up again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... Thanks for clarifying. His talk page is on my watchlist, so if he gets started with this again, he can be blocked. Just let me or someone else here at ANI know, and he will be dealt with. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In the talk page of Geber, a user named Xashaiar said this:

"As a matter of fact, on Iranian world related articles, Enc. Britannica should not be used"

And this:

"These are unacceptable. No matter how well-sourced they are"

Dy yol (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, and not a very urgent one; not really something for ANI to handle. Encyclopedia Britannica has (in the past) been rather biased in its coverage of many areas of the world, although I don't know whether this problem is found in the most recent editions. Ironholds (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds; this is an all-around content dispute, not a problem with one user. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A clash of opposing views has developed into an important discourse re:images and copyright ideology. As a side bar, a valuable and completely wholesome editor User:Miguel.mateo is being discredited and treated as if he was a vandal. Bigger minds than mine need to involve themselves in this matter and resolve it for the betterment of Wikipedia. Please see:Talk:Theater am Kärntnertor#Revert_fighting and Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images. Also, of course, Editor:Miguel.mateo's talk page. If, as he claims, more than 20 articles were effected by another editors POV regarding the validity of his edits, it certainly warrants the attention of a dispassionate and impartial Administrator (maybe more than one). The lack of common courtesy that was displayed, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, is only one of the factors that is uncomfortable and frustrating. Some form of communication should have occured prior to such a widespread revert over a broad spectrum of articles. I have assisted Editor:Mateo by copy editing some of his Euro Coin articles and found him to always be a gentleman to the extreme...and I found his images to be an extreme benefit to the encyclopedia. It is transparent that he and his edits are being castigated by an obvious POV cabal because they feel ownership of "their" articles. Please look into this matter. Editor:Mateo edits deserve to be seen by our readers. He has gone thru the hurdles of copyright verification. --Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Buster7 for bringing this up to the admins. The basics of the recent fight:

1. There were a content dispute discussed in Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting, consensus was to keep the image and the text.
2. Not two days has pass and user Kleinzach challenged exactly the same additions, this time in other article, proof here: Talk:Maria_Callas#Non-free_coin_image.
3. Immediately after user DavidRF started to removed all contributions from all articles, claiming that the use is illegal. Note that he removed the images and the text that comes with each image. Apparently these two users team up to go against all contributions I have done, as can be seen here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Commemorative_coins_in_classical_music_articles. Obviously revert fight started and since there were three users teaming against me I may have broken the 3RR more than once. I have asked them to stop severla times but they continued until recently.
4. Aparently they brought the topic the the use of the images is illegal here Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images, thinking that they have a strong case to remove all my contributions; but they decided to start to remove texts and images even before this topic is concluded, which is not concluded yet.
5. Notice that neither of these two users had the decency of telling me what they were plannign to do in my talk page. Instead a blant team up to remove all my contributions was made.
6. I clearly asked to stop, I said that the legal ussage is clear and if by any reason is not as I think it is I will be removing the images myself. I have asked to talk, to remove the image but leave the prose ... but nothing, the only thing I have got is blind removal of all my contributions even in articles that are not related to music at all.

Basically this is nothing that these two users attacking my contributions just because they do not like what they add to "their articles". I have been very collaborative in the past, and more than once I have been asked to removed the image or the texts associated to the coin, in more than one article. After the initial discussion, I have agreed in more than one article to not to include them based on the arguments of the discussion; but this time, no discussion, teaming up to blindly remove everything I have created.

I am not looking for a content dispute here, I just want the users Kleinzach and DavidRF to recognize that what they did is not ethically correct. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here upon request - looks like content dispute spanning multiple articles, and some copyvio claims. I'll have to do some research, get some other work done, and will be glad to offer an opinion in a bit (if it hasn't been resolved by then). Any particular diffs of note would be helpful.

talk

) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WP:POV that the images are illegal and that the content is SPAM is definitely not correct. I have clearly asked them to stop and to talk, but instead they keep reverting my contributions even after I have explained several times. At the end one of them even went to an article that he has never touched before, just to remove my contribution too. This is for me unacceptable. Apologies to you for the time you will spend looking into this issue. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk

) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coin images are non-free and should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves (e.g. the coin articles, or perhaps an article about the mint). Doing so is clear fair-use overuse, and edit-warring over it is likely to lead to a block. I have warned User:Miguel.mateo to stop doing so. Black Kite 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, when and where have you warned me? Also, "should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves" is not true. Where it says so in the policy? Can you take a look at the classical sample in Billy Ripken, a copy right image of a baseball card is used in this article, but it does meet the fair use rationale. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On your talk page - have a look. The relevant policy is

WP:NFCC#8 - significance. Since a picture of a coin can never significantly increase the reader's understanding of the person or place depicted - it is merely a picture - they will always fail this policy. If the images were in the article about the coin itself, then they are directly relevant and that is reasonable. The only exception might be if the person was deceased and the non-free image was the only image that could be used, or if the image itself was particularly notable - hence Billy Ripken. In all the articles relevant here, there are free images available. Black Kite

14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a long discussion with user ElCobolla about this topic, and I have the archives. While we did not interpret "understand" similarly, it did give me a completely wide view of the copyright issues.

1. WP:NFCC#3a
   is per article.
2. WP:NFCC#8
   , please read it carefully. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" the topic in thsi case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins. Removing the image of the coin because it does not help to understand the subject is a wrong interpretation of the policy. Regardless, this is maybe the weakest point, and I do agree that in some cases the image can be removed by enhancing the prose of the coin. But this is exactly what the other two editors are against, they are against the fact of adding information of the coin on the articles of the subject of the coin. Even if the article is a stub, they are against of adding such information.
3. Where in the policy this exception is explained?

But again, I am not here to talk about the content dispute, is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all. The proper way of doign this IMO is bringing this issue to a talk page and later decide the course of action. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we talk about the content dispute? You've added these images to hundreds of pages. We have to have a talk page discussion on each one for them to be removed? Where was the talk page discussion when they were added in the first place? You watch these pages like a hawk because you know people's first instinct upon seeing the images is to remove them. It sounds like you are trying to create a barrier for removal so high that people just give up and let you keep the images on every page in wikipedia. We have had monthly discussions where we re-hash the same points:

• Talk:Schloss_Esterházy
• Talk:Joseph_Haydn#Joseph_Haydn_Gold_Coin
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_14#Gold_Coin_Images_in_Composer_.26_Related_Articles
• Talk:Symphony_No._3_(Beethoven)#Symphony_No_3_in_a_commemorative_coin
• Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting

My worry is that you'll be back next month with another coin and you will completely forget we had this dispute, claim its personal (its only "personal" because you are the only editor spreading these images across non-coin articles) and we'll rehash the whole thing will happen again. What is most frustrating, actually, is that you have no interest whatsoever in the quality of these articles other than they should contain a link and a picture to an uncirculated twenty-first century commemorative coin. How is this constructive editing? Can we get a ruling on this dispute once and for all so that we can return our energies to the actually content of the articles and not some tangential see-also, pop-culture link at the bottom of each article. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I added just one image in each article, that is minimum ussage.. No. Minimal use is zero, and non-free images should only be used where they pass all criteria in
  WP:NFCC
  . The coin images do not do that, as I explained above.
• the topic in this case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins.. No. If you add a picture of a coin to an article about a person, then the subject of the article is the person, not the coins. Hence why there is far more latitude in an article which is actually about the coins.
• is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all.. The copyright issue is irrelevant; it is only the Wikipedia fair use policy which is important. Also, the prose is fine to leave in, if it is important and relevant to the subject (you'll notice that I did so on one of the articles) but that's a content issue. Black Kite 16:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The same issue takes place with

WP:NFC#Images to spell out more clearly than it does now that stamps and currency includes coins and that their use may only be in articles about the coin or stamp itself. IMHO, there should also be more clarity in [[WP::NFC#Images 2|the exceptions listing]] so editors can see more plainly what is allowed and what is. The current statements get twisted by editors who want to include non-free images where they are not permitted to their own advantage unless challenged like this coin-in-music-articles situation. ww2censor (talk

) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←I support a paragraph about the coin in the article (with WP:V/RS), and even a link to the article about the individual coin that describes the "who, what, when, where, why and how", the coin was made. My very limited knowledge of copyright and fair use policy, leads me to believe there may be a way to include the picture in that specific article. Sorry, I got nothing else.

talk

) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unindent...What a funny co-incidence. Check out todays op-ed section of the Chicago Sun Times: "The Opera is a place where people can get irked if you unwrap a stick of gum". Neil Steinberg, Chgo Sun Times< Feb 20,2009 (pg.18) That seems to sum up what is more at play here than any self-appointed protection of Wikipedia's legal status or a lawsuit over Editor:mateo's coin entries.

No one questions the protective nature of the Opera enthusists. It is a natural trait after working long and hard to create a quality article. But the same holds true for Editor:Mateo. He has also worked long and hard to facilitate good faith coin edits to a variety of articles that only add to the Wikipedia concept of the sum total of knowledge.

The claim that these edits do not comply w/ copyright violations or non-free policy, and that that is why his edits were deleted from Maria Callas (for instance among dozens of others) is pure Baloney...Opera Style.

The request (or is it a demand?) for written permission is also a bit out of whack with what is possible. As a private citizen, Editor:Mateo has done all he could (and more) to contact representatives and officials of the various mints to guarantee that he has his ducks in a row. The hint that he is somehow under-handedly trying to edit to his own advantage is akin to putting handcuffs on the good guys. What should be happening is assisting each other in the endeavor to implement these minor additions to quality articles. Instead they are being treated as though they were graffitti on the Opera Halls front doors.--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We are moving off topic, let's say for a second that you are all right about the images and this should not be included, which IMO, based on the current policy and license of the coins, is still questionable. But let's assume you are all right and all those images need to go ... does that give right to DavidRF and Kleimzach to team out and remove all images and all proses even from articles that they have never participated before? How about all the proof that I have asked to clear the case first, I have asked why the prose ... their only answer was to continuing removing my contributions. Can we focus on this please which is what I brought this topic for? As I have said, I have no problems putting some good faith discussion in deciding what is good and what is not (DavidRF just started to develop a guideline for adding this type of information in music articles, I applause that!) but I can simply not believe that two good editors team up to fight against another "no so good editor" (that is me). I can not believe that admins are not seeing what the problem is here, and they have taken their side already continuing removing contributions when this discussion is not finished.

And for the records, I have said several times already, the current policy DOES allow me to add those images in other articles not coin related. If by any chance that changes, I will be the one writting the bot to remove all the images I have added all over wikipedia (we are talkign about 100's of those). Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this here, but I'm not sure exactly where to go with it: User:Ziggymaster and User:Manmohit2002 have been blocked indefinitely as socks (Ziggymaster is the sock puppeteer; the case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster), and I think the investigation is closed. A new user has just popped up who I think is probably a new sock of this same person: Mayamore (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting to the same version of the article that was last edited by Manmohit2002 (not only that, but in the first diff I gave above, he actually quoted one of my own edit summaries from weeks before User:Mayamore was created). What's the best way to get this dealt with quickly? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your conclusion that this is Ziggymaster returning. I have indefblocked the new User:Mayamore account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This confession connects him to User:AndyCrogonka, who is indef blocked. • \ / (⁂) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that was already blocked by another admin. Is there any other connected activity which anyone's seeing?

Does anyone have the time to file a checkuser?. I'm kinda busy tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pickbothmanlol and User:A1a2s per this. • \ / (⁂) 09:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Any oversighters online? yandman 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They usually respond to their email list fairly quickly -

a/c

) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. yandman 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can some admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Wing Fascism in India, which is getting attention of several SPA and sock/meat accounts, namely, Mahanteshwar (talk · contribs · logs), Michonuri (talk · contribs · logs), Minten (talk · contribs · logs) and Gabriel_N (talk · contribs · logs) ? Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the closing admin will not be fooled. That article is hilariously bad. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree.--TRUCO 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone block this bot please, as it's messing things up? I had to look at some interwiki links on my talk page due to this edit, only to fix it and see there are *4* simple English links on the said template right now. It's my understanding that we put interwiki links on /doc pages normally anyway for templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved cats to /doc. —

neuro^(talk)

15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ordulin

Resolved

Is this Willy-clone shut down yet? just asking... Franamax (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, maybe that's the wrong one. n-e-way! Franamax (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the G-word. Block was 24 hrs when I saw it last, can it be indef? Franamax (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. Black Kite 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And User:Doubleplusungood person, so it seems. Checkuser anyone? Franamax (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you all are a minute or two ahead of me. I go sleepy now :) Hey, I'm tryin' to keep watch! Franamax (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Daron240475, too, methink (4 minute gap). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

and Talk:’AG GER. needs deleting still. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Un-resolved and yes, Daron needs attention by a CU or admin. Maybe an opportunistic grab of a newpage - but I don't think so. The next sleeper awaits... Franamax (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the article as A7, but AGF on Daron240475, suspect it was a newpage grab. Marked resolved again. Black Kite 13:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ordulin needs talk page and probably e-mail blocking. —Snigbrook 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. Done. Black Kite 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

11:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the name was probably a bad choice. I have picked it because of the extreme amount of IP vandalism (almost all my reverts deal with obvious vandalism or unexplained deletions of sourced material). If Grandmaster accuses me of anything, he should present proofs. If my username is too offensive, I will have it changed.--

talk

) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem with you is that you just go around and revert articles without any prior discussion, especially in controversial topics that became a subject to a number of arbitration cases (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, for example). Here's an example: [41] If your account is a good faith one, I would appreciate if you discussed your reverts of edits of established users. And the choice of the name indeed is not a good one, it kind of does not suggest willingness to discuss potential problems. Of course, a user name is a matter of personal choice, and it is up to you which one to use. Grandmaster 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This was the only case where I've reverted an edit made by an established user (if you don't count Likeminas' accidental restoring of IP vandalism) and in this particular case I have provided an explanation. However, you are right that I should have used the talk page and that my username causes mistrust. I definitely do NOT seek edit wars with established users.--

talk

) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the problem resolved. I hope you will discuss any such reverts in the future. Thanks. Grandmaster 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This user keeps adding unsourced commentary into Operation Opera. I'm pretty sure it's original (and probably false) research, but was reluctant to call it plain vandalism. I have left an OR template on his page, and he has already been given two vandalism warnings this month. I have already reverted him twice today, and I'd hate to be dragged into an edit war. Can someone help? Thanks, Nudve (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about this situation:

An anon editor from the 87.217.6?.xxx range comes in every few days, and adds then re-adds unsourced or improperly understood from that source information to a growing range of articles, including Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Caribbean Community and North American Free Trade Agreement. They generally involve adding improper "official language" information to these articles. Each edit series lasts from 6 to 11 separate edits long (rather than using preview) which means valid edits by other editors are often interspersed. They sometimes have come back the same day to re-add their changes.

Can we semi-protect these articles, or otherwise deal with this range of IP addresses, or both?

(Yes, I know RFPP exists, but I wonder if there's something we need to do at the IP level).

A few recent examples:

• x.x.62.63
• x.x.63.210
• x.x.62.237
• x.x.63.22

Thanks in advance (

) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: (Non-Admin)

I have information on those IP addresses, all of which come under a company called Jazz Telecom, based in Alcobendas, Madrid. All of these IP addresses are dynamic - this is noted by Samspade WHOIS. This is the complete list from the 4 requests:

Abuse Information: (Jazz Telecom, Madrid) - [email protected]

87.217.62.63 = 63.62.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es

87.217.63.210 = 210.63.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es

87.217.62.237 = 237.62.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es

87.217.63.22 = 22.63.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es

It may be worth keeping this information handy in case of a network abuse report.

talk

) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thor ... I had contemplated a quick WHOIS, but based on the hispano-centric nature of the edits (who knew we had new Spanish Imperialism in the works!) and previous knowledge that the 87 range was European, I had guessed Spain... thanks for confirming! (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked

• Mysticshade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Mysticshade

This user has returned from his recent block and is still being disruptive. He is currently blocked from Commons for uploading copyright violations, but is evading that block using a sockpuppet which uploaded, among other images, this image which is watermarked Debbie Dunne Photography. After this was pointed out to him, he has uploaded File:Dublin Sunset9.jpg which is the same image without the watermark, and he is claiming to be the copyright holder. Recommend blocking this editor and deleting any image he has uploaded, as they are all likely to be copyright violations. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This diff gives the connection between Mysticshade and the uploader of the images mentioned above. Given the lack of response other than adversarial edit summaries it is my view that this individual is a net deficit to the encyclopedia,LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think Mysticshade and the other account are probably the rather blocked

Largest urban areas of the European Union, doing much the same as Mystic was doing. FlowerpotmaN·(t

) 16:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Brittany

The above named article has been moved without any discussion on the talk page or prior notice. I have attempted to reverse it but I either (i) do not have the authority or (ii) do not understand how. Would someone please restore the prior position? --Snowded (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As a note, it has not been moved to the disambiguation, but to

neuro^(talk)

16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, I would have thought that what is now at Brittany (administrative region) should be at Brittany - surely the article that most people are looking for? Black Kite 16:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, until today it was Brittany, it was moved to the administrative region article without any consultation. It should be back at Brittany --Snowded (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted (and restored) the edited redirect that was getting in the way of the

WP:BRD cycle. You should be able to move it back now. For future reference, all you need to do is tag such an edited redirect with {{db-move}} and a passing admin will soon delete it for you. There isn't really a reason this sort of thing should be at AN/I. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 16:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but that didn't work, if I try and move it back it says the article already exists. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Anyways, moved it back for you, though I have no opinion on the matter. It was either that or risk leaving such a busy link red for an extended period. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, hopefully the editor who made the move will now discuss it if they feel strongly --Snowded (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You give such a strong impression of
  WP:OWNing everything to do with microsformats, and dragging everybody with whom you have a unilateral dispute to ANI claiming mass damage and destruction (which is often not evident to anyone else) that I don't hold out much hope of this being anything other than shunted elsehwere. Take it to the Wikiproject or RFC is my advice. Guy (Help!
  ) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett has an extensive history of making assertions about the correctness of his positions regarding microformats [42][43][. I was not aware of any of these prior events until recently, and I appear to be only the latest recipient of Mr. Mabbett's oversight of my contributions at Wikipedia. While I maintain a positive outlook towards Andy, I am having a difficult time differentiating his past behavior from his current behavior. Regardless, I have not responded to his frequent personal attacks and hope that memories of this friction will fade with time as we work together regarding our common passion for microformat capability at Wikipedia. I have made repeated attempts at reaching common ground with Pigsonthewing. Although he asserts authority regarding microformats, he quite often makes demonstrably incorrect statements (lamian war)[44] (ISO date for JFK:November 22, 1963 (-07:00))[45] causing me to regard his frequent unsupported assertions with skepticism, and requests for support for his allegations. These are declined, with the remark that he has already responded. My proposal to him as that microformats.org community be the arbiters on the technical points he raises. My repeated inquiry to him is whether he prefers to continue to try to work this out, to agree to binding mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation, or to go to arbcom. So far, I am unclear what his preference is, but I do not see that the incidents board can do much with this, as was the observation in a prior incident (see Fabrictramp recommendation [46]). -J JMesserly (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. You are, of course at liberty to try to demonstrate otherwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Guy above, especially because this is not the first time I remember Pigsonthewing making very, very serious-sounding statements about how everyone else but he is the problem in this obscure formatting dispute.  Sandstein  14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you and guy wish to make ad hominem dismissals of my concerns that is your perogative, but I'd be interested to know why you think emitting a metadata location of "Bouvines {present day France)Bouvines {present day France)Bouvines,  Francelinkback:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines)" is acceptable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually what happened is that we noted your past history of complaints, every one of which turned out on investigation to be a case of you asserting something and other people not agreeing (and, yes, a goodly dose of ad-hominem argument from you as well). The admin noticeboards are for fixing obvious and/or pressing problems. Since the problems you raise are often obvious only to you and disputed by others, and the damage also appears not to be evident to many others, then you are wasting your time keep coming here. We should probably include in the hat notice a comment that this is not the place to come if you are simply not getting your way, which is what seems to be the case here. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated claim of ad hominem argument from me is a blatant lie; the rest of your comments may be true, but do not negate the issues I have raised. I note that you make no comment about the above example of bogus metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked ThomasJeffersonsBane (talk · contribs). This user claims to be a ninth grade teacher at Middletown High School North. He registered a new account yesterday, and tried to hijack the school's article to show an example on why WP is not a good resource for term papers. I reverted them and left a templated warning. He restored the example this morning, which I then re-reverted. I left a clearly-worded, untemplated warning on his talk page. He then restored the example again, this time leaving a note on the article's talk page. At this point I indef blocked him, and left a sharply-worded response on the article talk page.

I just wanted a sanity check. I felt an indef block was necessary, as not only did this user register an account for purposes other than building an encyclopedia, but that he essentially gave a tutorial for future vandals in his class. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's no real likelihood that we'll get anything productive out of him until he starts engaging with us, so indef-as-in-no-expiry looks reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope he teaches the class what he learned from his experiment.

talk

) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. If he wants to act like a high school student, vandalizing for his own reasons, treat him like one. Though I do notice he put his real name on the talk page. We're not out to screw the guy or undermine his authority, suggest we remove his name and modify the edit history--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? He came to vandalize, behaved childishly, then chided the editor who undid the vandalism. Then he identified himself (maybe -- it's possible this is a hoax by one of his students). No one made him put his foot in it. If there are repercussions, he'll have to wear it. A good learning experience.

talk

) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because we are not evil and we do not immortalise people's bad judgement. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but neither need we devote energy to preventing someone from himself immortalizing his bad judgment (cf., our creating an article to memorialize an

IRL bad act, which is active, not passive). The issue is, I know, a trivial one, and I can't imagine that anyone should quarrel with one's removing the guy's name (particularly because don't know whether the user was the person whom he purported to be or simply a student looking to have fun at a teacher's expense and because the putative disruption was innocuous), but I've never understood why we are sometimes eager to assist those who would interfere with our enterprise; if someone of the age of majority who plainly acts in bad faith (by which term I would not characterize the user at bar) makes a public disclosure with which he is later uncomfortable, he is welcome to e-mail OTRS to seek removal, but I simply can't understand why one would seek to help proactively (unless, I guess, out of fealty to some provincial moral scheme to which none of our number, I hope and trust, clings). Joe

22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it does us no harm to be nice, and because by the time the guy would come to us with a problem, it would be too late and the cat would be comprehensively out of the bag. The guy obviously doesn't have a clue and probably has no idea how Web savvy kids are.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You state that it might not be him but may instead be a hoax by his student, then say he has to wear the albatross around his neck anyway? That doesn't make any sense at all. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When I first became aware of schoolblocks I did wonder what process was available for the teacher/lecturer/hall monitor responsible for the students to ensure that we might co-operatively ensure appropriate use of Wikipedia's resources in building encyclopedic content.

As the years pass, I begin to wonder if any such process would ever be needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that The purpose of this experiment encourage students to find the validity of a website for themselves. was not written by a teacher. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work guys. Every so often someone makes me proud to be a member of this fine project. The way this was handled was exemplary. Well done. --John (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another case that makes me feel that we should have a process, perhaps similar to

) closed the following requested moves clearly against consensus, for which I would appreciate feedback:

• Mahilyow to Mogilev: DrKiernan closes the discussion using his own arguments and research
  , disregarding participants who provided a different feedback. If he had a personal position, he should have participated in the discussion and excused himself from closing it. The result was a move war with one one of the participants, which led to move protection. After complaints, DrKiernan reopened this discussion.

• explained on his talk page
  that this is false, but DrKiernan rebuffs and claims that the source provided is "dubious", and doesn't comment on the fact that usage of diacritics on Wikipedia is not affected by the predominance of sources that prefer not to use them. This discussion has not been reopened, nor its resulting move reverted yet.

From these cases, it appears to me that DrKiernan seems to be unaware that, just like other poll-like discussions, personal opinions don't bid well upon closing requested moves, especially if they are used to enforce what's against consensus (or lack of). A review of these cases could prove most useful. Húsönd 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Husond, closing admins on anything even vaguely contentious should be explaining how they understood and evaluated the consensus. That kind of behaviour should be lauded, discussion closures shouldn't be black boxes. WilyD 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Notified
  talk · contribs) about this thread. Exxolon (talk
  ) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• These closures seem to be in line with consensus. WilyD 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Don't see a problem here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Both of these closures seem to be both in line with specific consensus at the article talk pages, and with the more important consensus-established naming convention guidelines. I see no violation here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree as well. I do not see any concerns here. Consensus is always evaluating strengths of arguments, not numbers and if he repeats one argument in his closing statement, even with a new source, it's still not a personal bias. The first example has also, unrelated, an ugly case of wheel-warring as one of the admins (Mzajac (talk · contribs)) involved in the discussion reverted the move.[47] SoWhy 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I was supposed to be either worried or surprised by this kind of feedback, but I'm frankly not. Your message in the end is that next time, instead of wasting my time participating in move discussions, I'll just close them according to the so-called "strength of arguments" and naming convention guidelines that do not exist. After all, there seems to be a clear consensus here for such kind of closures. Which I must say is sadly in line with Wikipedia's growing tendency to move decision making away from the community, and closer to the bureaucracy we were never supposed to be. Húsönd 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you are an admin, you should be able to close discussions based on strength of arguments - that is what judging consensus is about. I don't see your problem that an admin, who has not expressed any opinion about the matter, did just that and I see no change in consensus about that. SoWhy 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Incredible.

that he was a participant who decided to unilaterally move the article—I knew that the majority was against the move, and so I was quite surprised to learn that he considered himself to be closing the request in good faith.

So “Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved” is now out the window? Why bother with move discussions at all? Just pick your favourite “closing admin” and present your opinion to him. Screw the majority, he'll you just have to convince a single judge and jury. If someone protests, then he'll wash his hands of it by “relisting” the article improperly for a few hours until someone else cleans it up, as Dr Kiernan did.

If this is how it works, then there should be a clear explanation at WP:RM of what editors are to expect. What I see is one thing at WP:RM, and completely contrary behaviour being rewarded. This looks like a big crock to me. From now on I'll stick to making my own consensus by closing move requests, rather than participating in them. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 00:58 z

Consenus is not about counting votes, and admins may weigh votes based upon the strength of their arguements especially, vis-a-vis established policies and/or guidelines. It is not enough for a whole bunch of people to simply vote; the admin may choose to disregard or weight votes less where such votes do not indicate a compelling rationale or do not cite established policies and/or guidelines. Policies and guidelines are established by consensus, so votes which cite relevent policies and guidelines tend to have more weight than those that do not. I see no evidence here that DrKiernan acted inappropriately in this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a very big difference between all that and closing a discussion based on your own arguments and views. Again you mention policies and guidelines that have neither been met nor transgressed by arguments presented at the discussion. I find it hard to understand why is it being so difficult to see that these discussions are simple cases when an admin drops by, sides with one of the parties, and closes against the natural outcome. In fact, for the Mogilev discussion, I could've closed it myself when I joined in. In fact, it was already on the backlog at

WP:RM, and there was no consensus to move. But because I had an opinion, I presented it instead of closing, something that DrKiernan should have done as well. Next time, I'll just close, because it is obvious that ANI won't really care if the closing admin acted unilaterally as long as he provided arguments for going against consensus. It's insane and makes me agree more with Haukur who used to say that we should start having votes and not discussions, because there is no point in having a discussion if one single person is going to decide for everybody. Húsönd

12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice required

I'm more of an on-off editor to Wikipedia and usually whenever I return to Wikipedia, I adopt a new username (weirdly, it gives a new motivation to start afresh) and I link these usernames too. My edits done under the usernames

).

Anyways, fact remains, and as I have mentioned before, I have never used two or more accounts to back my case. I can probably recall one small instance on Talk:Delhi but that was short-lived and totally unrelated to this dispute. As far as this dispute with User:Lalit Jagannath is concerned, the problem arises because of this user's massive, biased and sometimes unsourced edits to India-related articles which are made without being discussed. Concerns about his edits have been raised by several users and this is evident by going through his talkpage.

For those who might be interested, seems that User:Lalit has got excessive time to kill. So, he devoted a nice little page to me. I didn't link my blocked account (User:Enigma Machine) to my current one for obvious reasons. Regarding me and my multiple accounts, if fellow Wikipedians think that this does not abide by Wikipedia rules and was unethical, I'm willing to quit Wikipedia for good. I can't assure that I won't return in future since my love for this project is too great, but yes, it would be a lesson hard learned. --Incidious (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have not broken any rules, but attacking me from multiple accounts in a short period of time is not exactly the most ethical thing to do.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Lalit, have I at any point used multiple accounts at the same time to "attack" you? If you would go through your talkpage, I have requested you to discuss your edits multiple times. If requesting is "attacking", then what else can I say? --Incidious (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• What administrator attention is required here? I'm not an admin, but you shouldn't really use multiple accounts, as repeatedly doing so can look like you are evading scrutiny. See
  WP:SOCK for thoughts on the matter. //roux  
  19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I have not specifically made it clear, I wanted to mention my grievance about the edits being made by User:Lalit Jagannath and seek administrators' opinion on this entire matter. --Incidious (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted Jacob after multiple vandalism indidents by (perhaps) multiple users. Might be an article worth watching. Nicsilo (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at

). His edits to bring greater prominence to his own viewpoint are agenda-driven, vague, unencyclopedic, and do not cite verifiable sources, as in the following examples:

• "...many leading reference works... does not always... is often linked... are often simply... seems to be..."
• Inappropriate emplacement of an NPOV template; as consensus has already been established... just, not the one he was hoping for.
• "...often give a richer range of meanings... ...they usually including... often refers... often called... can often suggest..."
• "Humanism often (though not exclusively) refers..."
• Emplacing tiny-minority viewpoint links in prominence within the article, defying
  WP:UNDUE
  .

Two editors have posted over 60 examples of common, modern usage, gleaned in verifiable ways, and Wilson Delgado has attempted to refute (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) perhaps only two or three of them. Furthermore, his own citations to support his minority viewpoint—the OED, which he admitted here does not quantify frequency of use, and the Encyclopædia Britannica, which he actually quoted as disagreeing with his tiny-minority viewpoint, here!—do not address the issue of contention, but he won't cite any additional sources.

His behavior reeks of

:

Dictionaries do not quantify frequency of use, as that is a Sisyphean task, but they have to make general estimates of relevant usage. So I think it would be better just to go to the gold-standard dictionaries, like the OED (unabridged), and see what they do not mark as archaic, rare, or obsolete, for a general sense of the active range of meanings. That is their job and it is futile to try to reproduce in an amateurish way what they dedicate many professional hours to doing.

May we have some help minimizing his damage to Wikipedia, his disregard for verifiable sources, and his agenda to break

) 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Most have a lot of time on his hands today. JonJericoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claude La Badarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ep1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) all look likely to be him based on editing interests, style of edit summaries, etc... I'm sure this will get dealt with in due course, but sometimes sooner is better.

) 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just came to report JonJericoe (talk · contribs) as well; seems fairly obvious. Skomorokh 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has blocked all but Ep1997 - presumably because the link is not obvious (it isn't to me). Can someone provide the rationale for this account being a MS sock? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because of timing and his first edits were to restore content to an article that has been edited by a procession of MS socks (if you scroll through the history, the vast majority of those redlink usernames are his - Deathdestroyer, the most recent editor, has been blocked. He built this article and has been fiddling with it with 7-8 socks ever since.

talk

) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just putting this here for reference: I've apparently inspired a "small child" to want to kill herself. (Background: I found an edit on an IP talkpage from an editor with whom I've had much trouble, mainly in the "competence is required" vein, and warned her for the edit. The IP then showed up on my talk page disputing something I'd said...and signed as the name user. I blocked the IP for 6 months, the name account indefinitely, and explained on both talkpages why that was so. This is the reply.) If ever I was inclined to ignore such a threat, now would be that time--reading this user's contribution history and talk-page comments, there is no earthly reason this individual should be editing here. (She says she's a kid, but also says she's the IP's "boss at work". My utter lack of patience and credulity--let me show you it.) I'd prefer that no one unblock, but if you feel you absolutely must, I'll bite the bullet and deal with it. GJC 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

These things are hardly ever serious, just ignore it.

P.S. i'm becoming more and more convinced that Mayme08 is another sockpuppet of you-know-who. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anytime an editor threatens suicide, just say you'll get back to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, our new SSP page is locked out. To cut a long story short, Special:Contributions/Clownsfield is Plaut, who is toast. Terminal block please.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Let us know if more surface. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia main welcome page ([48]) there is a very tiny, lowercase letter "d" in the upper left corner. It's not highly noticeable since it is very small, but it is annoying to know it's there once it's spotted. I have not kept up to date on recent changes to Wikipedia so I am not aware if it is supposed to be there for any reason. I glanced through the html code of the page and I didn't see anything related to it, although I didn't scour through it. I've also made sure it's not simply my computer or browser, as my friends can see it too. It's a slight blemish if it shouldn't be there, and so should be fixed by someone who has the rights to edit that page.

If this was not the proper place to report this issue, my apologies. I wasn't entirely sure as to where I should post it.—Preceding

)

It's the very last character in the source code after the </html>. I assume the people at meta can edit that page and fix it? Somno (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, apparently I forgot to sign when I posted. Is this something I submit to them (or someone else does)? I'm usually not involved in stuff like this so I don't know what goes on.

) 02:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now fixed by the Meta people. Somno (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ninguém (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to leave Wikipedia and reverted all the "contributions" that he did to old revisions[49] arguing: "The editor who started this article no longer believes Wikipedia is a viable project. For this reason, he is removing all of his contributions <...> Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way".

However, this user keeps posting at Wikipedia and is now attacking other user at talk page of

. He wrote:

"Well, I don't like it. "Not truth" has gotten dangerously important here. But, because I don't like it, I'm leaving; this way, you are going to be free to continue your byzantine game. Good luck. (..)Grimshep, don't lose your time. This isn't serious; it's a power game about enforcing rules against their spirit. So, let me understand this. Do you guys make up a team? A team whose business is to make editing Wikipedia the nastiest experience as possible for other editors?"

This user decided not to contribute for Wikipedia anymore, and even erased all his contributions for Wikipedia, but is now using his account for disruptions and to attack others users. He sould be definitly blocked from Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• He cannot do this - check the box above the edit summary - it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." - his contributions are not excepted. Exxolon (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week pending some explanation or understanding of the problem. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sko1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is once again an edit war going on at that article, being instigated by the same guy, User:Sko1221, a single-purpose account focused on POV-pushing on that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has been in Foie gras controversy for a long time; I don't see a major problem with it existing in this article and it could be argued that removing it is also pushing a POV. It's certainly more encyclopedic that the image of the bottle of wine ... Black Kite 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is alleged to be a photo of a duck being force-fed. Prove it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to think of an alternative reason why a duck/goose in a battery farm should be having a funnel put down its throat. Come on, be realistic - it is a duck being force-fed - compare [50]. Black Kite 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My purpose for wanting this picture to be included is that i know people don't usually read every word on a Wiki page, we usually skim the page. I am adding this picture for those people who want a fair, informational story but want it fast, without having to read each word. There are probably good paying jobs for those who want to create an ad for foie gras, but this is not the place. Thanks, Sarah 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute with no admin action really needed, and consensus here and at

) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The single-purpose, POV-pushing account wins the battle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page of the article; there's no battles to be won, and I had an outstanding question for you on how a visual representation of a physical action described in the article is any kind of a POV push.

T

) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's to try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah here, SKO1221. I have not stayed away, i am not a "sock", i simply forgot to log in so did not show up as SKO.

Never been to either article, just saw this in passing. I would tend to think that an article on Foie gras should concentrate on only the subject matter itself, and not the controversy. That is why there appears to be this separate Foie gras controversy to cover the issue of why people are against this product, rather than the product itself. The Fur clothing article does not contain images of bloody animal pelts, for example. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But the article already has a section on fattening. The image is hardly comparable to bloody animal pelts, it is merely an image of a duck being fattened up to illustrate that section of the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And it has arguably a POV-fork that focuses on the controversy, which is where the picture came from. And the SPA / IP wants the picture in this article, too, as "it's a huge part of the story". [51] Maybe the solution is to put the whole "story" into a single article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just read the controversy article and it reads fairly neutral. It's kinda long to put into the foie gras one. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does the picture need to be in both articles, other than to further push the "cruelty to animals" viewpoint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has removed the picture again, after going through this process of resolution.SKO1221 Sko1221 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

News flash: It ain't resolved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is still ongoing here, now, with another undiscussed reversion.

) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've got here is a single purpose account that turned up in the last day or so for the express purpose of trying to push the "cruelty to animals" angle as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's all well and good, but we don't block to win content disputes.

T

) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought this had been resolved. suggest reversion to resolved edit and lock. Sko1221 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking the single purpose account for POV-pushing and edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And blocks for the other editors edit warring, as well? Regardless of their "original" intention, when more people reviewed it, a consensus seems to have formed/is forming on the talk.

T

) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Page locked until the disputes are resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

suggest blocking baseballs for un-resolving resolved issues.

Here's a suggestion - lets not block anyone. Lets have everyone go to the talk page and put their arguments forwards. Kinda novel idea I know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What protection is there for a resolved issue (other than the temporary locked mode of the page) from edit warring when someone is very POV toward foie gras, as we have seen here? Sko1221 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Let it rest. Don't think for one minute that because some admins happen to agree that the picture should stay that we cannot see that you are in fact the most POV editor on the page. You editing history speaks volumes. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for your help. Sko1221 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking Theresa knott for cruelty to otters over an extended period (no one believed your excuse). Meanwhile, this really does look like a content dispute that should be resolved using

dispute resolution techniques. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am innocent! It's not my fault that I came across a sinking otter, what kind of otter cant swim? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He was force-fed; stuffed with wholly mackeral, to give him a fish oil sleek coat. Alas, he slid under. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take another look at the image source[52]? It looks like it is copyrighted which would make the matter moot. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They require attribution, so does CC-by SA and so does the GFDL doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the owner of the image (Gaia) remove copyright. Will let you all know what i hear.Sko1221 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread was vintage Baseball Bugs.

Tan | 39

01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There was obviously an issue that needed to be raised, although the user who originally turned in SKO to WP:AIV the other day (without success) has kept quiet on this subject today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Until now. He has posted a good-sized argument on the article talk page reinforcing what I said, namely that you all have let the PETA-type POV-pushers win this one. Congratulations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response from Gaia regarding photo copyright can be found on discussion page. Sko1221 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What does everyone think of the idea that Prepared Foie Gras (& Accompaniments) have it's own separate page, just as "Beef" and "Steak" do? Might this help to end the battling going on on the Foie Gras page?Sko1221 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)68.13.134.213 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since you raise the question, I have what I think is a sure-fire way to end the battling there. But you might not like it, involving as it does a topic ban for you. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering

) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

SKO1221, Sarah. As i have said, that is the IP address that shows up when i have forgotten to log in. I have discovered the "keep me logged in for 30 days" button, so you should not see my IP address for the next month.Sko1221 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here:

An editor is trying to discuss this image:

And is being asked for sources on these girls being White...

Is there something that can be done about this? Ninguém (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Two things can be done: the people who are advocating for the picture can provide the references that are apparently not available and end the dispute on the talk page; or you can go to

dispute resolution and get more editors involved. There's nothing administrators can do at this point. Tony Fox (arf!)

02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you mean one actually needs a source stating "these girls are white"? Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone challenges your statement, yes, you need to get a source. See

11

02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And also, before you get upset and think that we are attempting to enforce some ridiculous standard for verifiability, please understand that we do so because claims made without evidence are rarely done so for face value. "We", that is, the pseudonymous and anonymous contributors to wikipedia, have no idea what constitutes "white" in argentina, what "all-white" connotes there or what importance the label carries. Even in the US, white has meant different things to different folks over the years. I could argue that "white" means only anglos or only anlgo-saxons (excluding southern europeans and people on the iberian penninsula). Parsing that terms is a testy business for people who have some qualifications, and "we" (again, those editors to wikipedia) have none. Apart from that is the problem of

due weight. Why is it important that an encyclopedia note that these girls are or appear to be "white" (assuming we can settle on a definition)? Why is it important enough to note in the article and yet not important enough for a single reliable source to mention? What are we insinuating to our readers about the basketball team? the problems are myriad. The solution is simple. Just find a source or remove the description. And as Tony says above, this isn't an issue for admin intervention. Protonk (talk

) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least a couple of them look Hispanic to my eye, which indicates that calling them "white" is original research or personal interpretation. The picture's description doesn't say they're white kids, it says they are kids in a Celtic dancing class. That description seems to square with the photo, so it would be reasonable to use the photo in an article about Celtic dancing. Asserting that they are "white" is inappropriate not just because of the subjective nature of drawing conclusions from a photo, but also because "white" is a colloquial term lacking a strict definition. In fact, if "white" is taken to mean "caucasian", then everyone in Argentina is "white", except for those whose ancestors are aboriginal peoples or who intermarried with aboriginal peoples. In short, lacking further evidence, the picture shouldn't be used as an illustration of "White Latin Americans". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• What Bugs said. We have had the same problem over and over with images supposedly illustrating ethnic types - "but s/he looks white to me" doesn't cut it. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive for the details. It's a mixture of BLP vios, trolling, spamming and socking so I am posting here. The case just closed as it seemed that no one could agree on how to proceed or what was necessary, but there is a distinct pattern to the edits and an obvious intent to self promote and inflame. The final recoemmendation was to bring it up here. It seemed clear to everyone who commented in the case and outside of it that the sockpuppets are clearly him and that the contributions were all both predictable and highly undesirable. There have been no edits since the SSP case was opened but there has never been any discussion from the editor(s) and from the wide range of articles edited in the past it will not be obvious where he will appear next without following his blog to see what the next topic is. There is a WPSPAM case on michaelcrook.net too. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Socks are blocked and the last spammed site added to the blacklist (

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination)

. Have I missed anything? I think we should characterise this one as banned, over two years of self-promotion, BLP violations, block evasion, sockpuppetry and spamming.

• Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Whatgoesup11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• ohiotruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Freedomblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 72.49.47.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Anotherblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• ScottMiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• michaelcrook.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• michael-crook.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• mikewww.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Did I miss any? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is it just my impression or could we just as well add "4truth" or "fortruth" to the
  WP:UAA bot's block-on-sight regex? These usernames often signal ... less than constructive intentions. (Just half kidding...)  Sandstein 
  12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Words like truth, justice, freedom and so on are very often indicative of people whose time here is short but turbulent. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you guys - "for truth" nearly always means "for

The Truth™" - it's a damn reliable indicator of tendentious POV editing. — Gavia immer (talk

) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean this seriously rather than just rhetorically, no, I can imagine someone naive enough to use it in good faith. DGG (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine it too. Be nice to know if it has ever happened... Guy (Help!) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blogging4right (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Mbn01291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ebn6701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Probably a pile of IPs as well, and I am sure these are not the last of the sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think there are more, we can always reopen the case, and request a CU. Synergy 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A few observations. The name is painfully reminiscent of User:Kossack4Truth, one of last year's most disagreeable sockpuppets - although the editing patterns are not at all similar. If there is sockpuppetry, and it is all designed to promote Michael Crook, considered by many to be an "internet agitator",[53] then it is best to know about it and may be useful deal with it in organized fashion. Speaking of that, why is the Michael Crook article salted? The reasons for deletion were invalid at least in light of what we now know (he is real, he is notable,[54] and has been involved in well reported lawsuits raising Internet privacy and DMCA copyright issues).[55][56] Like it or not you can self-promote your way to notoriety off-Wikipedia, and that notoriety may well make a person notable for Wikipedia purposes. The COI editing and sockpuppetry are a different matter, one we should take seriously in light of the person's being in the profession, apparently, of creating Internet scandals about himself.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary to CU, these are all blindingly obvious - his MO is to cite himself, link his name and add links to his blog or other blogs quoting him. Our old friend the

Canard Abuse Detector is probably adequate to the task for now. The consensus at the last deletion debate was that any notability (or more accuratley notoriety) was passed; the rate of comment on him was low and appears to me to be tailing off. Michael Moore he ain't. Guy (Help!

) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So then we assume it's all sockpuppeting by the person in question? The !vote was 9-7 in favor of deletion (7-5 if one discounts the contributions the closing administrator stated as discounted) but the entire process was problematic - canvassing, sockpuppetry, manipulation, and it would be hard to say that the decision was made on grounds of notability. Notability doesn't diminish over time - either the subject is notable or he is not. He does formally meet WP:BIO - full articles / segments devoted to him over a span of years on a variety of subjects on CNN, Fox News, and some less significant publications. Most of that coverage came after the AfD, so it is not controlling. There's no policy reason why the article cannot be recreated. The salting seemed to be out of frustration.Wikidemon (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm actually proposing to do it... I think the ratio of encyclopedic value to wikidrama would be very slim, plus I try to only recreate controversial deletions[57] when I know I'm going to succeed. Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The following editors are going around starting trouble for anyone writing anything the slightest bit outside their tastes on the Obama page and causing general chaos on the talk pages. ACORN is a big story concerning Obama as he personally worked there as a principle and this story was carried by all the networks in prime time repeatedly. Anything I or anyone else writes on the story is either deleted with blocks on the writer, done immediately within moments without warnings or archived if consensus is seen to be had. The discussions there have been turned into a rat's nest due to these continuous disruptions.

Further user "User:Brothejr" seems to pop out of nowhere, threatening me and others with messages that never end up at my userpage or anywhere to dif. I have missed key discussions with other editors on sourcing because they deleted pertinent discussion on this in moments of it being put up and this has warded off other editors trying to work with me. I have to dig into deleted scrambled mess to to see what they are talking about, it's very annoying. They wrongly interfering with proper editing and some are using profanity such as user User:Sceptre in the Voter Fraud section (which should have "ACORN" in the title but this is guarded and immediately deleted). It is presently effectively blocked by "archiving" in talk which is ridiculous and I don't know how to dif an archive attack but it is there under "Allegations of Voter Fraud".

The ACORN case is not a "fringy" issue but front and center in Obama's personal, direct election activities now being investigated by the FBI and current. Attacking of anyone and threatening editors talking about it with "this is your only warnings" threats is highly disruptive. One editor working with me: User:Die4Dixie has "retired" from Wikipedia due to all this. Other editors finally went into a rage and were blocked, such as user User:Ratttso. I request that these editors set forth below be blocked so I can edit in peace if they cannot stop their disruptive actions and edit in good faith and they appear not to be stopping this major disruptive activity no matter what [58][59]

Disruptive editors: User:Wikidemon User:Sceptre

User:Brothejr

-- Larrry2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

More POV-pushing by the conservapediacs who can't stand that they lost the election. Pay it no never-mind. P.S. Looks like I have to start watching the page again, so he'll probably add me to the above list. So it goes. P.P.S. I don't normally mess with other users' comments, but he had the names posted incorrectly and hence uselessly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was here for a couple of days spouting racist bilge before he was blocked as being a block-evading sock. Hard telling who he was a sock of. I can see one possible clue, but I'll leave that to the experts. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The complaining editor doesn't appear to have actually edited the Obama article with this account. The diffs provided don't seem inappropriate to me; this is a BLP, there's forum-type discussion in the removed posts with some potential problems included. Without specific diffs for the claims, I tend to agree with Bugs that this is just a continuation of the usual problems there. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No edits under that name, anyway. Again, that's for the experts to consider. Ironically, Die4Dixie leveled some strong criticism at Rattttso's approach [60]. As far as any admin action to take... well, they could start by blanking Rattttso's pages and taking away his ability to edit said pages, as he is using them only for soapboxing. As far as Larrrry2 is concerned, his activities probably bear watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, material about ACORN doesn't belong in the Obama bio page. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the Obama campaign page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretty obviously Ratttso when not signed on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, 71.114.8.82, who is just coming off a short block, made the same mistake in his unblock request [61] of failing to put "User:" in front of the user name, that Larrry2 did when he initially posted here: [62] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a common newbie mistake. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, he made 3 edits in July, then nothing until today, at least not under that name. It's pretty clear that these three editors are either all the same guy or they're working in concert on the same topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Larrry2 admits to being 71.114.8.82. [63] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, the usual noise from editors who would be happier working on the conservapedia version of this article (and if you have never read their version, you should, it's a perfect example of the difference between here or there). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably obvious already, but Larrry2 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be Ratttso (talk · contribs) and Cc2po (talk · contribs). IP hardblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. As noted above, in this edit, the IP tacitly admits to being User:Larrry2: [64] Meanwhile, edits like these (tinkering with each others' edits) suggest that the IP is also the indef-blocked User:Ratttso: [65][66][67] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh...I contacted the helpline to speed things along. Blocked problem editors need to be given as little time as possible, because the longer they get, the more damage they cause (and of course, the more of a problem they are). Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's cheating! Good work, though. :) So with any and all due respect to the other editor, NOW there's nothing to see here... unless the complainant has further socks lurking, and if so, I'm sure they'll make their presence known soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And another one goes down - see User:RadioShack1234. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's another case of a sleeper that was created in June, did a few edits, and then went dormant until today. I wonder how many others there are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's this other character called

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given this comment [[68]] I wonder if this is really all the same guy, or at least a "team" who are focused on certain articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NEWS FLASH: Conservapedia "Tells the Truth" And thus the IP address (whose life has been ruined by this three-month block) promises [69] to continue vandalizing. In other news stories, we'll reveal who's buried in Grant's Tomb. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Bugs, maybe you can take a minute to enlighten me as to what this is about? It's OT here so on my talk page maybe. Are the cons claiming that Obama's election was nearly as fraudulent as Dubya's first? That would be quite funny given the size of his majority. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ACORN is an organization that was active in recruiting new voters. A lot of them apparently voted Democratic, as previously disenfranchised voters often do, and some Republican supporters are trying to... well, I'm not sure what they're trying to do. They're not going to overturn the election. So basically they're just trying smear Obama with what is essentially now a dead news story. And as you say, where were they in 2000 and 2004, when the shoe was on the other foot? Pushing for Bush's election and re-election, of course. So these guys are just using wikipedia as a partisan playground, trying to get away with as much POV-pushing as they can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order

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

The IP posted a lengthy ACORN-related diatribe on his talk page, which I reverted. [70] Should the talk page be cleared and protected? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably just cruising for another block.

Grsz

Nevermind, just talk page. Oh well.

11

03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is whether clearing it over and over is a 3RR violation. Normally I wouldn't care, but the ACORN rant could be argued to be a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Two editors disagree both with the naming policy and with each other. They have been disrupting Wikipedia flora editing for over three months now.

His arguments may make sense to him, and this appears to be the case, that he believes he is making a supportable argument, that the general guidelines that mention using the specific guideline are being violated when you use the specific guideline that general guidelines refer the user to. However, it is not possible to discuss an issue when what a user is drawing inferences that are not supported by what he claims.

He continues to revert and tag policy[73] while making his unsupported arguments that the policy doesn't say what is says. I asked that an administrator ask him to stop inserting his personal grudge in the naming conventions policy. In over 3 months he has gained no support for his stance. It's time to stop allowing him to play games that have rules written for only one person. --KP Botany (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the other half of the section above, #User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora). Two policy warriors, falsely insisting beyond all reason that the long-establised flora naming convention violates the core convention, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, demanding that it must be rewritten in accordance with their demands, denying the existence of a strong consensus against them, arguing incessantly, edit warring on the convention page, FOR THREE F*CKING MONTHS!

The amount of plant editors' time that has been wasted by these two is simply unforgiveable. It is a shame that Wikipedia is not very well equipped to deal with this kind of disruption. As I expected, posting to AN/I is pointless; these complains only end up in the too-hard basket.

Hesperian 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's really a three-month-long problem and if it's been wasting people's time, then it could be worth the effort for someone to open up an

WP:RFC/U against one or both of these editors. You could request a topic ban from certain policy and Talk pages, if you believe such a remedy is justified. I think most admins would need to see more evidence of genuine disruption (than what is given above) before taking any action. EdJohnston (talk

) 06:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? 3 months of reverted edits on multiple policy pages isn't disruptive? Since when? And the response is to give them more of our time so busy administrators can multiply overdeal with easier issues? Hesperian's always right. --KP Botany (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what RFC is for, I think. Of course it's disruptive at some level, the point is that it needs to be sorted, and in a way that establishes in a way everyone can get behind, which answer is right. I don't think we can ride in with the banhammer swinging and somehow sort this, it is not that kind of dispute. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment KP Botany is involved in another conversation on this page.[74] that includes comments by KPB:

• Who would even read that notice? I couldn't get past the first two lines. ....
• No. I simply can't read it. It's drivel ...
  • Define can't please.— User:Daedalus969
• Let me define drivel instead: "saliva dripping from the mouth." If the person doesn't have a napkin, hand them one. If they have one already, don't stare. (06:27, 22 February 2009)

This is par for the course. For example this posting to my talk page informing me that he had started this ANI:[75]

I have posted about this at

WP:AN/I. Go play there

for a month or two. (22:03, 21 February 2009)

I'll let other administrators decide if a complaint from a person who is makes such comments to other editors is likely to file a complaint that has any substance to it. --

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As for

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Haven't we seen this show before? I for one am sick of reruns. Do a nice neutral RFC on the whole thing and stop cluttering AN/I with content disputes. //roux   11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. It is one editor disputing Wikipedia policies/guidelines. He's spent three months trying to get anyone to agree with him, and no one has. It is disruption. --KP Botany (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Request immediate blocking of User:Bulletin des Lois (suspected Sockpuppet of User:TomPhan) for these edits to my user page/talk page: [76][77] and removal of said postings. This is an indef blocked user with an hostile history. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.

For future reference, please don't use red highlighted headings here - the "Death threat" information will get everyone's attention as quickly as anything can. Use of extra formatting here is strongly frowned upon.

Let us know here if they return with another account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: edits were also oversighted by others as I was applying the block. Marking resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, the alteration of the headline was in the spirit of

WP:IAR and I deliberately broke the rules naming conventions to attract attention. Now that the issue has been addressed, I see no reason to keep it in that format. I realized this matter needed to be handled in an expeditious manner and I felt every little bit helped. — BQZip01 — ^talk

04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The big problem is that non-text markup in section headings can break navigation by section anchors, such as the table of contents. That's probably not what you want -it makes your section harder to navigate to, and less likely to be read, not more so. The annoyance factor of colored headings (which is pretty large) is much less important than that. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This goes beyond the "simple, obvious" mandate of

) 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing for 7 months, with every edit reverted? That's got to be a record. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Per CheckUser results could some admin block

) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Death threats by 66.99.218.13

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

Was already blocked for vandalism and posted death threats to own talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Death threats on the internet: serious business. If we're not careful he'll...type mean things at you. (In retrospect, that doesn't seem very threatening, does it?) HalfShadow 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

, have been removing large amounts of heavily sourced material representing the Shi'a Muslim point of view concerning the death of a historical figure central to Shi'a Islam.

At first, the websites initially used as references, namely

the passage concerning religious sources in the manual of style earlier this month.

Unless I'm mistaken, AA's protection of the article is a dangerous misuse of administrative tools and his behavior, as well as that of Itaqallah, should be dealt with accordingly and the issue should be resolved once and for all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.80.63 (talk • contribs)

I smell a Plaxico...(

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll also want to look at a few the edit summaries of the

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

shame on Bwilkins for stealing Bug's "plaxico" comparison. ;)

talk

) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I graciously grant rights to the "Plaxico" metaphor to any and all wikipedia users. Unless the real Plaxico shows up, in which case ... byeeee. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, if the real Plaxico shows up, you're safe unless you're somewhere near his groin. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 10:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Me? No. Mongo straight! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Although another good metaphor is the one hinted at by JzG/Guy, which is the punchline of a joke: "Is that you, Stosh?" "Yeh!" KABOOM! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New user Yo.Li.Ha.Gu.Is.Ba. (talk · contribs) has left a couple of trolling messages, signing them as other editors: here and here. I've left a warning but this looks like a likely vandalism-only account which may need to be blocked so I thought I'd alert folks here. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Clear trolling account, so I went ahead and blocked it. Call me

a rouge admin if you will. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, any username that has "Is Ba(ck)" in it is almost certainly a returning blocked editor. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The disruption is not nearly as bad as it was but it is continuing. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV are the proper places to go. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Ram Sena

There appears to be an issue reguarding the

) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sathishmls needs a lecture on What Wikipedia Is NOT. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the section Bias says "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. ... When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed". The article Sri Ram Sena violates this.

Though the article has news from the verified source, the editorial is biased. Anyone can easily observe this by just viewing the article of Sri Ram Sena.

The above is my request. Thank you. Sathishmls (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone introduce

00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. Black Kite 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I wondered how long that one would last. 2 days, as it turns out. The Iceman Cometh. The Axmann goeth. It could be worthwhile to see if he has any connection with the sock farm that was blocked yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear violation of

WP:LEGAL; blocked until threat is withdrawn. Going to go pour myself a glass of wine and watch the Oscars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 00:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FQ, you just blocked the victim, not the person who made the statement. I suggest you apologize. Black Kite blocked the person who made the threat. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suck. Let the floggings commence. I apologize immediately and wholeheartedly, and bare my head for the inevitable

trout-slapping. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - last time I did a legal threats block, I made an even worse hash of it. Black Kite 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And I dicked a similar block, involving death threats, right before I went on break. v-_-v -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He just got started on that Oscar wine a little early. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the addition to block log. I had a really good laugh.;) Either that or it's the Jack and cokes I'm having while watching the Oscars. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, tonight's host is supposed to be a huge Jack fan. Or something like that. Meanwhile, the guy says he's withdrawing his legal threat, but he apparently still thinks the 1st Amendment grants him the in/on/unalienable right to edit wikipedia. (It does say so, ya know, in the fine print. The four fathers anticipated the internet.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton. I count five fathers.--64.85.217.219 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Bugs meant the Founding Fathers. In any case, Jefferson never had a role in writing the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. —kurykh 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So he was right -- it was the 4 fathers. Apologies, it's my first day. --64.85.217.219 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Much more mundanely, bugs could have meant "fore" fathers. :) Protonk (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could have. Or I could have been citing Lincoln, who talked about the four fathers who scored for seven years at his Gettysburg address. Or something like that; I wasn't paying close attention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you are awesome. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Axmann8 (talk · contribs) is now requesting to be unblocked. --auburnpilot talk 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm torn. the diff posted above isn't really a legal threat so much as it is incoherent. But it does seem that he's one of a host of folks who are just here to tell us the TRUTH about Obama's birthplace. As such, I'm not rushing to unblock him over nuances. Protonk (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moot. He's been unblocked. Should we mark this as resolved? Protonk (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Sko1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- There is once again an edit war going on at that article, being instigated by the same guy, User:Sko1221, a single-purpose account focused on POV-pushing on that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

The image has been in Foie gras controversy for a long time; I don't see a major problem with it existing in this article and it could be argued that removing it is also pushing a POV. It's certainly more encyclopedic that the image of the bottle of wine ... Black Kite 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

It is alleged to be a photo of a duck being force-fed. Prove it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I am hard-pressed to think of an alternative reason why a duck/goose in a battery farm should be having a funnel put down its throat. Come on, be realistic - it is a duck being force-fed - compare [80]. Black Kite 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - My purpose for wanting this picture to be included is that i know people don't usually read every word on a Wiki page, we usually skim the page. I am adding this picture for those people who want a fair, informational story but want it fast, without having to read each word. There are probably good paying jobs for those who want to create an ad for foie gras, but this is not the place. Thanks, Sarah 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - This is a pure content dispute with no admin action really needed, and consensus here and at

) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

The single-purpose, POV-pushing account wins the battle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Please discuss this on the talk page of the article; there's no battles to be won, and I had an outstanding question for you on how a visual representation of a physical action described in the article is any kind of a POV push.

T

) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

It's to try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Hi, Sarah here, SKO1221. I have not stayed away, i am not a "sock", i simply forgot to log in so did not show up as SKO.

- -

Never been to either article, just saw this in passing. I would tend to think that an article on Foie gras should concentrate on only the subject matter itself, and not the controversy. That is why there appears to be this separate Foie gras controversy to cover the issue of why people are against this product, rather than the product itself. The Fur clothing article does not contain images of bloody animal pelts, for example. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

But the article already has a section on fattening. The image is hardly comparable to bloody animal pelts, it is merely an image of a duck being fattened up to illustrate that section of the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

And it has arguably a POV-fork that focuses on the controversy, which is where the picture came from. And the SPA / IP wants the picture in this article, too, as "it's a huge part of the story". [81] Maybe the solution is to put the whole "story" into a single article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I have just read the controversy article and it reads fairly neutral. It's kinda long to put into the foie gras one. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Why does the picture need to be in both articles, other than to further push the "cruelty to animals" viewpoint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Someone has removed the picture again, after going through this process of resolution.SKO1221 Sko1221 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

News flash: It ain't resolved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Edit warring is still ongoing here, now, with another undiscussed reversion.

) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

What you've got here is a single purpose account that turned up in the last day or so for the express purpose of trying to push the "cruelty to animals" angle as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

And that's all well and good, but we don't block to win content disputes.

T

) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- i thought this had been resolved. suggest reversion to resolved edit and lock. Sko1221 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Suggest blocking the single purpose account for POV-pushing and edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

And blocks for the other editors edit warring, as well? Regardless of their "original" intention, when more people reviewed it, a consensus seems to have formed/is forming on the talk.

T

) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Page locked until the disputes are resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - suggest blocking baseballs for un-resolving resolved issues.

- -

Here's a suggestion - lets not block anyone. Lets have everyone go to the talk page and put their arguments forwards. Kinda novel idea I know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- - What protection is there for a resolved issue (other than the temporary locked mode of the page) from edit warring when someone is very POV toward foie gras, as we have seen here? Sko1221 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

What? Let it rest. Don't think for one minute that because some admins happen to agree that the picture should stay that we cannot see that you are in fact the most POV editor on the page. You editing history speaks volumes. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

- Makes sense, thanks for your help. Sko1221 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Suggest blocking Theresa knott for cruelty to otters over an extended period (no one believed your excuse). Meanwhile, this really does look like a content dispute that should be resolved using

dispute resolution techniques. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I am innocent! It's not my fault that I came across a sinking otter, what kind of otter cant swim? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

-

He was force-fed; stuffed with wholly mackeral, to give him a fish oil sleek coat. Alas, he slid under. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Can someone take another look at the image source[82]? It looks like it is copyrighted which would make the matter moot. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-

They require attribution, so does CC-by SA and so does the GFDL doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- I have requested the owner of the image (Gaia) remove copyright. Will let you all know what i hear.Sko1221 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

-

This thread was vintage Baseball Bugs.

Tan | 39

01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

-

There was obviously an issue that needed to be raised, although the user who originally turned in SKO to WP:AIV the other day (without success) has kept quiet on this subject today. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Until now. He has posted a good-sized argument on the article talk page reinforcing what I said, namely that you all have let the PETA-type POV-pushers win this one. Congratulations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- Response from Gaia regarding photo copyright can be found on discussion page. Sko1221 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- - What does everyone think of the idea that Prepared Foie Gras (& Accompaniments) have it's own separate page, just as "Beef" and "Steak" do? Might this help to end the battling going on on the Foie Gras page?Sko1221 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)68.13.134.213 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• Since you raise the question, I have what I think is a sure-fire way to end the battling there. But you might not like it, involving as it does a topic ban for you. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- I'm wondering

) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

SKO1221, Sarah. As i have said, that is the IP address that shows up when i have forgotten to log in. I have discovered the "keep me logged in for 30 days" button, so you should not see my IP address for the next month.Sko1221 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

-

, have been removing large amounts of heavily sourced material representing the Shi'a Muslim point of view concerning the death of a historical figure central to Shi'a Islam.

- - At first, the websites initially used as references, namely

the passage concerning religious sources in the manual of style earlier this month.

- - Unless I'm mistaken, AA's protection of the article is a dangerous misuse of administrative tools and his behavior, as well as that of Itaqallah, should be dealt with accordingly and the issue should be resolved once and for all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.80.63 (talk • contribs)

- -

I smell a Plaxico...(

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

You'll also want to look at a few the edit summaries of the

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

shame on Bwilkins for stealing Bug's "plaxico" comparison. ;)

talk

) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I graciously grant rights to the "Plaxico" metaphor to any and all wikipedia users. Unless the real Plaxico shows up, in which case ... byeeee. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

IIRC, if the real Plaxico shows up, you're safe unless you're somewhere near his groin. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 10:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Me? No. Mongo straight! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Although another good metaphor is the one hinted at by JzG/Guy, which is the punchline of a joke: "Is that you, Stosh?" "Yeh!" KABOOM! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- - Two editors disagree both with the naming policy and with each other. They have been disrupting Wikipedia flora editing for over three months now.

- -

- - His arguments may make sense to him, and this appears to be the case, that he believes he is making a supportable argument, that the general guidelines that mention using the specific guideline are being violated when you use the specific guideline that general guidelines refer the user to. However, it is not possible to discuss an issue when what a user is drawing inferences that are not supported by what he claims.

- - He continues to revert and tag policy[85] while making his unsupported arguments that the policy doesn't say what is says. I asked that an administrator ask him to stop inserting his personal grudge in the naming conventions policy. In over 3 months he has gained no support for his stance. It's time to stop allowing him to play games that have rules written for only one person. --KP Botany (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

This is the other half of the section above, #User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora). Two policy warriors, falsely insisting beyond all reason that the long-establised flora naming convention violates the core convention, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, demanding that it must be rewritten in accordance with their demands, denying the existence of a strong consensus against them, arguing incessantly, edit warring on the convention page, FOR THREE F*CKING MONTHS!

-

The amount of plant editors' time that has been wasted by these two is simply unforgiveable. It is a shame that Wikipedia is not very well equipped to deal with this kind of disruption. As I expected, posting to AN/I is pointless; these complains only end up in the too-hard basket.

-

Hesperian 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If it's really a three-month-long problem and if it's been wasting people's time, then it could be worth the effort for someone to open up an

WP:RFC/U against one or both of these editors. You could request a topic ban from certain policy and Talk pages, if you believe such a remedy is justified. I think most admins would need to see more evidence of genuine disruption (than what is given above) before taking any action. EdJohnston (talk

) 06:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Really? 3 months of reverted edits on multiple policy pages isn't disruptive? Since when? And the response is to give them more of our time so busy administrators can multiply overdeal with easier issues? Hesperian's always right. --KP Botany (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

This is what RFC is for, I think. Of course it's disruptive at some level, the point is that it needs to be sorted, and in a way that establishes in a way everyone can get behind, which answer is right. I don't think we can ride in with the banhammer swinging and somehow sort this, it is not that kind of dispute. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - - At the moment KP Botany is involved in another conversation on this page.[86] that includes comments by KPB:

-

-

• Who would even read that notice? I couldn't get past the first two lines. ....

-

• No. I simply can't read it. It's drivel ...

-

• • Define can't please.— User:Daedalus969

-

• Let me define drivel instead: "saliva dripping from the mouth." If the person doesn't have a napkin, hand them one. If they have one already, don't stare. (06:27, 22 February 2009)

- This is par for the course. For example this posting to my talk page informing me that he had started this ANI:[87]

-

I have posted about this at

WP:AN/I. Go play there

for a month or two. (22:03, 21 February 2009)

- I'll let other administrators decide if a complaint from a person who is makes such comments to other editors is likely to file a complaint that has any substance to it. --

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - As for

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

talk

) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• Haven't we seen this show before? I for one am sick of reruns. Do a nice neutral RFC on the whole thing and stop cluttering AN/I with content disputes. //roux   11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

It's not a content dispute. It is one editor disputing Wikipedia policies/guidelines. He's spent three months trying to get anyone to agree with him, and no one has. It is disruption. --KP Botany (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- -

- For some reason, our new SSP page is locked out. To cut a long story short, Special:Contributions/Clownsfield is Plaut, who is toast. Terminal block please.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Indef blocked. Let us know if more surface. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- - Here:

- - An editor is trying to discuss this image:

- -

- - And is being asked for sources on these girls being White...

- - Is there something that can be done about this? Ninguém (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Two things can be done: the people who are advocating for the picture can provide the references that are apparently not available and end the dispute on the talk page; or you can go to

dispute resolution and get more editors involved. There's nothing administrators can do at this point. Tony Fox (arf!)

02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - So, you mean one actually needs a source stating "these girls are white"? Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If someone challenges your statement, yes, you need to get a source. See

11

02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

And also, before you get upset and think that we are attempting to enforce some ridiculous standard for verifiability, please understand that we do so because claims made without evidence are rarely done so for face value. "We", that is, the pseudonymous and anonymous contributors to wikipedia, have no idea what constitutes "white" in argentina, what "all-white" connotes there or what importance the label carries. Even in the US, white has meant different things to different folks over the years. I could argue that "white" means only anglos or only anlgo-saxons (excluding southern europeans and people on the iberian penninsula). Parsing that terms is a testy business for people who have some qualifications, and "we" (again, those editors to wikipedia) have none. Apart from that is the problem of

due weight. Why is it important that an encyclopedia note that these girls are or appear to be "white" (assuming we can settle on a definition)? Why is it important enough to note in the article and yet not important enough for a single reliable source to mention? What are we insinuating to our readers about the basketball team? the problems are myriad. The solution is simple. Just find a source or remove the description. And as Tony says above, this isn't an issue for admin intervention. Protonk (talk

) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - At least a couple of them look Hispanic to my eye, which indicates that calling them "white" is original research or personal interpretation. The picture's description doesn't say they're white kids, it says they are kids in a Celtic dancing class. That description seems to square with the photo, so it would be reasonable to use the photo in an article about Celtic dancing. Asserting that they are "white" is inappropriate not just because of the subjective nature of drawing conclusions from a photo, but also because "white" is a colloquial term lacking a strict definition. In fact, if "white" is taken to mean "caucasian", then everyone in Argentina is "white", except for those whose ancestors are aboriginal peoples or who intermarried with aboriginal peoples. In short, lacking further evidence, the picture shouldn't be used as an illustration of "White Latin Americans". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• What Bugs said. We have had the same problem over and over with images supposedly illustrating ethnic types - "but s/he looks white to me" doesn't cut it. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- -

- On the Wikipedia main welcome page ([88]) there is a very tiny, lowercase letter "d" in the upper left corner. It's not highly noticeable since it is very small, but it is annoying to know it's there once it's spotted. I have not kept up to date on recent changes to Wikipedia so I am not aware if it is supposed to be there for any reason. I glanced through the html code of the page and I didn't see anything related to it, although I didn't scour through it. I've also made sure it's not simply my computer or browser, as my friends can see it too. It's a slight blemish if it shouldn't be there, and so should be fixed by someone who has the rights to edit that page.

- - If this was not the proper place to report this issue, my apologies. I wasn't entirely sure as to where I should post it.—Preceding

)

- -

It's the very last character in the source code after the </html>. I assume the people at meta can edit that page and fix it? Somno (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Oops, apparently I forgot to sign when I posted. Is this something I submit to them (or someone else does)? I'm usually not involved in stuff like this so I don't know what goes on.

) 02:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

It's now fixed by the Meta people. Somno (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- -

• Ninguém (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to leave Wikipedia and reverted all the "contributions" that he did to old revisions[89] arguing: "The editor who started this article no longer believes Wikipedia is a viable project. For this reason, he is removing all of his contributions <...> Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way".

- - However, this user keeps posting at Wikipedia and is now attacking other user at talk page of

. He wrote:

- - "Well, I don't like it. "Not truth" has gotten dangerously important here. But, because I don't like it, I'm leaving; this way, you are going to be free to continue your byzantine game. Good luck. (..)Grimshep, don't lose your time. This isn't serious; it's a power game about enforcing rules against their spirit.

- So, let me understand this. Do you guys make up a team? A team whose business is to make editing Wikipedia the nastiest experience as possible for other editors?"

- - This user decided not to contribute for Wikipedia anymore, and even erased all his contributions for Wikipedia, but is now using his account for disruptions and to attack others users. He sould be definitly blocked from Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

• He cannot do this - check the box above the edit summary - it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." - his contributions are not excepted. Exxolon (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Blocked for a week pending some explanation or understanding of the problem. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- -

- Request immediate blocking of User:Bulletin des Lois (suspected Sockpuppet of User:TomPhan) for these edits to my user page/talk page: [90][91] and removal of said postings. This is an indef blocked user with an hostile history. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Indefinitely blocked.

-

For future reference, please don't use red highlighted headings here - the "Death threat" information will get everyone's attention as quickly as anything can. Use of extra formatting here is strongly frowned upon.

-

Let us know here if they return with another account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Note: edits were also oversighted by others as I was applying the block. Marking resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Thank you. For the record, the alteration of the headline was in the spirit of

WP:IAR and I deliberately broke the rules naming conventions to attract attention. Now that the issue has been addressed, I see no reason to keep it in that format. I realized this matter needed to be handled in an expeditious manner and I felt every little bit helped. — BQZip01 — ^talk

04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

The big problem is that non-text markup in section headings can break navigation by section anchors, such as the table of contents. That's probably not what you want -it makes your section harder to navigate to, and less likely to be read, not more so. The annoyance factor of colored headings (which is pretty large) is much less important than that. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

- - The disruption is not nearly as bad as it was but it is continuing. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

I have been monitoring on the Korean cuisine article for a good time now and seen (and participated in) quite a bit of drama over this article. I recently have encountered a conversation between two editors, Melonbarmonster2 and Santaria360, who are discussing contacting people outside WP in order to force their views on this article.

The comment I am referring to is here.

Furthermore, there is an issue of improper and uncivil comments on the article's talk page as well as derogatory statements towards a major contributor,

that is being used expressly to push a specific POV, to which I agree. Complicating the issue is Melonbarmonster has been repeatedly blocked over this issue, and has been feuding with other editors as well.

I am unsure what should be done in this situation as this is a clear violation of the policies of WP, as well as the spirit. Considering my history with this subject and these editors I am asking that an uninvolved Admin please take a look at the situation and respond as needed.

--Jeremy (blah blah 08:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it is ignorable. It's a content dispute, and a pretty minor one. If he wants to email people who are experts on Korean food then let him do just that - the more experts we get the better. Yes it does look like he's trying to push a POV and is being resisted, but Badagnani has been around long enough to know how to handle this. Thanks for the heads-up, ut I don't think this is actionable right now. Have you let Badagnani know, though? Guy (Help!) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I beg to disagree. He's not planning to recruit more experts, he's planning to recruit more disruption. Building up public pressure through national mass media, and pressure not only on the content of the article, but explicitly also on individual opposing editors. (The term "meatpuppeting", in this context, sounds a bit weird though, doesn't it? Anyway...)

  This is also not a "minor" content dispute. It may be lame, but it's been one of the hotspots of Korea-related ethnic feuding for years. I have long maintained that we must follow a strict zero-tolerance policy on ethnic battleground behaviour in this domain, with blocks and topic bans at least as quick as in the Balkan topics. This warrants, at the very least, a very stern warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  (P.S.) it occurs to me Guy may have misunderstood a part of the message there: "send an email to Chosun Ilbo" is not "email people who are experts on Korean food".

  Chosun Ilbo isn't some guy who knows stuff about food, it's a mass-market Korean newspaper (which has been known to have incited meatpuppet campaigns through its coverage of Wikipedia issues on other occasions, if I remember correctly). Fut.Perf. ☼

  12:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I notifed the two users. I'm curious. Is there a link to where Melonbarmonster2 is also discussing contacting people outside of Wikipedia? All I see is a comment from Santaria360 but nothing in reply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop the conversation, but if everyone here is in agreement that dog should belong along with beef, chicken, and pork in Korean food section, can you please explain to me why? Why are you so adamant on dog being mentioned with those other staple meats? I can go on and on about other countries’ weird diets and how it’s barely a blimp on Wiki, but I’m going to focus on Korea for this argument and I’ve stated my case in the discussions. I acknowledged that dogs do get consumed in Korea. I looked up statistics that says approx. 10% of Koreans have tried dogs in about 6,000 restaurants. Even if that’s not exactly accurate, to me 10% or even 25% is small minority and that does not warrant dog being in same class as beef, chicken, and pork. Also, when someone “tries” something, that doesn’t make it part of their normal diet. Beef, chicken, and pork on the other hand are a major part of Korean diet (I would guess 90%+) and they are readily available to buy in Korean grocery stores. Dogs are not. You can’t buy dog meat at a grocery store, or even a butcher store. Originally, I wanted the whole dog being part of Korean food removed, but I’m willing to find a middle ground to develop “controversial food” section and put dogs and live octopus (san nak-gi) there. But the current editors are not willing to budge and they are not giving me any reason as to why. Even they would agree that dogs are not even close in numbers of being consumed to beef, chicken, or pork, but what’s the insistent on being in same category?

As I’ve stated in discussions, Korean food is a doorway to our culture and is something Koreans are very proud of. As busy encyclopedia to topics around the world, Wikipedia should present an article as though they are explaining it to someone with no knowledge in the matter. When you look at Korean food section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_food), dog is listed in the same category as other staple meats and the editor uses words like “The most popular…” which insinuates that particular soup is very much consumed by mass Koreans. This is not true and it’s misleading. Dog consumption itself is a controversial topic in Korea because it casts negative image of a culture we are proud of. On Yelp (http://www.yelp.com/biz/chosun-galbee-los-angeles), there are comments like this by user on Korean restaurant review:

“Pierre T.: Excellent. Not too sure what I should expect in a Korean restaurant but the golden retriever stuffed with a bichon frise stuffed with rotten cabbage was exquisite.”

With the way the Korean food section is currently written, are you able to tell me that it’ll not give neophyte to Korean foods a wrong impression and warrant responses like these?

Also, some of you accused me of just pushing my POV. If that’s the case, how is what I’m doing any different than what the current editors are doing? The current editors are pushing their POV that dogs warrant a mention in the same category as beef, chicken, and pork without any justifications. They are not experts. In my previous conversations Badagnani’s claim to expertise in Korean food is that he eats it a lot and has a lot of Korean friends!!!

Please! I would like to hear your excuses on why dogs warrant a mention in same sentence as other staple meats. Fish and seafood is a major, major part of Korean diet, but the dog section is longer than that section and it doesn’t even list any Korean seafoods!! Santaria360 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, yes. Chosun Ilbo is a Korean mass media known for their sensationalism and sometimes blind nationalism. I may or I may not write to the ops editor to look into how two Americans with very little knowledge in Korean Foods has the key to gateway to our culture. Editor may or may not look into subject at matter and write about it, but if all of you think the article is currently written without a bias and without controversy, then I don't know why it matters that I would do what I can to bring the issue to national media... It would only make me look stupid Santaria360 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Santaria, this board is not for pursuing your content dispute. That belongs on the article talk page. You are being discussed here because you were contemplating trying to build up external pressure on Wikipedia, and on your opponents personally, by soliciting external protests through non-Wikipedia channels. Don't even think of it. You are not going to get your opponents banned simply for disagreeing with you, but you may very get yourself banned in the process. Let me make it unmistakably clear: if any shit should come our way solicited through fora like Chosun Ilbo, you'll be gone in no time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a causal reader of Wikipedia. I don't know how the whole process of editing works, but I know what's currently on Korean Food section is biased and inaccurate and two people controlling the contents are incompetent. I like Wiki and I don't want to do anything to hurt the site or bring negative publicity that brings free content of information to billions, so I rather learn and try to resolve the issue with current editors. But at the same time, the threat of being banned from this site isn't enough to try to bring to light what I think it's unfair and if more people know the issue at hand, it's really up to them to decide what course they should take. Again, this isn't any kind of threat to you or Wiki or any kind, like you are doing to me, and my intention is try to have it settled between disputed parties only. My comment regarding Chosun was geared toward particular person in heat of debated moment and that's not the course I want to take. So, I apologize for raising alarm and at this moment, only thing I ask is for you to direct me to a policy for arbituation process to dispute contentSantaria360 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the question of why dog meat is discussed in the article when it isn't eaten every day, we have many items and dishes that are mentioned in the article, including very rare and special dishes that are only prepared and eaten for certain occasions, and perhaps eaten a few times a year at most. The reason we include them because we aim to be as encyclopedic as possible and thus include any and all items that are notable and of interest to our readers--and certainly dog meat is notable and of interest to our readers. Most of the contents of the section, in fact, were removed a few months ago by consensus, with most editors believing that an overlong discussion of the topic was disproportionate to the article. The question of why dog meat is mentioned when it isn't eaten every day has been addressed extensively and I did let the editor asking about this know, twice already, that such discussion may be found in the archives, yet s/he continues to ask the question repeatedly, apparently without having first read the archives. Please do that first, before continuing to raise questions that have already been answered, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point. It's not whether dog is eaten every day or not that's a content of my argument... Beef, chicken, pork, fish, and other seafood isn't everyday. In US, people don't eat pizza and hamburgers everyday either. The argument is the dog eating is a minority and not a staple food. It is also a controversial topic even in Korea, which other food dishes you mentioned are not. No where in the article currently even mentions that dog eating in Korea is "very rare". It just says vaguely"...but is not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork". If your intent is to bring "interest to our readers", how come there's no link to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat). Also, it's innappropriate to go to Korean food site to learn about dog meat. I'll stop posting here for content dispute. Santaria360 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, and that is we seek to provide a neutral point of view and do so in such a way that presents the data as scholarly as possible. By seeking to push your point of view, you are disrupting WP. By seeking to swarm the article with people who are here only to push that point of view you are violating the rules and spirit of WP. These actions are not appropriate. That is why we are here. Again.

--Jeremy (blah blah 02:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll only respond to this and we can talk about it in the Korean food discussion section. But how is it that I'm the only one "pushing" my POV by saying that we should create a subcategory in the article and the current editors are not "pushing" their POV saying the article should remain the way it is and not responding to my inquiries? Doesn't all argument have at least two sides and two POVs? A lot of people, the people that's been here awhile editing, talk about the spirit of WP and what WP is all about. I thought wikipedia is a continuous revisions to make sure all the articles are free from bias and sufficiently relevent. And I'm pointing out that the way the article is and it's use of the words like "Most popular dish..." is not neutral in it's content (though maybe done intentionally). And the fact that lack of description in regards to seafood, which is HUGE part of Korean diet, makes article less relevent to those that want to know.

When you read the past archives of discussions, it's filled with arguments back and forth between those that want to remove dog meat and those that wants to keep it (which from reading some of the posts, you are latter). So how is my suggestion that we SHOULD keep it, but explain with greater background some of the controversies surrounding it a not what WP is all about??? You may not agree with my suggestion to alter what's currently there, but to blindly accuse me only of "pushing" my POV when the opposition is doing the same with their lack of response and stubborn firm stance is itself very disturbing as to what your motives are. I said i'll refrain from outside involvement (that issue should now be dropped) and I apologized for some comments i've made, but who are you to stop any attempts to further improvement? Santaria360 (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My POV is to provide for our users the most encyclopedic and properly sourced article possible on Korean cuisine, including all notable cuisine items (dishes and ingredients) in a clear format, including historical and sociological context. Badagnani (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, can we keep on the subject of what administrative action, if any, is needed here rather than the "dog meat" content dispute. Please keep that dispute on the article talk page. Thanks, --Tom 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm totally unsure about what to do about

) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My reaction would be to indef the account, the new ones that would inevitably follow, and the ip's that would then attempt to circumnavigate the block(s), until they grow up and get a clue. I really don't see much potential for this editor becoming a useful contributor any time soon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of IP socking, since the IPs haven't edited since the account was registered. If a block is warranted, then just blocking the account should be enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My experience with these kind of accounts is that they will sock in a misguided attempt to continue "improving" the encyclopedia. That said, they don't seem to have nominated themselves for adminship yet, so maybe they don't follow the rules... J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They did nominate a user for adminship without asking first. Is that close enough? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was intimating a possible (series of) consequence(s) of blocking this account. Had I come across this account independently I would have indef blocked, but since it has been brought here I thought I would comment and suggest what might then happen - other folk may have other suggestions that are better at diminishing any (potential) disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia. So please leave me alone.

talk

) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's odd when disruptive editors decide conveniently to "leave" Wikipedia just before any administrative action is to be taken against them. Block and be done with it, this character clearly has no intention to cooperate or learn from their mistakes. treelo _radda 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If they're honestly leaving, wouldn't a block be overkill? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be the McLean Stevenson tactic - when the guy says he's leaving, help him to stick with that decision. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

- This goes beyond the "simple, obvious" mandate of

) 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Editing for 7 months, with every edit reverted? That's got to be a record. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

- -

- Per CheckUser results could some admin block

) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Death threats by 66.99.218.13

- -

- 66.99.218.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- - Was already blocked for vandalism and posted death threats to own talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Death threats on the internet: serious business. If we're not careful he'll...type mean things at you. (In retrospect, that doesn't seem very threatening, does it?) HalfShadow 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments after Rowdy the Ant blocked indefinitely

Usually yes but this sort of editor is looking to escape scrutiny, not because it got too hard. Anyway, Aitias has doled out an indef so it's a case of waiting for an unblock request and see if they reform or not should a unblock be granted. Personally I reckon that they'll just move onto socking with new accounts and IP addresses so it's not like they're really gone. treelo _radda 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think he should be blocked, but you've got a point. If he wants to play by the rules, he'll request an unblock. If wants to play against the rules, he'll sock. I'm willing to unblock him, but it's got to be the former situation, and he has to make the request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As somebody noted above a potential IP associated with this account, I wanted to add 98.218.94.104 to the list. SpikeJones (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this indefinite block may have been premature -- and, if Rowdy the Ant makes a request, an unblock should be granted. I have had interactions with this user for several months and I can definitely understand Ten Pound Hammer's frustrations. TPH (as well as other editors) and I have spent considerable time reverting Rowdy's edits - and encouraging him to learn policy. At the same time, as TPH mentions, Rowdy's edits often indicated he wanted to improve articles and be a helpful member of WP. Rowdy began editing last October through IP accounts (

acknowledged his IP accounts. After some encouragement, he finally registered a few weeks ago -- and began running into the problems as outlined above. I think the reality is: Rowdy tried to jump into areas (Merges, Afd, Rfa, etc.) in which he was way over his head; he has been too impatient with discussions and failed to understand policy; and he has over-reacted to disagreements. These are the traits of an immature editor, not a dedicated vandal. Should Rowdy return, he should be provided a mentor and encouraged to edit in the areas in which he has shown an interest -- VeggieTales, Toon Disney cartoons. etc. I think Rowdy the Ant still shows potential and, with some maturity and patience, can become an asset to WP. — CactusWriter | ^needles

13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the various offers of mentorship and other assistance on his talkpage, and note he is non-committal in his responses (usually asking what the offers entail). Further, while he acknowledges his previous poor behaviour there is little sense of regret. It appears that the editor projects a "take it or leave it" attitude toward the inappropriate editing they indulge in. The indefinite (not infinite) block is hopefully a very clear message that the community is not prepared to tolerate disruption now in the hope of useful contributions later. If he does again promise to cut out the vandalism, by all means the account should be unblocked - and blocked again as soon as they rescind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's a new user by the dubious handle of User:OvenTreatedJew (1 edit so far). Can someone give a second opinion as to whether such a handle is allowed (and I hope to God it isn't! - Sorry, had to).--Ramdrake (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I UAA'd it on your behalf. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; I'm actually grateful. Thanks! :)--Ramdrake (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely -- Samir 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Thanks Ramdrake and thanks for the quick action Samir (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That one really disturbed me. --

talk

) 06:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys deserve the thanks for picking it up. All I did was the block -- Samir 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been told to talk in english on the english wikipedia on all times - a few times I have talked on a talk page in serbocroatian too. Anyways, one user is telling me that I am not allowed to talk on my own talk page with someone about matters unrelated to wikipedia in our language. Is this true? Why is a personal discussion banned? If it is not please tell the user AlasdairGreen27 to stop harassing me on my talk page. Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)).

Your talkpage is for discussing matters related to Wikipedia. The internet is filled with places to carry on conversations not related to Wikipedia. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, it is proper to carry on conversations in English, so that others who use it may understand what it is you are discussing. There is a Serbian Wikipedia and a Croatian Wikipedia; which may be an appropriate venue to discuss articles in serbocroatian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If two Croatian editors choose to use Croation between themselves to speed communication on their own talk pages about matters related to Wikipedia then we usually cut them some slack, but there is certainly a general presumption that English is the right language for talk page debates and user pages and a general presumption against using Wikipedia as a general chat or discussion forum in any language. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't know one anothers emails or other stuff like that. Therefore I and many other wikipedians like to exchange some short convos on the talk page now and then. I don't get why this is wrong. We are not littering articles or talk pages of articles. (LAz17 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)).

This is the English wikipedia, and every editor has the right to know what every other editor is saying on the talk pages and articles. If you want to talk Croatian, go to the Croatian wikipedia. Or use the e-mail feature here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if it is only on userspace, and between two users who both know the language (and are both okay with it), there's nothing that's explicitly forbidding you from using Croatian or some other language, it is not banned, just frowned upon. (Personal experience involving chinese article, although in this case, I'm not "literate" in chinese so I asked the other person to stick to English) A userpage is a userpage.

Now, if it is on things not related to wikipedia, then if it is considerable (aka WP:NOT#MYSPACE), then the action, not the language, is frowned upon. Cheers! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (LAz17 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)).

- - The following editors are going around starting trouble for anyone writing anything the slightest bit outside their tastes on the Obama page and causing general chaos on the talk pages. ACORN is a big story concerning Obama as he personally worked there as a principle and this story was carried by all the networks in prime time repeatedly. Anything I or anyone else writes on the story is either deleted with blocks on the writer, done immediately within moments without warnings or archived if consensus is seen to be had. The discussions there have been turned into a rat's nest due to these continuous disruptions.

- - Further user "User:Brothejr" seems to pop out of nowhere, threatening me and others with messages that never end up at my userpage or anywhere to dif. I have missed key discussions with other editors on sourcing because they deleted pertinent discussion on this in moments of it being put up and this has warded off other editors trying to work with me. I have to dig into deleted scrambled mess to to see what they are talking about, it's very annoying. They wrongly interfering with proper editing and some are using profanity such as user User:Sceptre in the Voter Fraud section (which should have "ACORN" in the title but this is guarded and immediately deleted). It is presently effectively blocked by "archiving" in talk which is ridiculous and I don't know how to dif an archive attack but it is there under "Allegations of Voter Fraud".

- - The ACORN case is not a "fringy" issue but front and center in Obama's personal, direct election activities now being investigated by the FBI and current. Attacking of anyone and threatening editors talking about it with "this is your only warnings" threats is highly disruptive. One editor working with me: User:Die4Dixie has "retired" from Wikipedia due to all this. Other editors finally went into a rage and were blocked, such as user User:Ratttso. I request that these editors set forth below be blocked so I can edit in peace if they cannot stop their disruptive actions and edit in good faith and they appear not to be stopping this major disruptive activity no matter what [92][93]

- - Disruptive editors:

- User:Wikidemon

- User:Sceptre

-

- User:Brothejr

- - -- Larrry2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

More POV-pushing by the conservapediacs who can't stand that they lost the election. Pay it no never-mind. P.S. Looks like I have to start watching the page again, so he'll probably add me to the above list. So it goes. P.P.S. I don't normally mess with other users' comments, but he had the names posted incorrectly and hence uselessly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was here for a couple of days spouting racist bilge before he was blocked as being a block-evading sock. Hard telling who he was a sock of. I can see one possible clue, but I'll leave that to the experts. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

(ec) The complaining editor doesn't appear to have actually edited the Obama article with this account. The diffs provided don't seem inappropriate to me; this is a BLP, there's forum-type discussion in the removed posts with some potential problems included. Without specific diffs for the claims, I tend to agree with Bugs that this is just a continuation of the usual problems there. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

No edits under that name, anyway. Again, that's for the experts to consider. Ironically, Die4Dixie leveled some strong criticism at Rattttso's approach [94]. As far as any admin action to take... well, they could start by blanking Rattttso's pages and taking away his ability to edit said pages, as he is using them only for soapboxing. As far as Larrrry2 is concerned, his activities probably bear watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

And in any case, material about ACORN doesn't belong in the Obama bio page. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the Obama campaign page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretty obviously Ratttso when not signed on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Interestingly enough, 71.114.8.82, who is just coming off a short block, made the same mistake in his unblock request [95] of failing to put "User:" in front of the user name, that Larrry2 did when he initially posted here: [96] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

That's a common newbie mistake. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Yeh, he made 3 edits in July, then nothing until today, at least not under that name. It's pretty clear that these three editors are either all the same guy or they're working in concert on the same topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

In this edit, Larrry2 admits to being 71.114.8.82. [97] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- - Nothing to see here, the usual noise from editors who would be happier working on the conservapedia version of this article (and if you have never read their version, you should, it's a perfect example of the difference between here or there). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

It's probably obvious already, but Larrry2 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be Ratttso (talk · contribs) and Cc2po (talk · contribs). IP hardblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

You're way ahead of me. As noted above, in this edit, the IP tacitly admits to being User:Larrry2: [98] Meanwhile, edits like these (tinkering with each others' edits) suggest that the IP is also the indef-blocked User:Ratttso: [99][100][101] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Heh...I contacted the helpline to speed things along. Blocked problem editors need to be given as little time as possible, because the longer they get, the more damage they cause (and of course, the more of a problem they are). Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Hey, that's cheating! Good work, though. :) So with any and all due respect to the other editor, NOW there's nothing to see here... unless the complainant has further socks lurking, and if so, I'm sure they'll make their presence known soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

And another one goes down - see User:RadioShack1234. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

That's another case of a sleeper that was created in June, did a few edits, and then went dormant until today. I wonder how many others there are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

There's this other character called

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given this comment [[102]] I wonder if this is really all the same guy, or at least a "team" who are focused on certain articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

11:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- - NEWS FLASH: Conservapedia "Tells the Truth" And thus the IP address (whose life has been ruined by this three-month block) promises [103] to continue vandalizing. In other news stories, we'll reveal who's buried in Grant's Tomb. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• Bugs, maybe you can take a minute to enlighten me as to what this is about? It's OT here so on my talk page maybe. Are the cons claiming that Obama's election was nearly as fraudulent as Dubya's first? That would be quite funny given the size of his majority. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

• • ACORN is an organization that was active in recruiting new voters. A lot of them apparently voted Democratic, as previously disenfranchised voters often do, and some Republican supporters are trying to... well, I'm not sure what they're trying to do. They're not going to overturn the election. So basically they're just trying smear Obama with what is essentially now a dead news story. And as you say, where were they in 2000 and 2004, when the shoe was on the other foot? Pushing for Bush's election and re-election, of course. So these guys are just using wikipedia as a partisan playground, trying to get away with as much POV-pushing as they can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

Point of order

- 71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- - The IP posted a lengthy ACORN-related diatribe on his talk page, which I reverted. [104] Should the talk page be cleared and protected? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Probably just cruising for another block.

Grsz

-

Nevermind, just talk page. Oh well.

11

03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

What I want to know is whether clearing it over and over is a 3RR violation. Normally I wouldn't care, but the ACORN rant could be argued to be a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

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

User talk pages are usually used to communicate with others, should a particular problem arise in their editing behavior, or there is a current situation regarding what they are editing, say either edits they are making violating policy, or the article they're currently editing getting promoted to feature status. Either way, they're not supposed to promote a poisonous atmosphere, as such would be caused by banning people from one's talk page. I may be wrong, but I've seen that general consensus was that such sections should be removed; now, I may be wrong in this case, but the talk page of User:Tarysky seems like either a civility violation, or one that is walking dangerously close to that line. Opinions please?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, as can be seen from the user's block log, this user has made civilty violations before.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how banning someone from one's talkpage creates a poisonous atmosphere; it would seem more apt to say that would discourage the interaction of antagonistic editors. It is not an uncommon practice. Skomorokh 05:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless you're shopping to have the user blocked or their talkpage deleted, this discussion would be better suited to

WT:USER. Skomorokh

05:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How is telling someone that you're currently in conflict with they aren't allowed to edit your page not poisonous? I don't know about you, but it gives off a bad air when anyone starts trying to dictate something that isn't theirs. Yes, I see the small 'disclaimer' at the bottom, but the way I see it, such a thing is rather pointless; the "stay the hell of my talk page" order is still there. Poisonous may not be the right word, but the way the user has said such things certaintly isn't civil. I've seen such "rules" deleted as being uncivil before. I probably have the page watched, let me see if I can find it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not shopping in the least, I don't want to see this user blocked, I just want a warning given, and the section removed. I've tried to several times, warning him of it, and he's re-instated it several times. He obviously doesn't want to comply.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought; would you mind moving this thread, per McBride's initiative to disperse this page? Skomorokh 06:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's his talk page. Just unwatch it. If he refuses to discuss matters anywhere, that is a matter for dispute resolution. Also, you reverting him on his (just assuming

) 06:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't his talk page, it's WM's talk page. As to what he may have on it, I've seen that general consensus is that banning users is not allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's not that I have a general problem with the rules themselves, it is more of a problem concerning the following statement: Certain users are not allowed to comment or removed anything from this page. These users know who they are. So if you are one and know you are, stay off this page. No controvesy is needed. Currently, there are 3 users. Telling people what to do like this is out of line in my opinion concerning matters of civility.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Who would even read that notice? I couldn't get past the first two lines. Most of the stuff discussed on Wikipedia can be discussed on article talk pages or policy pages. If you need to post a warning on the user's page, just post it. The user can then revert if he/she wants, established he/she read it. That's all. Wikipedia has plenty of useful contributors who are very young. This sounds like one of them. Don't get too bothered by a child acting like a child. There's not really any necessary interaction. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If that was the case, the secion on Theology's page would have never been removed. Did you note the "rule" which I had a problem with? I ask because you noted that you couldn't get past the first two lines.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I simply can't read it. It's drivel. --KP Botany (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Define can't please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me define drivel instead: "saliva dripping from the mouth." If the person doesn't have a napkin, hand them one. If they have one already, don't stare. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I'd just ignore him, Daedalus. If you have something that needs to go on his page, post it there. Him removing it means he's seen it, just like the rest of us. If he wants to spend a few hours making rules no one else has to live by, that's his waste of time. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor specifically "banned" by Tarysky because I initiated a previous ANI which led to a short block. I haven't had any interaction with this user since, although I will say his less-than-civil attitude remains unchanged and the amount of inappropriate copyrighted images he has uploaded to Wikipedia is reason enough to keep an eye on him. If he wants to "ban" me from his page, it doesn't bother me... if I feel that it is necessary to discuss one of his edits or leave a message or warning on his page I will do so anyway. - eo (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He's just acting like an immature child. Don't mind him.--Patton^t/c 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

without reference to these particular circumstances, when i come across users with a policy or removing & not archiving material, I tend to wonder what is in the page history. DGG (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In view of [WP:OWN]], users do not have the authority to "ban" anyone from leaving comments on their user talk page. Such "bans" should simply be ignored.  Sandstein  18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but I can't agree with your second - one shouldn't feel constrained by such bans, but neither should they be ignored, if ignoring them would just cause dispute, disruption, bad feelings, point-scoring, etc. without improving the encyclopedia. Use common sense in dealing with such things - that may mean walking around a bear's den rather than yelling "This isn't prohibited!" into it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it bothering anyone what I add to my talk page. Other users add things to there talk page. User:Daedalus969, you need to stop acting childish. Other users add things to there page so can I. Tarysky (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a note, it is not

your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

05:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And you need to take that back immediately, you just personally insulted me, and we have policies against such, seeing as you have done this before, and gotten blocked for it, it almost isn't very surprising. Protonk, the user above did the same thing at my own user talk page.

Seeing as this user loves to be uncivil, and loves others, I do not see him contributing constructivly to the project; if he's going to be creating a poisonous atmosphere by insulting others, I do believe he needs to be shown the door. Especially if he is going to outright lie in his edit summeries, as demonstrated by Daye.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I have posted in this thread that Daedelus should probably just ignore your page (rather than ask an administrator to remove it), you are on pretty thin ice. Don't accuse someone of "acting childish" if you can help it. Your best course of action is to remove that "ban" (As it is unenforceable, unimportant and uncivil). Barring that, you should not act to inflame the issue with needless accusations. If your intent is that Daedelus not post on your talk page, just revert posts he makes with a note explaining why. Pretty soon, he won't frequent it. But I'll also note that others will stop frequenting it as well. Getting into a habit of setting up arbitrary rules will not earn you respect and admiration. Either way, your comment isn't helping. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to talk to Tarysky on his talk page about not calling other editors "childish," for my trouble I had my edits reverted and referred to as "personal attacks." He does not appear to wish to play well with others. Dayewalker (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'll say so again, here, where it can easily be seen. If he isn't willing to stop personally attacking people, and if he isn't willing to accept that he did something wrong, I do not see this user being a constructive contributor here if he is just going to continue to violate our personal attack and civility policies, not to mention this misleading edit summery business. If he can't learn to stop with the attacks, he needs to be prevented from further such behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was the point of Tarysky's first block. The first incident report is here, for anyone interested. This user has not changed his behavior in the slightest, and still denies doing anything wrong from the very beginning. Attempting communication on his talk page is pointless. - eo (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having recently interacted (in a peaceful manner) with this user, I don't find the current #12 a felony; it's only on a user talk page, and it doesn't name any specific users. I don't like it, but I don't think it's something highly disruptive. However, I think it reasonable to consider this user somewhat on probation as far as attacks go. Moreover, if the user goes back to having any specific attacks on the page, there's no reason not to remove it, and such should be treated as a personal attack anywhere else would be. In this specific case, it would be reasonable to block if the user continues to add the attacks, regardless of the statement that "it is bad faith, vandalism, bad definition of character for anyone who reverts it." Nyttend (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive for the details. It's a mixture of BLP vios, trolling, spamming and socking so I am posting here. The case just closed as it seemed that no one could agree on how to proceed or what was necessary, but there is a distinct pattern to the edits and an obvious intent to self promote and inflame. The final recoemmendation was to bring it up here. It seemed clear to everyone who commented in the case and outside of it that the sockpuppets are clearly him and that the contributions were all both predictable and highly undesirable. There have been no edits since the SSP case was opened but there has never been any discussion from the editor(s) and from the wide range of articles edited in the past it will not be obvious where he will appear next without following his blog to see what the next topic is. There is a WPSPAM case on michaelcrook.net too. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Socks are blocked and the last spammed site added to the blacklist (

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination)

. Have I missed anything? I think we should characterise this one as banned, over two years of self-promotion, BLP violations, block evasion, sockpuppetry and spamming.

-

• Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Whatgoesup11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• ohiotruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Freedomblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• 72.49.47.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

-

• Anotherblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• ScottMiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• michaelcrook.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

• michael-crook.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

• mikewww.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

Did I miss any? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• Is it just my impression or could we just as well add "4truth" or "fortruth" to the
  WP:UAA bot's block-on-sight regex? These usernames often signal ... less than constructive intentions. (Just half kidding...)  Sandstein 
  12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

You're not wrong. Words like truth, justice, freedom and so on are very often indicative of people whose time here is short but turbulent. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

I'm with you guys - "for truth" nearly always means "for

The Truth™" - it's a damn reliable indicator of tendentious POV editing. — Gavia immer (talk

) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If you mean this seriously rather than just rhetorically, no, I can imagine someone naive enough to use it in good faith. DGG (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Yes, I can imagine it too. Be nice to know if it has ever happened... Guy (Help!) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

• Blogging4right (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Mbn01291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Ebn6701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Probably a pile of IPs as well, and I am sure these are not the last of the sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If you think there are more, we can always reopen the case, and request a CU. Synergy 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

A few observations. The name is painfully reminiscent of User:Kossack4Truth, one of last year's most disagreeable sockpuppets - although the editing patterns are not at all similar. If there is sockpuppetry, and it is all designed to promote Michael Crook, considered by many to be an "internet agitator",[105] then it is best to know about it and may be useful deal with it in organized fashion. Speaking of that, why is the Michael Crook article salted? The reasons for deletion were invalid at least in light of what we now know (he is real, he is notable,[106] and has been involved in well reported lawsuits raising Internet privacy and DMCA copyright issues).[107][108] Like it or not you can self-promote your way to notoriety off-Wikipedia, and that notoriety may well make a person notable for Wikipedia purposes. The COI editing and sockpuppetry are a different matter, one we should take seriously in light of the person's being in the profession, apparently, of creating Internet scandals about himself.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Shouldn't be necessary to CU, these are all blindingly obvious - his MO is to cite himself, link his name and add links to his blog or other blogs quoting him. Our old friend the

Canard Abuse Detector is probably adequate to the task for now. The consensus at the last deletion debate was that any notability (or more accuratley notoriety) was passed; the rate of comment on him was low and appears to me to be tailing off. Michael Moore he ain't. Guy (Help!

) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

So then we assume it's all sockpuppeting by the person in question? The !vote was 9-7 in favor of deletion (7-5 if one discounts the contributions the closing administrator stated as discounted) but the entire process was problematic - canvassing, sockpuppetry, manipulation, and it would be hard to say that the decision was made on grounds of notability. Notability doesn't diminish over time - either the subject is notable or he is not. He does formally meet WP:BIO - full articles / segments devoted to him over a span of years on a variety of subjects on CNN, Fox News, and some less significant publications. Most of that coverage came after the AfD, so it is not controlling. There's no policy reason why the article cannot be recreated. The salting seemed to be out of frustration.Wikidemon (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Not that I'm actually proposing to do it... I think the ratio of encyclopedic value to wikidrama would be very slim, plus I try to only recreate controversial deletions[109] when I know I'm going to succeed. Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at this report at

05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also chack if I (my IP is 83.217.248.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have any connection with that IPuser? And I would be vary thankful if the result would be reported as an answer of Grandmaster's accusation here. --Vacio (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you were the same person as the anonymous user. I just said that it was very strange how this IP appeared out of nowhere and joined the edit war that you started over the name of the city. Grandmaster 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be connected to edit warring by Baki66, an editor who does few regular edits but seems to like making sudden busts of mass attacks on articles, removing valid material for POV reasons. Edits by 216.165.12.158 are mostly (maybe all) associated with edits made by Baki66. Meowy 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor

.

Unfortunately, this is hardly the beginning of such disruptive edits for this editor. He also:

• Makes outright overt threats of committing WP:Vandalism in an aritcle if portions of an article are not deleted, such as: "If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references)." This one included an odd addition of a statement resembling dialogue out of a bad terrorist movie that: "The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above."

• Edits other users' talk page comments against their wishes.

• He falsely claims other edtors lie and purposefully manipulate articles.

• Falsely characterizes other editors such viewpoints such as refrring to them as "nationalistic Central European editors" or following an "adherence to the 'German school' tradition."

• Repeatedly shows an
  WP:NPOV
  purposes.

• On the the World War II article, despite a mediated settlement providing for a rule that "all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made", he unliaterally deleted a sentence, falsely claiming "False statement removed." As an aside, the statement removed relyed exactly what the source stated, and what nearly every source states about the this repeatedly discussed issue.

• Repeatedly takes
  WP:Fringe
  stands on topics about which zero historical debate exists. Some truly odd ones, such as:

• an adamant insistence against any mention of the fact that the Soviet Union Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov was fired beccause he was Jewish (along with a Ministry purge of Jews) before doing a deal with Hitler, and accordingly, deleted countless sourced sentences on the subject, including this one that the Soviet Foreign Minister was fired, in part, because he was Jewish before negotiating with Hitler, despite that it was pointed out to him that 25+ sources all describe this entirely histically non-debated even in great detail (it's in pretty much every book on the subject).
• An inexplicable adamant insistence that even the implication that the the"Soviet Union conducted simultaneous talks with France, Britain and Germany" before entering the Moloto-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. A notion that so cuts against every known historical fact on the subject recounting the voluminous comments made over months to BOTH sets of parties in detail (repeatedly) that it's not even debated. It's not exactly in the category of denying the Apollo moon landings, but it's getting up there.

He also makes repeatedly disruptive edits in the article, such as this addition of this nassuve 100+ word 1934 Hitler block quote at the very top of the background section, before the section even discusses the events of World War I. He will often rearrange sections out of chron order, deleting large numbers of sources. After such disruptive massive edits deleting numerous sources (none of which are even controversial) and taking sections out of chron order, he will often edit war back insisting in the edit summary "let's keep this version until consensus is acheived" without any other explanation, repeatedly. I honestly have no problem with the language barrier and correcting basic grammar issues (I make more than enough of them and it's my primary language) or typos in ref cites (I make enough of those too), but in the rare instances where substantial material is added to an article, for example, the additions can be badly disfigured by every source tag being erroneous or flat out non-existent, such that I had to somehow figure out the sources he was likely referring to from all of 5-6 ref tags he added in one such instance, and fill out proper source tags. I have also repeatedly added material, sometimes in large quantities, to the article in response to his suggestions, some of which I don't even think really belongs, frankly, just to avoid having to go to ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the accusation in violation of 3RR is correct. In first two cases I provided explanations for changes I made and proposed to move the disputable text into another section. I got neither negative nor positive response on my proposal. The third case wasn't a reversion. I didn't remove the disputable text, just fixed the factual error (wrong date), re-worded, added one more citation and moved the text the into different section of the same article. The present text is[111]:

"The last document is a German State Office memorandum on the telephone call made on June 17 by the Bulgarian ambassador Draganov.^[1] In German accounts of the Draganov's report, Astakhov explained that a Soviet deal with Germany better suited the Soviets than one with Britain and France, although the Bulgarian ambassador "could not be ascertained whether it had reflected the personal opinions of Herr Astakhov or the opinions of the Soviet Government".^[2]

(-continued-)

"These documentary evidences of early Nazi-Soviet rapprochement were questioned by Geoffrey Roberts, who analyzed Soviet archival documents^[3] that had been de-classified and released on the eve of 1990s.^[4] Roberts found no evidence that the alleged statements quoted by the Germans had ever been made in reality, and came to a conclusion that the German archival documents cannot serve as an evidence for the existence of a dual policy during first half of 1939. According to him, no documentary evidences exists that the USSR responded to made any overtures to the Germans "until the end of July 1939 at the earliest".^[5]"

whereas the old one was[112]:

"On June 15, Soviet ambassador Astakhov held a discussion with the Bulgarian ambassador in Berlin, Purvan Draganov, who served as a kind of unofficial intermediary for negotiations with the Germans. ^[1] In German accounts of the meeting, Astakhov explained that a Soviet deal with Germany better suited the Soviets than one with Britain and France, or a inconclusive negotiations, which Draganov promptly told the German Foreign Ministry.^[1] Soviet accounts of the meeting state that it was Draganov, not Astakhov, who cited the benefits of a Soviet deal with Germany.^[6]"

Let me point out that during the long and interesting, although completely fruitless

mother article

is dramatically biased. I didn't introduce appropriate tags into the article to avoid escalation of the conflict, however, I'll probably will have to do that in close future.

With regards to other accusations, I doubt they were justified. I believe I already provided exhaustive explanations

WP:SYNTH. An example of my analysis of his biased writer's manner is presented here. Unfortunately, it is very hard to fix a situation, because Mosedschurte behaves as an owner of all articles he edited or created.
Nevertheless, in attempts to establish a productive dialogue with him I posted a following message on his talk table [113], and, according to my first impression, the situation started to normalize. I also tried to involve other editors to resolve the dispute (by the way, the third editor, Renata, generally supported me in that dispute).
In conclusion, I am glad that Mosedschurte reported on the issue to ANI, because, to my opinion, involvement of a third party would help to resolve the situation.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I am not sure the accusation in violation of 3RR is correct."

--one, two, three

--And that was after getting warned for

WP:3RR, such as here and here

--Not only that, this editor claimed the revert was a move -- which is still

WP:3RR

, of course, it was just that the prior reverts went even beyond what he'd prior claimed they were (full deletes, not moves).

Re: "for changes I made and proposed to move the disputable text into another section. I got neither negative nor positive response on my proposal."

Not only was there no prior proposal, but he didn't even just move the text. He deleted it. In any event, both the repeated insistence on moving it (which was actually even a full delete before getting caught) is

WP:3RR

.

Re: "Briefly, to my opinion

WP:SYNTH

."

--That baseless accusation is not even worth a response, but it is the sort of attack that is unfortunately par for the course. Usually accompanied by some kind of threat to vandalize an article unless sentences he does not like are deleted accompanied with statements like "The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above."

In short, along with the

WP:Fringe issues, I've been repeatedly attacked by this editor, with over-the-top accusations that differ such as spreading lies andhaving an "adherence to the 'German school' tradition."

(don't even ask what he means by that).

Moreover, he repeatedly admits to making non-

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, etc.) In addition, I've had to repeatedly clean up after disastrous adds, and I'm not taling about the language barrier issues (I have no problem with that), but, for example, somehow figuring out the sources he was likely referring to from all of 5-6 ref tags he added in one such instance, and fill out proper source tags

. It's pretty much a disaster.

Lastly, lest anyone think this is just some "it takes two to tango" incident with no attempt at cordial dealings, it is most certainly not. I've avoided going to ANI with the various violatios (and there are many more than the above, those were just ones I remembered) for a long time, attempting to work through difficulties of this editors' attacks, deletes and massive article disruptions. I've repeatedly added material, sometimes in large quantities, to articles in response to his suggestions, some of which I don't even think really belongs, frankly, just to avoid having to go to ANI. I don't attack him back. I regularly have to clean up his own edits (like I said, I really don't at all mind the language issue, I'm talking about other material).

At some point, with that many attacks and policy violations, I've just grown weary of dealing with it, and shouldn't have to on Wikipedia. Which is one of the reasons I finally decided to just open an ANI section on it for help.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte,
Try to think about the following. I never had such problems with other editors before. You had[114]. I never cited the sources unaccurately. You did.
However, we have something in common: we both are growing weary as a result of fruitless disputes. As I already pointed out several times, a third opinion would be helpful to find a way out of impasse. If you don't like this idea, maybe informal mediation, or formal mediation, or arbitration would better satisfy you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: " I never cited the sources unaccurately. You did

--Not that this is particularly new, but it is yet another completely baseless accusation. I actually just moved another editors' sentence to another article at his request.

--Note, with all of the other baseless attacks from this editor above, that this baseless attack is not particularly new. Rather, it's become quite expected. There's not much more that can be done working with him, as I've shown above (I'll save the re-linking) I've done repeatedly.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "we have something in common: we both are growing weary as a result of fruitless disputes."

--Any attempt to now at this late hour -- after all of the violations -- to make this look like some "tit-for-tat" dispute between two editors isn't going to work. This editors' repeated violations are cataloged at length above (I won't bother re-linking), as well as my repeated attempts to work with him (also linked above) and repeated cleanups of his work (also above). Along with just the latest (the 3RR here).

--As mentioned, I've repeatedly kept myself from coming to ANI with the various threats, attacks and edit warring in the hopes of avoiding that hassle, sometimes including agreeing to add material I don't even think belongs into articles (I won't bother re-linking the above). This was a last resort with this editor.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You did". Didn't understand. Explain, please.

Re: "I actually just moved..." etc. I meant the reversion made by Stor stark7.

You didn't answered my major question. Whatever interpretation of the issue you proposed, in actuality it seems to be a content dispute. I proposed a way to resolve it. Do you agree, and, if not, what is your proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to add that

WP:DE#Refusal to 'get the point' is one of the signs of a disruptive editor, although it is hard to formalise. Since during our discussions the arguments are being repeated almost without end, we definitely need in something like a third opinion. I would be greatful if someone proposed a suitable way out of impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You didn't answered my major question. Whatever interpretation of the issue you proposed, in actuality it seems to be a content dispute."

--That's not accurate, and I think me not originally bringing your various violations to ANI upfront may have caused the misunderstanding that this continued editing practice was okay .

--It's not a content dispute at this point. Rather, it's long series of threats, false accusations, 3RR and other Wikipedia violations that require administrative action. Were it just a content dispute, it would be for the Talk page, not the ANI board. In fact, pending this ANI issue, I haven't even bothered editing the various grammar mistakes in the latest paragraph you inserted, much less re-entering in it's actual chronological spot. (note: Stor Stark didn't know when he made that comment that I'd just moved another editors' sentence to another article at his request -- not I expected you to actually check up on making a baseless allegation about another editor, as you also falsely claimed other edtors lie and purposefully manipulate articles and "adhere[ to the 'German school' tradition"] as well as the other various claims of nationalism accusations above). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I got your point. Let's wait what other users will say.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs

This user is repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the current employer and (I think) workplace location of a former adult film performer. The information has been removed several times, but the IP keeps reverting. The IP is clearly an SPA and only edits to do this. See Annabel Chong and Strand Releasing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this might be worth reporting here. An IP posted something about school shootings in Zionsville, Indiana [115]. I rolled back the edit as vandalism at first, because there has never been a school shooting there. But then I got to thinking, maybe this is some sort of threat? What do you think? Just to be safe. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you reported this to the

FBI or the local police department in Indiana. Someone should contact the Foundation. ASAP. Rio de oro (talk

)

No I have not done anything like that. Does someone here do that? Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a threat (in fact, it doesn't even make much sense in that context). It can't hurt to refer it to the local police, of course, but informing the FBI seems like overkill. Moreover, a review of the other edits from that IP suggest he or she is making more a childish point about school rivalries, than any violent threats. Finally, if anyone does wish to pursue this further there is a fairly large clue in the contribs, as to the name of the person behind it. Rockpocket 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's borderline. Now if he said "there will be a lot of school shootings", that would be a threat. This could also be regular unsourced commentary. Anyway, it's better to be safe than sorry and I think there's nothing wrong with a friendly notification of the local authorities. Themfromspace (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• A Trusted Source search shows the post in question came from Zionsville, Indiana. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 02:24
• I emailed the State Police on their website, but they say they only check emails during regular hours. If someone feels so inclined to call feel free. I am off here for the night. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The following concerns

.

Intro

• 1)
  WP:SPA
  working on one article.
• 2) This editor's first edit was on 11 October 2008 on
  Don Stewart (preacher)
  and has continued making edits to exclude critical information and include promotional material on miracles.
• 3) In four months the user has not edited a single article except
  Don Stewart (preacher)
  .
• 4) This editor says he is in personal contact with the preacher/association and is writing a book on the subject/Stewart. ("it will be in my book".)
• 5) This user's motivation is clear and his edits as well as discussions are unproductive.

As the diffs show, this user is attempting to white wash established facts on an article he is personally tied to. The material below starts with simple obstructing edits and misquoting policy to flat out lies, vandalism, and

) 09:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

• Attributing motives to other users
  • 1) First edit on the talk page claims "There seems to be an effort by some on the internet to criticize ridicule, and demean ministers of the Pentecostal culture..."
  • 2) Speaking to another editor: Mike Doughney "undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers." And near the bottom of the diff, "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual."

• Accuses the sources (organizations and living authors) of lying
  • 3) In this diff he is told not to call a living journalist a liar/Ayatollah.
  • 4) In this diff "following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News..." (Fisher is a living journalist.)
  • 5) In this diff he cautiously does it again calling a living author/journalist and an organization "...Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations." I read the articles, and in fact inserted the Dallas Morning News article and this editor is incorrect--as explained below. Furthermore this same Dallas Morning News is the one he wants removed below (see #12-15)
  • 6) In this diff, without evidence, claims "I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view." They were not misquoted or mislinked. But yes sources have views, but that's not reason for exclusion.
  • In contrast, he says Stewart's autobiography (a book by the article's subject) "seems like the most NPOV."
  • 7) In this diff he states: "In the section "What Wikipedia is not,” it says something about people using Wikipedia as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like."
  • 8) He wrote: "The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy."
  • 9) He wrote: "I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things."
  • 10) He wrote: "The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases..."
  • 11) He wrote: "...the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned."
  • He is wrong the other sources have everything to do with Stewart. As for the "old photo copy," it actually google's online archive. You be the judge: "Arson Could Be Cause".
    Kingman Daily Miner
    . September 22, 1982. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
  • 11.2)Repeated again: He wrote: "The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service."

• Exhaustive effort

He tries to get material removed by first claiming its false(see #3-11) then its misworded then just wants to remove it. The whole several day discussion is about one or two sentences (depending on the context) currently included:

In 1996, the

WV Grant, Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts.^[1] Included in some of Stewart's fundraising letters was Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural healing power.^[1]

• • 12) In this diff makes several claims says the article clams Ewing was the creator of the green prayer cloth (which is incorrect). Then he asks "Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway?"
    • He is told what he wrote is incorrect. Yet, editors agree to add Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts to the sentence.
  • 13) Subsquently, in this diff, says "An editor has said the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart." (This is untrue.)
  • 14) In this diff, asks "Where does it say in the Dallas article that the Green Prayer cloth is a direct mail piece by Ewing?" (It doesn't.)
  • No such thing was ever said [116][117]
  • 15)In this edit he nows realizes that wasn't stated, but still wants a
    WP:RS
    -newspaper article on one who wrote some donations letters removed. He asks "but wouldn’t it be better to just not mention the prayer cloth"?

This is a good example of showing how this editor is not being reasonable and is very disruptive. After two and a half weeks of discussion, the user wants to ignore the sources and discussion to remove a sourced sentence. The sentence wasn't even critical either.

• Exclusion of material because its/could be critical
  • 16)Second edit on talk page says "You could criticize almost any church or ministry for fund raising and lifestyle...This kind of criticism does not fall under Wikipedia NPOV guidelines." (Shows an attempt to exclude material simply because its critical and misunderstands
    WP:NPOV
    policy.)
  • 17)Claims a link from google news is "an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned." That is his reason for removing a paragraph with several independent newspaper sources (as you can tell by the different footnote numbering in his quoted block). Ignores all the independent sources mentioned here to make a broad and unapplicable usage of BLP.
  • 18)In this diff he wants the same paragraph removed now because "it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved." No explanation of what's confusing or unclear despite the several. Another broad BLP claim to white wash material.
  • 19)Based on his misunderstanding over the one or two sentences(above 12-15), he wrote "I think the solution would be to remove the paragraph as it stands, with the inaccurate material and add the paragraph as follows with just the facts from what Stewart is doing and saying." (If a one claim is wrong then you remove that sentence not the whole paragraph.)
  • 20) In this diff, "Better Business Bureau doesn’t endorse its members anyway so it seems to be included only as a negative comment violating Wikipedia NPOV." The BBB wasn't a "negative comment," but simply said Stewart didn't disclose his finances so they couldn't judge him.

• Unproductive discussions
  • 21) In an attempt to move things forward Another editor asks "Harvest09, are you suggesting that this sentence word-for-word needs to appear in the reference?"
  • Harvest09 doesn't answer the question, but brings up another (and incorrect issue).
  • As the editor pointed out, "In the webpage which quotes the Dallas Morning News article, the phrase you quote does not exist, so the charge that it was "made up by Fisher" seems questionable at best."
  • As stated above, nonetheless the wording was changed and Harvest09 still wanted all mention removed.

• Removes cited material
  • 22) Removes a cited fact that he lost his tax-exemption.
  • 23) Removes the cited sources again.
  • 24) he removes a source ("Watch where you make donations," USA Today, February 3, 1992) with a summary "No link to verification removed for WP-V and NPOV."
  • 25) Wholesale removal of paragragh his given reasons "it isn’t supported by the reference cited and seems to be there only as criticism WP-V NPOV" aren't true. As anyone can visit the refs/links.

• Misleading edit summaries
  • 26) Summary marked "Corrected improper use and non-use of a comma", but is was a deletion of a name.
  • 27) "I corrected language that was NPOV" was an entire white wash. Once the white wash was complete his next edit removed the word controversial from the lede. This left the article a halfiography.
  • 28) Summary read "Removed random name in statement. WP-V NPOV" The name is mentioned in the context of the article and the source is link
    WP:V
    /RS.
  • 29) Summary says "Corrected information found in Bussiness Journal article", but if you look below he added "and no charges were ever filed" to a sentence sourced to the IRS, which is not made in that source. Also note he undid the other change a little while later leaving in the false IRS claim.

• Promotional material
  • 30) First edit includes promotional material it gets removed then added again then deleted, and added for a third time.
  • 31) Maybe not too promotionally but this uncited OR gets added repeatedly by him.
  • 32) He wrote: "I don't think anyone really cares that much about this page, but it is a good one to practice on." Later, its clear the article is not wiki-practice because he's writing a book on the subject!
  • 33) Wants material removed, but "it will be in my book."

An example attempting to work with user, most recent issue

• • 34) I sought opinions on this at the
    Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph section (also mentioned in my AN/I thread). Another editor responded that it sounded good for inclusion and there was no response from Harvest09 for three days (though he kept editing the talk page). This lead me to add the paragraph
    assuming there was no issue.
  • A few hours later Harvest adds some material to the article.
  • Then he posts a question about the sources and I respond.
  • His next post calls the paragraph "offensive" and wants the material removed citing "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
  • Then he writes on another editor's talk "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"
  • I asked for my for any "specific sentence/source ... concerns". Again he gave no specifics. I asked again for specifics quoting myself. He again gave no specifics.

Violates WP:CIVIL

• • 35) He wrote: "Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Teodorovich as a snow keep yesterday. The nominator then altered their comments, which I reverted, pointing out that the debate had closed and advising them to raise any ongoing issues on the article talkpage. Another participant then refactored their comments as an apology to the nominator, which a third participant has requested I revert. Now usually we do not allow closed discussions to be edited, but we do encourage the refactoring of unnecessarily hostile comments. There would be a precedent in allowing alterations in courtesy blanking nasty RfAs, for example. What do you think ought to be done in this case? Skomorokh 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I feel that allowing people to alter their talk page comments would be a bad idea. There's a reason we tell people not to modify the archived discussion, in big red lettres. The archive is a record of the closed discussion, preserved for all to see. Records of discussions should not be removed or altered except with a very compelling reason, such as an Oversighter might have. altering archived discussions juse because they were a bit uncivil has never been our way.

Talk

17:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The first diff was unnecessary and you were right to revert it. What's the point of adding a comment like that to a closed discussion? The edit by User:Ikip should also be reverted, because it takes responses to his comment out of context. I'm not opposed to striking the offending sentence instead of removing it outright though.--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was closed - my comment was made 4 minutes after the discussion was closed, so I probably never got the red sentence. I'm surprised this became an incident though: I expect all post-closure edits to be reverted. --Carbon Rodney 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The combined diff shows no apparent overlap, so an edit conflict would not have been generated. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Striking stuff is fine imo, but stuff should not be added, removed, or refactored. If you want to make some kind of amends, or additional comment, do so on the talk page. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were angry enough to write

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Changing comments on an archived AfD makes the readable decision-making process misleading. Apologies and other

WP:CIVIL

reconsiderations after closure should occur on the AfD Talk page. Strikethroughs should be allowed on Talk pages in general, but not on closed/archived discussions—the latter lends itself to bad-faith edits, such as sanitizing one's edit history, and outweighs any potential WP:CIVIL benefit.

Full disclosure: I have been irked by different editors radically changing comments I had replied to (in AfD's and other discussions intended to be public), making my replies look pointless or foolish; I try not to do this, and would prefer others play by the same rules. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Restored to version as of Skomorokh's close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• If we're not going to allow people to amend intemperate comments then we should allow them to request courtesy blanking. We should not be in the business of erecting monuments to people's foolish moments, should we? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The few times I've ever edited an archived page I try to make it clear that it is an after-the-fact edit rather than rewriting history. For example, you could strike a hasty comment and then add in italics: Note - I am striking my own comment now that the matter is closed because I believe it was unfairly harsh. Sorry for any inconvenience - second signature ... I can't see how anyone would object to that. Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is different from selective refactoring because a reader will not be misled – clearly the discussion wasn't originally blank. I only strike, and when I do, I label them with a new signature in <small> tags, sometimes with a note per Wikidemon. WP:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments allows for striking, removal, or rewriting. I agree with the consensus that archives should not be altered without good reason. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride keeps deleting people's secret pages for no real reason, all written in LOLtalk (see here [click on the red link!!]). Other users have been complaining about this and I think that this will turn into (if it not already has) a problem. Thanks for reading and dealing with this!! Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Already being discussed on AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MZMcBride_and_deletion -MBK₀₀₄ 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this edit by Russavia [118], which, while ostensibly putting a redirect, effectively demolishes the entire article (whatever its merits) without so much as discussion, and could be qualifed as WP:Vandalism.

Russ's edit summary seems to display an interest in further discussion if users object to the change. Absent some pattern of ongoing or past trouble, calling for admin intervention based on this one edit seems a bit much. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; this looks to be a content dispute, nothing admins can do just now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cmstrand1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently unblocked after a name change (previous name was promotional), returned, and resumed spamming for the same firm ("Mack's Prairie Wings" )as previous to his block/name change . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the situation was being resolved as I was reporting the incident. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad employee (talk · contribs)

Bad_employee seems to be a deliberate vandal - this page is being flamed against the current President of Pakistan, have cleaned up the bilge in revision 272791543: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aacool (talk • contribs)

Warned him. If you want to block him as a vandalism-only account you won't run into my protests.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future,

WP:AIV is a good place to report stuff like this. EVula // talk // ☯

// 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Ram Sena

There appears to be an issue reguarding the

) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sathishmls needs a lecture on What Wikipedia Is NOT. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the section Bias says "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. ... When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed". The article Sri Ram Sena violates this.
• Though the article has news from the verified source, the editorial is biased. Anyone can easily observe this by just viewing the article of Sri Ram Sena.
• The above is my request. Thank you. Sathishmls (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I've been following the article. In my opinion, the article is composed of news reports linked to the group in question, instead of what the group is, which may be the reason why User:Sathishlsm feels that the article is biased. I tried to recommend that he could add further information about the group, instead of adding details like religious dictates and the like. - Skysmith (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User: MikFantastik, a new contributor, recently vandalized the article Too Beautiful to Live by removed an unflattering, but verifiable (22 source citations), section titled "Controversies" (which is a normal section for radio hosts entries, see Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Following this he started lodging frivolous complaints about me everywhere. This is all being dealt with through normal channels such as dispute resolution, editing, etc., I mention it just for context and background. (Apparently he is a member of the fan club of the article topic, which may explain his edit.)

However, as part of his - apparent - extreme irritation at my additions to the article, he edited my userpage with a note that suggested I was psychologically impaired and suggestion I call a suicide hotline. (I don't understand his comment about "trolling" "the website", unless he meant my edits to their article, but I could be mistaken, I didn't understand much of it.) To wit:

Can you explain why you're so angry at the show/Luke that you'd spend almost five hours vandalizing its Wikipedia page and that you'd return frequently to the TBTL website to Troll its comments section? Is it just because you think it upsets other people and you're enjoying that process? I'm just trying to understand. As I've said before, this is fascinating! I also feel a little sad for you. Please feel free to call 877-870-HOPE (4673) if you'd like to talk. I've definitely worked with people who have psychological profiles similar to yours and though I don't know you, I worry.

I hope MikFantastic can be a long and fruitful contributor to the community, but I fear that will never happen unless some type of sanction is imposed on him as a corrective action in lieu of this early warning sign of potential disruption. Clearly suggesting someone call a suicide hotline - especially when left on a UserPage, not Talk - goes far beyond a simple personal attack and could be construed as a death threat.

A temporary IP block or even a written warning would be nice. Thanks for your time and assistance. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see this as a "threat". It is patently uncivil, and would generally be a

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 12:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the complainant. 249 edits. Recently returned "former" wikipedian who claims to have "forgotten" his password. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be construed as a death threat because the user is not implying that someone is going to kill you. It's clearly not a particularly nice thing to write because it implies some sort of mental illness and is clearly a personal attack (for the time being, glossing over the using mental illness as an insult). MikFantastic ought to receive a warning for that. However, unless you can be certain that it was MikFantastik who removed the information, then you can't state it as fact. The only sourced content I see MikFantastik removing is here, which I agree with because it isn't neutral. I see several single purpose accounts here who did remove critical comments.

• User:Deadcow13 - who has only been removing critical statements from the article
• User:Tbtlfan - who has been removing critical statements from the article as well as Luke Burbank
• User:98.247.33.124 - who has removed critical statements from the article
• User:Radiocop - who has removed critical statements as well as blanking pages, as well as stating "troll are very sad a frustrating. TBTL is a really fun radio show and podcast that suffers from one sad person who stalks the comments section of the website and even tries to set up fake wiki pages about it. this is one of them." [119]

If you feel that there is a connection and want to take it further then you can file a request for checkuser. However, there is always the possiblity that it will say that they are all independent users. Something else that I am puzzled about is your editing. For instance, here where you made a lot of edits before then requesting speedy deletion. Edits like this one where you added several potentially disputable sentences without any citations. In future, if you are adding controversial statements, then make sure they are added with citations. Don't add the statement and then try and cite it later on. Without citations, it looks as though both sides have an agenda when editing this article.

You state that you are dealing with this via dispute resolution - do you have a link to the page? Readro (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your questions (I apologize in advance for several syntax and grammar errors in below, I'm in a remote area with a limited, slow internet connection at present that makes editing and typing rather slow and tedious):

Multiple User Vandals - Yes, most likely they are multiple users. I've previously noted the topic of this article may have requested his fan club begin "patroling" his wikipedia page, which strikes me as tampering. At the present time I think it would heighten tensions for me to pursue that so, in the spirit of trying to difuse tensions, have elected not to do so. In addition to editing my personal userpage, these users have insinuated various scurrious things about me, note above mentions of me being a "troll" [sic] on "their website", which I assume means they believe the topic's wikipedia entry is off-limits? (I really don't know.) In any case, my interst at this point is simply to diffuse tension and allow everyone to take a breather but I'd still rather not be called mentally unstable on my own userpage. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

"potentially disputable sentences" - were added with 22 citations, not "without any citations."These were immediately deleted by above new users without discussion or explanation. The article now stands as a 3-page long article on a local radio show with 1 citation of dubious quality. Requests for citations by myself and others on the vandalized version of the article have been deleted without discussion. Notability and ad tags by myself and others have been deleted without discussion.

re speedy deletion - that was, frankly, an error on my part; one which I have no problem in admitting and taking responsbility for

dispute resolution - please see the discussion page for this article for further clarification; as I've noted I'm OOT at present and unable to commit the time to initiate the process for formal mediation as I've never had to do it before so there will be a learning curve for me -- in my note on the discussion page I've explained that - to avoid an edit war - I will avoid undoing the vandalism and replacing the, fully cited, sections that were deleted without discussion or explanation by users registered less than 24 hours whose only edit history is on this article until I have the opportunity to begin formal mediation; I believe this is a congenial, proactive and respectful way to handle this matter - I have no desire to engage in the type of unilateral action the vandals did or to perpetuate ill will and have both voluntarily placed the onus for reconstruction of the article on myself and indicated a willingness to voluntarily suspend corrective editing until mediation can begin ... in the interim I'm simply asking the vandals not edit my actual userpage as well as the article or, if they do, at least please don't post numbers to suicide hotlines - I don't believe that's an unreasonable request and it's the only one I'm making in this incident report

Thanks for your input. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) They've been warned about incivility - nothing blockable from that right now. Is there anything else you need out of this for resolution? (

) 13:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks very much for your assistance. I don't even think the comment, despite being loathsome, warrants user blocking and to do so would just further inflame tensions in what, inexplicably, has become a tense situation for reasons I still don't fully understand. Thanks for your swift and tempered action. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jane Addams received this edit that mentions the death of someone occurring in a certain amount of time. I usually stick to FAC and its snug little circle. I reverted the vandalism and blocked the IP for a week, though I'll wager something stronger is warranted. I'm unfamiliar with the way the IP or local police are contacted, if at all in this situation. I would appreciate a brief "this is what we do" so I can do it. I have to do it to learn it, so if I need to contact the provider because that is what admins do, I'll do it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like nothing more run-of-the-mill vandalism. That block should suffice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference,

WP:TOV has some thoughts on this type of incident. --Rodhullandemu

14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Impersonated by disruptive IP user

Resolved

 – Blocked by

a handy-dandy admin

Recently a the page

What is the proper course of action? Thanks --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The section that

WP:Impersonation redirects to doesn't have anything on the subject any longer, but in the past it said they could be blocked immediately. –xeno (talk

) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting it here was a good course of action. Indef. yandman 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the original poster's comment to fix the article name. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, just a query involving

15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it was me who brought it up: Yes, I would say something from the ARBMAC repertoire – preferably a revert limitation – would be useful. This is a user motivated by a strong POV issue, certainly editing in good faith and quite possibly with some kernel of a legitimate concern somewhere, but pushing rather stubbornly against an established dominant view, and so far he has shown no other strategy than to revert-war when he finds opposition. This is exactly the type of user whose only chance of ever editing more happily is if he's forced to stop the reverting. (And if he can't do that, it will soon show and he'll have to go.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Re: "Just because it was me..." etc.) - No sir, please don't feel that because I brought something up that was indirectly "between us" before a while ago that I'm out to get you. That last sentence might not make sense, but here's a summary: I brought the ARBMAC request here because I haven't had much experience dealing with these things in the past so I'm seeking guidance. I don't mean anything bad by this at all, friend :-) I have absolutely nothing against you whatsoever! :-)

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. :-) That was more like oh I'm so sorry I'm barging in on a discussion at ANI again when I ought to be doing other stuff... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is not here all that much, but when he is here, he is an ethnic POV-warrior of the first order, usually on articles related to Bulgaria. Discussions seem to make no impression on him whatever; he knows he is right and that is all that matters. Look at a few of the items in

WP:ARBMAC

, but made no appropriate response. He simply removed the notice from his Talk.

Since Monshuai causes trouble only in brief bursts, and then disappears for several months at a time, a short block or topic ban would have little effect. I suggest a *permanent* topic ban on Balkan-related topics. He would be allowed to request removal of the ban after three months, and editors could judge the sincerity of his reform at that time. The ban would be announced on his Talk page by an administrator, and then listed at

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per Ed's great reasoning.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User ignores Image warnings

user:Warden987 is uploading lots of files without source information. Despite the vast amount of warnings on his page they don't seem to stop. Judging by where the pictures are taken russian may be their first language. --DFS454 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just gave them a final warning, in both English and Google-translated Russian. If anyone actually speaks this language, please try talking with them.

a/c

) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since they went and uploaded another 26 images without any information, I've blocked this user indefinitely until they read through the image use policy and promise to abide by it.

a/c

) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

About to lose my mind...

Because apparently, merely providing a source for a BLP violation, even if the content is completely unsupported by it, makes it a content dispute. You can read for yourself the claim made at

DGAF, I'm never going to edit the article again (seriously, only 1000 people a month even read it, so I probably shouldn't care), but I'm going to ask that someone else actually bother to look into this. Someguy1221 (talk

) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Also, we shouldn't be dealing with guilt by association. I'll continue to revert per BLP as long as I can. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week per IAR. --Carnildo (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think IAR is a good rationale to wheel-war my decision. You could have at least asked for my input, not just ignore my decision. And I still maintain it was correct to decline protection because blocking the IP is still the easier option that does not shut out all anon editors (per

WP:PROTECT this should be preferred). SoWhy

10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

...Except that in this case we have a determined edit warrior with a dynamic IP address. Semi-protection was appropriate, more so than trying to play whack-a-mole, especially since there is a BLP violation. Horologium (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the evidence is where? I see no tries to block the IP first and I still maintain that it was perfectly possible to ask me before ignoring my decision. That would just be good manners... SoWhy 11:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that you should have been (at least) notified; I would have asked, but that's because I tend to be process-oriented. But as to the first, the duck test pretty clearly establishes that all of the IP addresses are the same individual, or a small group working together, since the only edits they have are to (re)insert the same defamatory and

synthesized allegations against a living individual. Blocking any of the IPs would not have had any effect, as simply logging off and resetting the modem would have established a new IP address. Horologium (talk)

12:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree here and for bringing the content dispute here, but on my reading of the interview that was cited as a source, there seems to be a solid basis for saying that this guy "supports" d'Aubuisson. I was about to revert, but I don't want to risk getting blocked for BLP violation without discussing first. Could the admins who have mentioned BLP please register that there is some substantial disagreement here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you translate it? Either way, Wikipedia doesn't do guilt by association. Well, it does, but shouldn't. We can say he supports d'Aubuisson, and/or which parts of him, but what d'Aubisson does is strictly off-limits for the biography of Ávila. Doubly so, because he's a presidential candidate. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is going on at length about how D'Aubuisson "would be pround of him" and how he has been following D'Aubuisson's model and why he is proud of having photographs of D'Aubuisson in his office and how D'Aubuisson was generally a great guy. As for whether this attachment (his, personally) is a topic for public "controversy" in the country, I can't say much; I have no idea about the political life of that place, but foreign media certainly do stress the heritage of D'Aubuisson when talking about the role of his party, and you can easily find things like this [121] (a political comment whose status as a "reliable source" is certainly open to debate, but you get an idea of the potential for controversy.) Quote: "His [i.e. Ávila's] immediate imprecation to the ghost of the death squad founder and intellectual author of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, Roberto D’Aubuisson is a chilling reminder that the structure of power in El Salvador will not give up their privilege [...]". By the way, "guilt by association" is a red herring here. If A likes B, although B is widely agreed to be evil, and I take that as grounds for a negative judgment about A, that's not "guilt by association" but an entirely rational judgment. "Guilt by association" would be if I negatively judge A because B likes him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a nazi

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hours by User:Seicer — Aitias // discussion 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. 70.137.146.36 (talk · contribs) has called me a nazi more than once now. First time: diff, second time: diff. In the second edit they also called me Roland Freisler and said “Wieki-Heil”. Could someone please block them immediately? Thanks in advance. — Aitias // discussion 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User is still going at it on the talk page. Talk page protection might be necessary. It's also funny that the IP mentions "Wiki-Stasi" as that has nothing to do with nazism but rather communist East Germany (since the IP is so fixed on nazi-labelling). MuZemike 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Seicer protected the talk page. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What to do, what to do.

Today I found a userpage being used to host the user's list of self-created "Thomas the Tank Engine" episodes. I knew I'd seen this behaviour before, so after blanking the page with a note that WP is not their personal webhost, I went on a little hunt. Seems User:TurboJ=User:TurboJ Produce=indefblocked User:TurboJUSA. I'd already warned him about the impropriety of having two accounts editing; now, it seems, I'm dealing with block/ban evasion as well as socking. Should I just block the whole mess of them? GJC 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would. Any application for unblocking should be on the original account. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TurboJ is already indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND by new? editor User:TWilliams9

talk · contribs), a new? editor has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) following me to various articles. He "arrived" on Feb 13, and by Feb 14 was editing articles I had recently edited. ([122], [123]) By the 15th he was reverting old edits of mine on one article, and trying to insert my username into another.([124] [125] [126] [127]; Note this edit in particular) Yesterday and today he tagged 18 stubs I had created on synagogues for deletion or merger. I've reverted his edits on the stubs, and brought the issue here for further discussion. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He's obviously a previously blocked troll and should go back to blockland. Wikipedia is not a battleground and not the place to take out grudges.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one brought this to my attention I am glad that I noticed it after realizing my requests for condensing were deleted. I think it appropriate to borrow a recent quotation from another wikipedia user.

talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my advice Brewcrewer. Become an extremely prolific and influential editor; get admin and checkuser powers; keep your edits fiercely nationalistic; keep your policy rationales variable, specious, ad hoc, and contradictory; work on developing a more peremptory, imperious, and papal tone toward editors who disagree with you; make hair-trigger edit-warring as basic to your idiom of self-expression as iambic pentameter was to Alexander Pope's; and most importantly, make a 100+ edits a day to dozens of articles on all aspects of the Middle East conflict. Make yourself ubiquitous in that area, and take up any partisan angle you can find within it, no matter how silly. Then, if in your ceaseless, vigilantly ideological patrol of that extensive beat, you find yourself having a number of arguments with the same editors, you'll be in a position to accuse those editors of "stalking" you; with any luck, a fool or two might even believe it.--G-Dett (talk

) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer doesn't ned your advice, G-Dett, and I do not see wha your comment has to do with this incident. I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint as you haven't offered any explanation for a disturbing pattern of stalking. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The G-Dett quote was added by TWilliams9. Addressing G-Dett is entirely to miss the point; he or she is probably unaware of this teacup-storm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's G-detts' quote. Although she would probably be insulted that it's being put to use by some troll/sockpuppet.

talk · contribs): What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada)

23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint because you got all worked up you forgot to actually read the posting I made. Brewcrewer don't get your pantys all up in a bunch. As far as this tempest in a teacup I have been editing a lot of IP articles since I joined, so a person could think I was hounding Jayjg. I don't have any prior experience editing on wikipedia but have followed some history of wikipedia by reading the site wikipediareview. I don't think that site is looked kindly upon here but whatever, and there is sort of a go-after-the-new-guy mentality by some here. Ive been learning a lot this week of the ins and outs here, and if you edit articles others are attached then watch out boy! Reading up on wikihounding and then looking at this complaint, I was probably on the border of that for merger request for the Temple articles, I didn't realize that looking at a particular editors contributions when determining who made all those stubs was against the rules here. My proposals of merger were worthy of a discussion, and it is unfortunate that all of those proposals were deleted by the articles creator for an unrelated reason. Also, I was not trying to subtly put Jayjg's username into the CAMERA article, I was trying to expand the description of the events, you can see my discussion of the CAMERA on the discussion page

talk

) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

However, your claims are not credible. You did not simply bump into the articles I had edited in the past simply by "editing a lot of IP articles", but quite obviously followed me to articles in which I was one of the most recent editors. Brad Delson is not an "IP article". In addition, new editors do not figure out how to add templates correctly, or what templates to add, by reading WR. And indeed, you were "not trying to subtly put Jayjg's username into the CAMERA article", you were quite blatantly trying to do, and five edits is not "one edit". Finally, your reverting me on the Labor Party article was a revert, plain and simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Plain and simple my edit on the Labor Party article was the addition of a source for the attempt at bettering wikipedia. Your entry [[128]] My Entry [[129]]. When you put "→Abrahams donations: remove unsourced original research)" and someone else comes along and puts the material back but adds in a source to back up the material don't get mad, read the source. Plain and simple it was an edit that was an attempt to better wikipedia. Also wikipedia has these neat features that describe how to use templates and then a nifty gadget called show preview so you can check to see if you did it right!

talk

) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "get mad", and I'm not

recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So the articles you recently edit don't need improvement? That is a pretty bold statement Jayjg.

talk

) 04:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not

recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone involved to adhere to

WP:CIVIL, especially on an AN page. THF (talk

) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry THF and Brewcrewer. I'm was frustrated that editing IP articles from a different world view but trying to stick to facts gets words like Troll thrown out at you, but that is no excuse for my comments to Brewcrewer, and Brewcrewer I am sorry. Just to get a clarifying on hounding, is it hounding that THF probably followed me over from the

talk

) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I put some direct and related questions to TWilliams9 on his talk page yesterday and he replied. --

talk

) 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Would this be an example of hounding by Wikiwatcher, because I doubt he wound up on this article by any other means than looking at my edits or talk page? I have no disagreement that I looked at some of Jayjg's edits. My edits have been focused on the content, not the contributor, and that is apparent in my edits. The edits have all been to better help the project, not trolling as Brewcrewer put it, but positive edits that I have defended in discussion pages.

talk

) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't "accidentally" show up at the articles I've just been editing, disingenuously claiming that because you've edited all of a dozen I-P related articles, it is somehow inevitable that you will show up at the articles I am editing, including non I-P ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a threat Jayjg and I have no interest in getting in a pissing contest. Are you telling me to check the edit history of articles to see if you changed them 2 months ago before I add a source in? [[130]] Maybe you need to calm down some.

talk

) 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, and I'm not

playing your game. Wikipedia has over 3 million articles. I'm one of the most recent editors on a few hundred at most. You'll have no trouble avoiding ones where I am one of the most recent editors. Feel free to report back to WR the results of your breaching experiment. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What defines recent? Would you consider this guy off limits from my editing because you edited in 2005? [[131]]

talk

) 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not

recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding how tagging some 18 stubs that Jayjg created on synagogues for deletion or merger isn't some form of hounding and/or wikistalking.

talk

) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the edits you will see I put in a merge section on one of the temples [[132]] then based on this list [[133]] I put the template on all of the stub articles in the list. I used the template that allows up to 20 merge requests on one template and then placed it on all 20 articles to have a centralized discussion. What better way do you suggest?

talk

) 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been here for nearly a year now and have yet to try to delete stuff. There are patrols for that. I thought new users would come here to expand and write articles, notto dump articles that someone (in this case someone whose name he has brought up in a negative way on Talk pages) else has written. Seems a pretty straightforward case to me.

talk

) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't try to delete, I tried to merge.

talk

) 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TWilliams tagged a bunch of non-notable articles with a merger talk and created a section to discuss it. Perhaps it's out of line, but he did what he was suppose to as far as the articles go. Just becaue Jayjg created them doesn't suddenly make them immune from TWilliams editing. If I saw them for the first time, I would have tagged them just the same.

11

04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously TWillams has been around before. Not just because Jayjg created them, but because anyone could have created them. He seems to be quite hung-up on Jayjg, though.

talk

) 04:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem TWilliams has been around before and is quite concerned with User:Jayjg's edits. Tagging eighteen of the articles created by the same user user with merge or delete seems not to be a coincidence.—Sandahl (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have established that Sandahl, and if you read up a few lines you can see why I tagged 18 at once.

talk

) 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you were right. His very first edits to Wiki were to an article I work on (see his talk page for more details) and were neither newbie quality nor constructive: (his edits are in bold)

Kazan was a three-time

Golden Globes winner, a snitch for the House Un-American Activities Committee, as well as a recipient of numerous awards and nominations in other prestigious festivals as the Cannes Film Festival and the Venice Film Festival

.

Note how this so-called newbie inserted this text into a list of awards and within the lead itself. He's already hit four articles that I work on. --

talk

) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit to Richard Shelby is not the sign of an editor who wishes to contribute productively to Wikipedia. THF (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hit? Kazan was a snitch.

talk

) 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the 10 most famous spies and snitches in history [[134]] " Elia Kazan: Snitch to the stars" probably deserves that in his biography.

talk

) 04:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So what happens with these things? I will stay away from the Temple articles now that others have been informed. For the Camera page I disassociated myself from that a few days ago and the conversation seems to have died out. I will make a promise to try to get as far away from Jayjg's edits as possible, and will not check his edit history or talk page. Sound good Jayjg? Is this matter settled for you?

talk

) 04:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully I will never see you again.

talk

) 04:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved

Even if he leaves Jayjg alone, this edit to Richard Shelby is not the sign of an editor who wishes to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Similarly disruptive edits are being made to Fatah[136] (where he is edit-warring against multiple editors' consensus) and Elia Kazan, and there's a systematic pattern of seeking out Israel- and Jewish-related articles and make tendentious edits. E.g., [137], though no other nominee for the Golden Globe has a footnote for this non-controversial information. The merger proposal to Beth Israel was deliberately nonsensical, and then he made remarks on the talk page for discussion of the merger that seem suspiciously like trolling. THF (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you are hounding me, great! I reverted like 4 attempts at vandalism from Richard Shelby including one that said he was in the KKK [[138]]. I made 2 consecutive edits to Kazan, and if you read above CNN has named him as one of the top 10 snitches of all time. The Blaumilch Canal article had no citations at all, it is appropriate to add a fact tag to that. With Fatah you keep lying and then reverting my well sourced information and trying to game the system. For the synagogue merger proposal I didn't realize initially that Beth Isreal was a name like St. Mary's, I thought it was some denomination. Once this was pointed out, my response was not trolling. You opposed as proposed, so I proposed something else, seems like the logical next step. It appears you are taking great joy in harassing me

talk

) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That you make one or two non-controversial and trivial anti-vandalism edits for every disruptive edit you make does not make you a net positive to the project. That you come on to this page to defend your Elia Kazan edit and identify three legitimate edits I've made to complain about me further proves my point. THF (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, THF. What's also not resolved, if not actively avoided, is the "?" in the heading of this entire section. --

talk

) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By avoid you probably mean only 4 responses by me. [[142]] [[143]] [[144]] [[145]].

talk

) 18:46, 23 February 2009

(UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what I probably mean. --

talk

) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now he's retaliating by arbitrarily reverting edits I make, complete with fake edit summaries. Why do we tolerate this? When does

WP:DUCK come into play? THF (talk

) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FAKE edit summaries? What is a fake edit summary? Please calm down THF and lay off the personal attacks. [[146]].

talk

) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, most of this dude's edits are to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Enough said. If not he's being outright disruptive he's being clingy to editors. A perusal of his edits indicates that he has no interest in being productive here at Wikipedia. In any case, his problems clearly outweigh any sort of benefit we can get from him. We can sit here at another ANI thread in a week or we can just get rid of this editor. I guess it depends on whether we want to improve this encyclopedia or not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my edits today and yesterday are on this one thread because I have been forced to defend myself. I try to add relevant information into articles [[147]] and [[148]] and for that I am called a troll, a duck, a POV pusher, and a anti-Isreal editor. [[149]]. I think I have remained remarkably calm and civil despite insults and personal attacks.

talk

) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you by any chance ever think about why you, and not other editors, are always being forced to defend yourself here? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well since this whole thread is about me that would be a good reason. I will not speculate on others motives.

talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Restored after edited out, by accident? [[150]

]

I will also point out that THF followed my to Fatah, Eden Natan-Zada, the US Senate, Richard Shelby, Sam Seder, Jeff Ballabon, Maxim restaurant suicide bombing, and Blaumilch Canal. If you think I am getting a little attached to him its because he won't get his hands off my butt, pardon the expression.

talk

) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you didn't think about it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it sort of speaks for itself. Did you think about it long before giving out this award? [[151]].

talk

) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping focus

It seems that the key issue is the one that started this discussion and there is one logical

talk

) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to these Sockpuppet reports?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For your duck files. NB also the

WP:NPA violation here. Very tiresome. THF (talk

) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead an block me, brewcrewer it looks like you have the power to do so. I don't enjoy the hounding from people whose articles I edit and from the anti-newbie bias. Trying to put in a NPOV edit in an IP article is impossible once the POV pushing anti-Palestinian cabal. Its on to bigger and better things for me.

talk

) 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notepad ready, Brewcrewer?

MichelleSBernard was the first to get banned, followed soon after by I5kfun. A week later MorningYoga appeared. Having by then become better at recognizing ducks, I asked him early on about his prior Wiki expierence, as I just did with TWilliams9. He soon stopped editing. The very next day, however, appeared TWilliams9. They were all doing annoying edits to the Brin article.

I should add that on two other articles,

talk

) 00:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit complicated. Weren't Tom and MichelleSBernard at each other's throats due to the latter's BLP-violative edits?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), supported by Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs

01:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after comparing the edits of all of the users involved, I'm indefinitely blocking TWilliams9 as a likely sockpuppet of MichelleSBernard. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Been following this thread and might I suggest a checkuser? Seems the logical next step. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 01:54

I argued for his block long before this sockpuppetry issue arose so I clearly support. I don't know how these blocks work but we should clearly block his IP, not just his username.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: brewcrewer's question, "This is getting a bit complicated. Weren't Tom and MichelleSBernard at each other's throats due to the latter's BLP-violative edits?"

They were. And it had me fooled for weeks! After reading up on sock puppets I learned about "straw puppets" and "meat puppets." That would have explained most of what was happening - a performance! I propose we add the term WP:Hydra to the Wiki dictionary since we may have discovered a new species.--

talk

) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re - block of TWilliams9 as a sockpuppet of MichelleSBernard

Note that MichelleSBernard was also a new user who claimed to not have any experience, despite submitting an

007

for this one?

BTW, one of the aforementioned users twice last week sent me a virus posing as a Wiki "New Message" alert. The first time it took down my computer until I found and removed it. The second attempt I blocked and I also saved the source code, with the virus easily spotted. --

talk

) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-block observations

talk · contribs

).

IMO, this has gone way beyond mere coincidence. Can anyone check on these links? --

talk

) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Block shock

Blocked sock puppet

talk

) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be nonsense. I reverted the changes by TWilliams9 and protected his Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. ^
   Dallas Morning News
   . March 10, 1996. Retrieved 2007-05-17.