Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343

User:AeronPrometheus

This user is re-adding prod templates after I remove them. --NE2 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is currently here - from AeronPrometheus's comments, I think there is possibly some confusion between proposing deletion and listing at AfD. Addhoc (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this really an ANI grade problem? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. In other news, AeronPrometheus reported NE2 to WP:AIV, which obviously led to the report being rejected. Addhoc (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken similar issues here in the past, and sometimes asked if this was an appropriate place with a positive response. Where else would I take it? It was quickly approaching 3RR, and I don't know if removing prods is an acceptable "excuse" for breaking 3RR. --NE2 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looked like it was posted here before there was enough time for them to reply on their talk page and discuss there, though they seem to have missed that for a bit during the reverting.

If they'd refused to talk or kept doing obstinate things for longer then sure, here's fine. But this seems like it was still in an early stage. I figure this is where we come if AGF and patience failed, or in case of serious urgent emergency... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with George, and notified the user. A bit premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2 ignored repeated invitations to discuss the matter as adults. I looked up the proper procedure for this particular issue and reported is as advised by the help pages. Removal of a proposal without any reason given and refusal to discuss matter properly after being given repeated chances to was classified as vandalism so I treated it as such. My infraction, as it is being viewed, was brought to light by other members and I have agreed to back off. However NE2 seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to make this an issue that wouldn't have existed had he too followed the rules. Thank you to the other member of Wikipedia involved for being supportive and informative. AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You must recover

I've just seen two different pages vandalized by several unrelated IPs, a new user, and a sleeper account with the text "You must recover." Has Colbert organized a new assault on Wikipedia or something? This just doesn't make sense to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai and Super Smash Bros. Brawl so far (the former is helping create the latter, so maybe not unrelated?). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairly small number of distinct IPs related, it appears, i'm semiprotecting pages for a week and blocking the IPs for a week. If more show up let us know here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is a vandal reference to yesterday's Smash Bros. DOJO!! update, where a "Team Healer" item was revealed. Colbert hasn't been running new material for a while. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

UK v Britain

Resolved

75.70.133.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has some kind of a vendetta against the name United Kingdom. He's going around articles changing it to Britain, which is a disambiguation page and not to be linked to. One of his first edits was to erroneously alter the name of a book cited in a footnote. He ignored a note on his talk page asking him politely to stop linking to dab pages. He has made over thirty edits to Timeline of World War II, none of them helpful, including removing relevant information regarding the UN. No single edit is clear-cut vandalism, but the entire corpus, taken as a whole, seems to indicate some kind of agenda against Wikipedia policies. He has almost no edits that are not of this character. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP vandal hasn't edited since yesterday, so hopefully this is a dead issue now. Please file a new report if the behavior starts up again. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Time and date of his last edit: 02:24, 20 December 2007, twelve hours before you posted this comment. Seems a little soon, to me, to assume that he's stopped. Anyway, he's gotten one very mild comment and one severe warning, so if you think I should, I'll wait and see if it starts up again. And do you consider this vandalism? I think it could be argued that it's good faith, but misguided.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOLMAX (talk · contribs)

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

---

Is it possible to get some more eyes on User talk:LOLMAX? Ever since people have been putting vandalism warnings on his page, he's been blanking them ([1], [2], [3], [4]) despite the fact that he's either not read them or is blatantly disregarding them ([5], [6]). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes after a final warning, it doesn't matter if the warning is present on the page or not. It is inappropriate to keep re-adding them after they have been removed, and I have re-blanked the page. I have noted this user on WP:AIV though, so that if they vandalize again it is known they had a final warning —Random832 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism since the LOL edit. How is this blatantly disregarding the warnings? And anyway, editors look at the talk page history to determine appropriate warning level or reports, right? Gimmetrow 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this not just a pure vandal account? Reported to AIV. Look at his main space edits. Blanking, adding the word flatulence, adding his own name to articles since December 3rd. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And he's blocked. Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Ferrylodge

Resolved

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) is editing once again. Taking a look at this user's block log, it appears that he was banned on 2007-09-21 by community consensus, block implemented by FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs). Ferrylodge was unblocked on 2007-10-08 by Y (talk · contribs) with the following note: "To appeal community ban to ArbCom. Edits to any page other than ArbCom pages and relevant user talk pages will result in an immediate re-blocking." Ferrylodge is now definitely editing outside of the ArbCom pages. I cannot find a reference to his ban being overturned but it may well have been. Anyone know what is going on? If his ban really was overturned by ArbCom, perhaps could someone issue a one second block to make note of this in his block log? --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge to be unblocked.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found that as well. I'll add a brief note to this user's block log. --Yamla (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note, Yamla.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm asking for some comments on this user. This user has repeatedly made significant changes to articles without consensus, altering active articles to his preferred version, despite several warnings [7] [8] [9] - these are just a short selection of his repeated changes to active articles, reverting them to his preferred version. He has received countless warnings and notices on his talk page, which he simply ignores and continues. I think a block is in order here, as his repeat reverting an editing without consensus despite warnings is becoming extremely annoying. Qst 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't got the time to properly look at this now, but judging by this talk page we may also have a problem with unfair fair use here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be one of the few people here who don't know the show, but edits 1 & 3 above seem pretty good edits, and the second one very much the opposite. I think the sequence is he makes a good simplifying edit, gets reverted, then tries to make a point by making things a great deal too complicated, gets reverted with an edit summary "this is the last straw" , and then tries to make a similar good simplifying edit. If this is a sample, it looks like he could improve some of the plot summaries. Some but not all of his most recent edits seem OK also. What's wrong with [10] or [11] ? DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he has been asked repeatedly not to do this, I rewrote the plot on Stewie Loves Lois when the article was pretty much dead; he then made minor edits, slowly changing it back to how it used to be, I rewrote it further for when it had its GA nomination, and once again, he repeatedly began reverting to his preferred version. Qst 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has frequently defied warnings about adding frivolous content, yet he continues to add nonsense to several articles including: [12] and [13]. The number of times he edits his sections and the amount of change is pretty significant, borderline original research. The Family Guy article contains a note for users to explicitly NOT add the section about a feature film series. He defied that note and added it anyways.Milonica (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, Milonica, & looking into what happened only confuses things further. First, it appears you are talking about Immblueversion, not Qst -- correct? (You have an unclear referent in your paragraph.) Second, the first edit you point to merely formats an existing footnote, while the second adds a extrenal link (which I did not verify) to a page at a newspaper site about the feature film series. That edit then is a content dispute, unless there is a note about not adding a section about a feature film series, in which case it could be arguably disruption -- but not vandalism. Which leads to my third point -- where is this note that explicitly asks users "NOT [to] add the section"? I looked on the pages you linked to, & found no trace of this on either Talk page. Please explain. -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about Immblueversion, and to help explain what is going on, the note about "not" adding the section should be in the actual article itself (if it wasn't deleted by another user). It can only be seen when making changes to the actual Family Guy article, visible underneath the "Feature Film" section. Also, the talk page for Family Guy does have a section about the film right here. I agree the edits are not vandalism but merely a disruption. Hope that helps clear this up. Milonica (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is far more persuasive to explain the matter as carefully as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm interested in hearing from administrators in relation to this user, who has been editing tendentiously on Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Therapy for some time. The user has consistently failed to AGF in relation to editors that do not share his POV. He has accused others of being sockpuppets, lying and falsifying information.

Particularly concerning is his pattern of stalking and harrassing another editor, Abuse truth. I've asked that he cease this pattern of behaviour but it has continued[14]. He has followed Abuse truth from one article to another ("I followed Abuse truth's trail of inappropriate spam here from his disreuptive edits on other articles")[15] whilst blocking dozens of Abuse truth's edits without seeking consensus[16] or establishing a any basis for the constant reverts. When challenged by Abuse truth, he admits that he is reverting AT's changes on 'suspicion' that AT is lying about his sources ("I have no idea whether you're accurate when quoting hard-copy")[17]. He has also accused me of being Abuse Truth's sockpuppet [18].

Recently, he deleted info posted by Abuse truth stating "I don't believe AT understands the concept of truth"[19]. He has also claimed that Abuse truth cannot speak English [20] and later claimed that Abuse truth is lying about his competency in English [21].

Rubin takes a particular interest in articles relating to child sexual abuse, and his POV on these matters is clear. As his userpage states, he believes that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is "scientific, unbiased, and in support of children" [22]. It is clear that Rubin seeks to entrench this POV within the articles that he edits, and he has a particularly elastic approach to assessing credibility. In two instances where a source that supports his POV has been demonstrated as unreliable (for instance, by the substantiation of that sources link to a pro-paedophile organisation [23] or the False Memory Syndrome Foundation[24]) he claims that a "severely biased" source is not "necessarily unreliable", whilst elsewhere, he deleted information from a newspaper article on the basis that the newspaper itself was somehow "discredited" [25], and he supported an attempt to remove a reference to a book by a tenured professor on the basis of the political orientation of the book's publication house. [26]

It looks to me as though Rubin meets all the criteria for wiki-stalking and tendentious editing. A number of editors have expressed concern about his conduct on RMT and SRA but he has yet to modify his approach to the articles, or cease his attacks on Abuse Truth. Any advice or assistance would be welcomed. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, User:Abuse truth is a fairly provocative editor who makes a habit of pushing his POV as far as he can get away with. He is not deliberately disruptive, but many of his contributions are prejudicial, lack sources, or are sourced to (say) the "Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media", a small and fairly controversial group of therapists who work in the area that used to be called "Multiple-personality disorder", or to Feminista!, the online "Journal of feminist art, literature, social commentary and philosophy." To say nothing of his rather "aggressive" username (with concomitant double entendre). Reviewing his contribution logs, and reverting or discussing where appropriate, would not necessarily be out of line. <eleland/talkedits> 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

this topic has, not surprisingly, a long history of this sort of behaviour on all sides. As neither believes the opponents are acting in GF in the RW, what can be expected? I know I could not edit there on a neutral way, so I don't try to. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, it is not appropriate for you, or Rubin, to regularly review an editors contribution logs and revert dozens of changes en masse. Rubin has achnowledged that he undertakes this activity on suspicion that AT is lying or misrepresenting offline sources, but he has yet to actually demonstrate that this is the case.

AT is an inexperienced editor, and your confrontational approach to AT, and Rubin's pattern of harrasment, constitutes a failure of either of you to AGF and work collaboratively with him so that he's more effective in the future. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like also like to draw admin attention to the two complaints have been made recently about Arthur Rubin's conduct on the RMT and SRA pages here [27] and [28]. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, you should have left a message on Arthur's page about this report on WP:AN/I. It is quite novel for inexperience to be used to excuse poor editing by a new editor (adding unsourced material, removing sourced material) and to condemn the inevitable remedies from experienced editors/administrators as harrassment and wikistalking. You yourself have recently had your own contretemps with Arthur [29] over WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Abuse truth is a single purpose account, my first assumption was that they were an anonymous user to "Abuse the Truth". Their single purpose is to alter every article on child abuse, repressed memories, and articles on people who supported the concept that the day care abuse hysteria of the 1980s was a panic. AT has has been smearing the author of a book, Paul Eberle, and removing text that references the book, and heavily editing the Elizabeth Loftus article to discredit her. AT's tactics are to use fringe material and overwhelm the article with tendentious text. Most of the sources he has been using have been coming from a website called "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" see here [mind control and Abuse]. Although AT denies using the site, they have cut and pasted a typo from the site. The Associated Press articles they have been using only exist at that website and the text was verbatim, including typos. Thats why Arthur Rubin has been suspicious of sources used by AT. AT denied using this website but at least four references used in an article only exist at that site, and a typo was cut and paste from the site. Here is an example of AT using smear tactics to discredit the author of a book used as a source in the article: [[30]] by adding text to an article that uses Eberle as a reference. AT also relies on prosecutorial accusations made during trials and gives undue weight to those accusations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Abuse truth (talk · contribs) looks like exactly the sort of tendentious single-purpose account-with-an-agenda that we should be a little more aggressive about restraining. Given this editor's contribution history, screening his/her edits for policy violations across multiple articles is hardly Wikistalking. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Indiejade, 76.230.237.117 and COI

This user (and her anonymous associate; let's be generous and assume she'd forgotten to log in) have been hitting open source, open-source software and free and open source software with an extlink to her site for the last week. A sample counterargument for leaving these links in from her talk page:

Are you writing your tirades from Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Operating System?

Anyway, yeah, it's not vandalism, but it is obvious COI and it's beginning to get annoying. Talk isn't getting anywhere. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the best way to stop this type of nonsense is to blacklist the website. That will put an end to the whole tirade. Consider a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized that WP:COIN isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If any further explanation about the logic behind the link contribution is needed, I'll be happy to offer it. If user ChrisCunningham read my question as a 'personal attack,' I do apologize . . . there was absolutely no intention for my question to be read as anything but a simple question, and it certainly wasn't directed at him directly. Read it in context. Seriously, people. Who really stands to benefit from a removal of the link? Perpetual Microsoft-fanboys, yes, but the article topic is open-source. Where is the actual discussion on this from the opposing side? Indiejade (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade and 76.230.237.117 are clearly the same user. The link was first added on 2007-12-15 by the anon, and has since been re-added serveral times by both of them. So yes, let's be generous about Indiejade forgetting to log in, but also, let's consider a block for violating the three revert rule on Free and open source software yesterday. RossPatterson (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade has been told both politely and more strenously that their website doesn't contribute to the articles that they have been adding it to. As I've explained to them:

Your website does not belong as an external link in Wikipedia articles. It adds nothing encyclopedic to them, it has very little content, and nothing significantly original. Please do not add it to any more articles. RossPatterson (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 14:29, 16 December 2007

Please explain what content at zentu.net is significant, notable, or not available at better-known and well-established sites. I followed every link I could find and looked at every page and observed none. The site is nothing more than collection of links to various open source projects, and not a particularly good one at that. Until it becomes something significant, please refrain from adding it to articles on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 17:21, 16 December 2007

The Wikipedia article List of open source software packages does a much better job of categorizing and enumerating packages than your website does. It also has both the advantage of being part of Wikipedia and of linking to the many package articles Wikipedia already contains. As a rule, Wikipedia prefers internal links to other articles over external links. RossPatterson (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 18:03, 16 December 2007

After that I stood down, because it was becoming obvious that Indiejade was unable to discuss the issue and would continue to re-add the link endlessly. RossPatterson (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by my old account

Resolved

When I first started editing wikipedia, I used the username User:Senang Hati but requested a rename after policies were pointed out to me. The rename was performed by User:Nichalp (17:10, 13 April 2007) [31], whom I've just notified of this incident. The account seems to have been resurrected to troll me concerning some of my more recent edits about the notability of things like tv episodes and characters as well as Dungeons and Dragons articles. I have commented extensively on the current arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters mostly on the workshop page.

The new incarnation of User:Senang Hati is tagging articles that I originally created such as Senang Hati Foundation with clean-up tags and has now nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation. I would appreciate folks looking into this. Thanks, Jack Merridew 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

addendum: The same pattern is repeating on Smile Foundation of Bali; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali. --Jack Merridew 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. East718 had already blocked your impersonator, and I've reverted and protected your former talk and user pages to point to your new ones. — Coren ^(talk) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering what should happen to the two AfDs that were started:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali

--Jack Merridew 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned because with the redirect to my current user name these appear to have been initiated by me. --Jack Merridew 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry, I've speedily closed them as bad faith noms (and reverted the mess of templates on the articles themselves). — Coren ^(talk) 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He's back as Special:Contributions/71.212.42.88 - and I reverted him. --Jack Merridew 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Confirmed. See User talk:71.108.64.236. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)`

Now at: Special:Contributions/88.112.61.33 --Jack Merridew 10:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Finland... --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And at Special:Contributions/90.9.220.148 --Jack Merridew 10:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that 90... is in France, so he's brought in friends. I suggest that Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali be protected for a day or two. --Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/87.65.176.152 (Belgium). This is probably being discussed on some off wiki-forum - 4chan? to bring on an assault of vandals. This has frequently happened to my user page; see the page history for tons of reverts of vandalism. I believe this is tit-for-tat for clean-up tagging of D&D stuff rather than tv Episode and Character stuff. --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/82.27.237.61 (UK) --Jack Merridew 10:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/24.205.138.236 (St. Louis) --Jack Merridew 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 4chan; see [32] --Jack Merridew 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

s-Protecting the pages for a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

s-protected User talk:Jack Merridew for a short time as your talk page is being hit as well. — ERcheck (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• We should probably get a 'crat to forcibly rename the old account, the users blatantly used it because Jack changed names. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'm really surprised that this was even doable. I expected the old name to still somehow be 'taken'. If this happened once, it must have happened before... and should be prevented in the future. nb: Special:Contributions/Senang_Hati are edits that I did not make yet the user and talk pages point at me. --Jack Merridew 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure it's not doable any more - it's happened before and I think that account creation is blocked for renamed users post a certain date. I could be wrong however. I'll have a word with a 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  If it's possible I would like the impersonator's edits disassociated from my name. I don't, however, see quite how that might work. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  It was still doable recently - I had to recreate and protect my old account when I renamed. BLACKKITE 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  You could move the account to something like User:Senang Hati (usurped) then create the account again in your name. Would need a crat to agree though. Woody (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you would want to do is have a 'crat rename the impersonator's account from Senang Hati to Senang Hati impersonator or Hati impersonator vandal or something similar. (The 'crat should chooose a name that makes clear that the impersonator isn't the original person, and isn't related to the Senang Hati Foundation.)

As soon as the account is renamed, Jack Merridew (or a 'crat, or someone else responsible) can recreate the Senang Hati account to ensure that another obnoxious individual doesn't snag it. Presto—the nasty edits are no longer associated with Jack or the Senang Hati account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said. The WP:BN would be the best place for it. Woody (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• nb: see WP:BN#I was harassed by my former account for next phase. --Jack Merridew 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Obeoboy again

Per my previous report here, Oboeboy (talk · contribs) has come back off his previous block and has simply started adding the anti-death penalty petition to talk:Capital punishment again. Could someone try and explain things to him. Thanks. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a second time. He sees nothing wrong with this despite the explanation to him which is as clear as it's going to get. Since I believe he'll just keep doing it, I've blocked him for 48 hours to prevent him from doing it again for a bit. Metros (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted one of his earlier edits here at Day, but the unsourced information (an argument for biblical justification of the theory of evolution) was re-added by an IP here. Could this user be evading a block? And is this worth taking to Checkuser? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There was also a pair of edits to Pythian Castle by Oboeboy and the IP, where the IP added a POV section to the lead, and then Oboeboy copyedited it. It might be that he forgot to log in, but then again...? The diff is here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lurkers

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Solumeiras ^talk 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good essay - could an admin advise as to what would be an appropriate place to invite comments? DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Babytoysfor bill

Resolved

 – account blocked by User:Flyguy649. Tiptoety (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization were both semi-protected because of persistent deletions by an anonymous editor. Now a new account, User:Babytoysfor bill, is making the same deletions, so I think that account should be blocked. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note-The account has been blocked. Tiptoety (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good faith cut & paste for Jingū of Japan

I've encountered a good faith editor who did a cut & paste move for Jingū of Japan → Empress Jingu. I reverted this, and requested him to read WP:RM and Help:Moving a page.

He must be a new editor, and might be unwilling to listen to me. Can one of you please follow through and see to it that he moves the page correctly? Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Ooperhoofd‎, that page has links to (or from) multiple articles:

• List of Emperors of Japan
• Emperor Chūai
• Emperor Ōjin
• Japanese empresses
• Queen regnant
• Himiko
• Hirota Shrine
• Nihon Shoki
• Sesshō and Kampaku
• Edoardo Chiossone

Somebody may need to go in and clean this all up.--Endroit (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the page in correct way, since it is in consistency with all other Japanese emperors/empresses. `'Míkka>t 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this image, and it's placement at 9/11 conspiracy theories

Resolved

Questionable Image

There are a couple of issues here, in my opinion. First, there's the copyright problem. Does this image even belong on Wikipedia. Then, there's the caption used at the 9/11 CT page about it showing the "fireworks" that brought down the WTC. Seems very POV to me. Thoughts? Mr Which??? 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Send to Misc. for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? I've participated in AfD, but not sure where to find MfD. Also, would it be acceptable to classify the addition of such an iffy image as "vandalism", and revert on sight? If not, what would you recommend, as I've removed it once, and he reinserted it? Mr Which??? 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to show the actual explosives, nothing else, and the link is http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) And how can I know if it's copyrighted or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is everything for WP images. And the moving photo shows nothing like what you claim in the caption. It shows white flashes inside of a superimposed circle. Mr Which??? 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's copyrighted; it's footage from a documentary produced by 911 Eyewitness, and is therefore copyrighted under an non-free license unless specifically released under a free license or into the public domain. I've fixed the caption so that it's more reflective of neutral point of view. --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's copyrighted, and non-free, should it be speedied? Mr Which??? 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's copyrighted, but it might be released under a free license. It's currently tagged for "semi-speedy deletion" which should give people time to try and confirm the license status. --Haemo (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this {{Resolved}} then, pending the semi-speedy? Mr Which??? 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems resolved until then, yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Could an uninvolved admin please reverse the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination), which was only open for one day? Corvus cornix_talk 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25

Resolved

 – User indef blocked Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs blocking. Obvious sock of User:Crawdad23, etc, all of which have been indef. blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, indef blocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for more eyes related to Easter Rising and Tom Clarke (Irish republican)

There has been an edit war going on between (amongst others), User:Domer48, and admin User:R. fiend on the above articles. Domer DID violate 3RR on Easter Rising, and R fiend did block Domer, despite being in an edit war with him (I don't doubt the validity of the block, but there is no way that R fiend should be blocking someone he's in active editing conflict with, which R fiend apparently sees no problem with). The situation has since devolved, with R fiend violating Civility and personal attack guidelines with statements like this and this.

There are two reports on WP:3RR by Domer about R fiend, one about Easter Rising, which Luna has since protected due to the edit war, and now about Tom Clarke (Irish republican) the first one was determined to be 3 reverts total, and the second one I'm not sure of (I can't be the one to do any blocks here). With some of the usual suspects chiming in (including User:Aatomic1 inciting R fiend to place Domer on an ArbCom enforced probation remedy here, I'm requesting that admins cut this incipient war off at the knees before it devolves into the situation that previously led into the uber-fan (dripping with sarcasm) "The Troubles" ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did not block Domer for 3RR on Easter Rising. It was for a separate article (Segi) I was not edit warring in. That block has been upheld by numerous other admins. -R. fiend (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, R. fiend. The block was upheld (as I said, he did violate 3RR), but several people have mentioned to you that you shouldn't be blocking people you are in active confrontation with, even if it's on another article SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This tiff is a bit silly. Both editors have sources on their sides; However the most recent work is by Charles Townshend and is the best and most up to date source. Perhaps the editors should both check that out. The argument seems to be about whether Clarke was in the Irish Volunteers and the extent of the secret society the IRB's invovlement in the 1916 Rising. In this case R. fiend is incorrect in his POV. User:Domer48is more correct re the IRB role. The IRB had different motives to the Volunteers and did not at the last moment believe that they could win. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See Townshend, Charles Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree more than it seems, actually. In any case, this discussion belongs on the Talk:Easter Rising page. Care to get involved there? -R. fiend (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Having previously been involved in edit conflicts with Domer48 myself, I don't need to check the article histories to believe that he violated 3RR to preserve an Irish Republican viewpoint. That said, I agree that blocking him yourself was not appropriate. File a 3RR report and let an uninterested party enforce the policy. Dppowell (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse SirFozzie's approach here. All parties need to remain calm and focus on improving the article(s). R. fiend needs to be careful about blocking editors he is in conflict with; next time getting an uninvolved admin to review and block if necessary would be better.--John (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My dealings with this editor have been very unpleasant. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi and start there, adding thing to referenced text. They then go and block me]. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI, which is an abuse of admin tools, Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. Now it has got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong Fozz warning, which they ignore, and tell John to to leave it in. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of being here that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on Patrick Pearse. They Block on another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers Sean Huston. Having filed another 3 rr I notice they still have not been blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse gose on. To top it all of they abuse their admin tool now to edit an article which is protected with no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. It over to you now to sort this out, because what can I do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on he is editing a protected page after being warned not too by the admin who put template on see Domers statement above. He seems to be on a rampage disregarding warnings and the 3RR rule today BigDunc (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was specifically requested by Luna to NOT edit a protected page because he was in an edit war, but did so anyway? Is that what I'm reading? I thought if an admin was in an edit war, they shouldn't be editing the page period, even if they claim it's a change worked out with the other party. I have to research what happened (and if Domer actually agreed to the change he made), but this smacks of REALLY bad form to me right now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice the way they slipped their POV into the edit, while supposed to be removing a sentence. Bad form, bang out of order. --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a Joke, look at his buddy on the Irish Volunteers article now. Weasel word, POV and spouting I have a PhD. Will I ask for a reference, or take the usual advice, just walk away and let them get on with it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, let other eyes have a chance to look at it. --John (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Easter Rising article edit, I'm really disappointed in R. fiend's actions. I am very tempted to revert back to the post-protection version, but considering that would be a wheel war, I need to ask for consensus. Does anyone have a problem with undoing that edit, especially considering his edit summary states that it's a compromise worked out with Domer on the talk page, and it's now apparent that it's not? And would any one have a problem with full protecting Irish Volunteers? This is threatening to spiral out of control, and I think needs to full-stop NOW, before we head off to ArbCom again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can point out a problem with the edit (so far no one has) there is no reason to revert to the inferior version. But I'm open to discussion. It should probably take place on the article's talk page, however. -R. fiend (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is condescending tripe, and I view it as a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. They done the same thing on Segi article. Now lets stick with what I'm used to, page protect it on their version. In fact page protect every article on WP: IR. The diff is there to show that the edit on the Easter Rising article was wrong. The edits on Irish Volunteers are wrong. Referenced information is removed, and replaced with POV. It is obvious no one want to use the policies, so whats the point me quoting them. --Domer48 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, you did notice that the diff you provided describes an edit made by a different editor? If not, or if this comment was made in error, you might want to adjust your comment above. --John (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No John, its the right link, check the Segi article. They are getting brought into this as well now. Now that said are they breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Domer48 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no apologies to make. I know what history is and how it should be written. I believe I've improved the SEGI and Irish Volunteer articles. Indeed I was thanked for the copyediting on the former.[33] Nobody else has complained about my behaviour, which is something you cannot claim. You really need to look yourself here. Who is attracting controversy from so many quarters? Who is involved in a permanent state of reverting? Who believes that his references are of greater importance to all others? Who believes that "referenced material" cannot be altered in any way?--Damac (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm sure it will help his case much, but I am in full agreement with Damac here. -R. fiend (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the advice of John, I'll let the Wiki admins sort it, and I do know some of them don't like editors blowing smoke up their... Kind Regards --Domer48 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a contensious area of history. Emotions should calm!!!! Read the books!!! Argue it on the talk pages before edits. This won't stop without mediation and in the end someone will change again !!!!! read the current litreture and merge with older ideas and versions for a truly good article. PS both editors have 3RR violations but they should be encouraged to speak to each other. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I use referenced sources, not comment or opinion. But thanks for the advice re the book. Now as to the 3rr, ye I did make a report but no admin seem to want to take it on. Though I got blocked without a report on a bum rap, but that was ok to. --Domer48 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources were good. It is a matter of digging deeper when COI re POV occurs. The work exist to strongly side with you but the other user also has sources so a historiographical section should be included to show those diverging opinions. I teach this but even grads still have their bias. C'est le monde de l'research . Meda Ryan vs Peter Hart stuff. Take a break and come back with banging up to date refs and arguments based on published work.In the new year i can send you both v good bibliographies. PS was in the colour guard at the Liam Mellowes commemoration on the 9th in Castletown. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re 3RR both of you should mediate and try to avoids blocks by agreeing to that as you are both valuable if headstrong contributors.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats sound Opiumjones, but this is all about the abuse of admin tools, and incivility by an admin. The content issue, I can deal with no problem. --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious case of article ownership

Resolved

 – No admin input required at this stage. Will continue to monitor. --John (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

User:DCGeist has totally dominated the punk rock article, so it is almost impossible to introduce necessary copy editing improvements and NPOV corrections. Almost all the edits to that article in the past several weeks (if not months) have been by him, and he pretty much automatically reverts most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity. I do not know if he is technically violating any specific Wikipedia rules, but he should definitely be asked to back off from that article a bit, since this is a serious case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm guessing that his behaviour has chased off a lot of good editors from contributing to that article. One major problem with the article is that it is full of opinionated quotes that are presented as if they are objective neutral fact. Another problem is informal, unencyclopedic wording and awkwardly-structured sentences. Another issue is that some of the sections suffer from list creep (in the form of paragraphs), of non-notable bands that don't even have Wikipedia articles. Any attempt to majorly address those flaws have been reverted by the editor mentioned above. Spylab (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, before making claims of "awkwardly-structured sentences," it might be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with standard American English style, in which "-ly" adverbial phrases are not hyphenated. You should also be experienced enough to know that the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article is no measure of "notability." The verifiable sources cited in the article establish each band's significance to the topic. As a largely underground movement in the United States, it is not surprising that many of the early punk rock bands outside the country's major media centers do not yet have articles written about them. The same is true for the redlinked bands from non-Anglophone countries.

As for the quality of the various edits of the article, I will direct other contributors' attention to my latest revert ([34]) of what I assume you believed to be your "necessary copy editing improvements." In fact, both of your edits detracted, if slightly, from the quality of the article. As noted in my edit summary, your desire to identify The Diodes et al. as "Other early Ontario punk bands" is unfounded, as no Ontario punk bands have previously been identified, just one protopunk band. Your desire to change "Punk rock was already beginning to give way there to the anarchic sound of what became known as No Wave" into "Punk rock was already beginning to give way in New York to a newer sound that became known as No Wave," is poor on several grounds. It is inaccurate--making a claim about New York in general, when the previous and now-restored version of the sentence described what was happening at CBGB specifically. It is unnecessarily redundant--mentioning New York for the second successive sentence. And it is less informative--the description "anarchic" telling the reader substantially more than "newer." I believe the record shows that many, though by no means all, of your edits are similarly poor or, at best, unnecessary.

As for ownership, the amount of work I've put into the article no more gives you the right to claim that I own it than it would give me that right. I preserve those edits that I believe improve the article, modify or revert those that don't, and attempt to explain in every case where explanation seems helpful or is asked of me. You will note, for instance, that I did not contest your edit removing the adjective "celebrated" from the description of D.O.A. and The Subhumans. I believe that adjective did serve a purpose--efficiently signaling which were the most notable of the scene's bands--but I accept the logic of that edit, as I did your perspective on the Bad Brains sentence (which I further edited and to which I restored the necessary period). I'm happy to address any further concerns that are posed here or on the article Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

looking at the page history, not the quality of the edits, both parties seem very near WP:3RR by now. DGG (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to DCGeist, it's not just about one or two edits, some of which have been justified; it's an ongoing pattern of dominating the article and reverting most changes by other editors, regardless of validity. In response to DGG, it is not true that I am close to reaching 3RR, as the edit history of that article clearly shows.Spylab (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do have some concerns too about DCGeist's well-meaning tendency to WP:OWN this article. Although he is a good writer and the article is also pretty good, I too was annoyed a while back when he reverted changes I made to bring the article into compliance with our policy on non-free image use, weasel words, and various MoS issues. You may see my detailed suggestions at Talk:Punk rock; there really must be a way to allow other editors to improve this article further without alienating DCGeist. See also the recent messages I left at User talk:DCGeist, both before and after I realised this was being discussed here. More input from sympathetic and experienced editors would be welcomed, at least by me. --John (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As John knows, I do appreciate his concerns—while, of course, we agree on the best course in some instances and disagree in others. We do fully agree, on a conceptual level, in "allow[ing] other editors to improve this article further." Other editors bring both knowledge and perspectives that I do not. The issue is this: the well-meaning contributions of some editors tend to improve the article, while the well-meaning contributions of other editors tend to degrade it—perhaps subtly, but quite definably.

As I noted in the article's Talk page not long ago ([35]), Grant65 is an editor whose contributions, I believe, clearly improved the article. I have never corresponded with Grant65. I do not know who Grant65 is in real life. I do not have a clue if Grant65 is someone with whom I share many aesthetic, ideological, and semantic predilections or not. What I do know is this: Grant65's edits substantively enhanced the quality of the article. My response to his edits belies Spylab's claim that I "pretty much automatically rever[t] most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity." Indeed, as I've detailed above, my response to Spylab's own edits belies his claim. I believe my recent correspondence with Wwwhatsup on two separate issues (Talk:Punk rock#UK Proto and Talk:Punk rock#Leeway) and the edits that resulted also belie Spylab's claim, at least on a philosophical level (and check the latter thread to see what role my accuser played). In sum, I don't imagine that I do or could "own" punk rock. I do believe that I've dealt properly with Spylab's edits over the past months—i.e., in a way that best maintains and improves the article.—DCGeist (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point; as I've said I think you are a good editor and a good writer, and that your intentions are good. I do think you revert too readily though, and that the article would potentially benefit stylistically from your taking a more laissez-faire attitude to it. I personally have been put off contributing to it by your zealous defence of your work. No big deal, as I said the article is pretty good and there are plenty of others to edit. Maybe as a couple of people have said these things to you now you can internalise some of it. All that said, this is hardly an issue needing admin attention and I propose archiving this, unless anybody else has anything to say. --John (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll a little concerned DCGeist that your response to WP:OWN complaints is "look, I didn't reverted this person because I liked what he did." That isn't the proper attitude to take. If someone else edits the article, you should let it be for a while and go back and discuss it later if you want. Everyone else shouldn't have to justify their edits to you. Either way, I haven't look extensively into this; nothing more than just a quick glance at this thread. I agree with John that this is a content dispute (which doesn't belong here) and you might want to consider WP:3O and the rest of dispute resolution options if there is a particular point of contention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:FICT and personal attacks

WT:FICT can get pretty heated at times, but I felt this comment was in particularly bad taste, and removed it. (calling the page, and those who supported it "an idiotic circle jerk"). Another user had since replied to him, so as you can see in the diff, I left the a diff link that would show people what he said, but somewhat minimizing unneeded attention to the inappropriate comment. The comment has since been restored three times by other users who believe that comments should not be removed (the last one saying "I sympathize, but the most asinine of comments shouldn't be removed by 3rd parties"). Any help would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking carefully at the comment, I think it could be seen as a legitimate, if poorly-worded and impolite, expression of a user's frustration with the goings-on at what seems to be a rather contentious policy page. The "idiotic circle jerk" bit seems more like a comment aimed at characterizing process than characterizing people. Since it is actions that seem to be being commented upon and not individual editors, per se, I would leave the comment be and let the participants in that discussion respond to or ignore the comment as they see fit. {EDIT:] Looking further into a couple of other other incidents where The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gotten him/herself into trouble for similar trespasses against propriety, I think it's clear that these comments are not in the same class as the kind of deliberate trollings that would qualify for summary removal. It seems this user has a history of responding to perceived confrontation by getting confrontational, so perhaps a better response to the comment would be to politely contact the editor, let him or her know why it's a bad idea to characterize (most) Talk pages as idiotic circle jerks, and ask him or her to strike the comment him- or herself in the interests of keeping the peace. Just summarily removing the editor's contribution to the discussion, jagged as you may feel it was, might actually provoke more of the behavior you're trying to attenuate. --Dynaflow babble 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Anchoress (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He complained that the argument on the guideline has been going in a circle and getting nowhere, using an unfortunate metaphor. But everyone on both sides has been saying just that, and a RfC has been filed by the supporters to try to get additional people to look at it. Bad language, but not outrageous enough to be removable. Stands out a little, because everyone else has so far been reasonably polite, considering the degree of disagreement. DGG (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Curious Blue

This person is probably just bs-ing to waste other people's time, but a blocked account is claiming he has a sockpuppet at RfA. Fireplace (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one of his socks got caught in an autoblock would suggest to me he wasn't trying very hard to mask his activities by using proxies. So a checkuser (which has already been performed on him, but another could never hurt, I suppose) would probably have no trouble uncovering his good-hand account, if it even exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All socks that were able to be found via checkuser have been blocked so he must be bluffing. John Reaves 09:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickdrew

Not sure what I to do with the user: [36], [37], and [38] could an uninvolved person check over these diffs and suggest an action to take. Thanks, VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Suggest suggesting he calm down a bit and take things less personally. He seems to be a new user who was just caught off guard by a new page patroller (and may have put the article up prematurely). It's not unusual for new people to react this way when this first happens. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much, but thanks for checking it. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Destinyefine

Destinyefine (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
This user uploaded Image:Efine.jpg (history · last edit), a blatant copyright violation, both text and image, of non-notable Nigerian hip-hop artist E-fine and recently created the article E-fine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) that User:Pegasus speedily delted per WP:CSD#A7. Destinyefine then vandalized Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. (diff)
Would a Wikipedian experianced in these matters please advise what should be done in this situation? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 21, 2007 at 11:27, User:Angusmclellan deleted Image:Efine.jpg, per CSD G11, blatant advertising. (log). I've left a message on both admins’ userpages. Taric25 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitches

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary.

There have been some weird goings-on here at Wiki lately. Yesterday, an individual diff I could clearly see had been made, failed to show up for several minutes on the mainpage, and I was not the only one to notice this very odd delay.

Just a few minutes ago I made a small edit on the RAF Fylingdales page, which was just the addition of the term "so-called" along with a couple of apostrophes - but the diff shows up as me having made a couple of dozen edits right through the article!

Is anyone else experiencing technical problems like these? In my opinion they are potentially quite serious, I wasn't sure of the best place to post about this so I thought I'd post it here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that. Even if someone else was adding material as you were editing, there would have been some sort of edit conflict. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, egg on face, I think I know what must have happened on the previous edit. I think I may have opened an earlier version of the page and edited that without realizing it. That's what you get for staying up too late and failing to notice the red warning signs :)

The delay thing yesterday was weird though. I guess that just happens now and again, although I haven't experienced it before. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly done that before - No worries. The worst is attempting to revert the last edit, and ending up reverting someone else's revert, so I ended up adding the vandalism back in. I thought maybe something happened here, where there had been an edit and your edit undid it, or something. Like I said, no problem. The lag on the other edit might just be a database thing - depending on time of day, there may have been some delay. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Leyla Pınar and User:TRWebmaster

I originally tagged the article Leyla Pınar for notability, and a case was made for her notability. So far, so good. But the article is a major mess, with the entire text of a lengthy interview with her (possibly copyrighted) and a mass of non-wikified material (I think I put in what few wikilinks the long article has). But the above-named editor has some kind of ownership thing going on (he[?] may, I suspect, also have a COI of some kind). Instead of improving the article, he simply deletes the "wikify" and other clean-up tags I've added, repeatedly, with no explanation in the summary. I even added a request for expert assistance, and he deleted that too. I've put a note on his talk page, to no avail. Could I get some backup here?--Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The press review section was indeed copyvio, taken from this link. If it's the author's site (indicating the COI you suspect), or if the author has the rights to repost it, I see no evidence to support that. I've removed it and left a note on the article's talk page, as well as a warning at the user's page. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed most of the text, given that it was taken verbatim from [39]. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

• Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 14 December 2007
• 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 5 December 2007

Articles

• Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created 20 December 2007 by Magnonimous

Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [40], so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.

I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal Re

Magnonimous

User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense... Sweet Mother Irony, what would humor be without you? JuJube (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem [41]. He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest [42]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only question is whether these studies can be applied to coral calcium; and the only difference between all calcium supplements is how much calcium is made available to the body. This amount, or percentage, is called elemental calcium. Example: "If a tablet contains 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate, it contains only 200 milligrams of elemental calcium. This is because only 40% of the calcium compound is elemental calcium". -Calcium Supplement Guidelines, VERONICA A. MULLINS, M.S., R.D. and LINDA HOUTKOOPER, PH.D., R.D.; [43] It's not: What amount of coral calcium provides health benefits?, it's that coral calcium provides health benefits. Magnonimous (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer.[44] Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody on this noticeboard cares for content disputes. Take it somewhere else. east.718 at 02:24, December 18, 2007

Continued edit-warring

Magnonimous continued to edit-war after commenting to this report, and after calling for a "TRUCE": [45]. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "TRUCE" applied to me and you only, and stipulated that both points of view be included in the article. Magnonimous (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will agree not to add any more to the article." This clearly implies that I would not add more than I already had. Magnonimous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnonimous, while we do not care about content disputes, we do care about things like WP:3RR. The edit Ronz pointed above brings you a hair's breadth away from the electric fence of that policy. I strongly encourage you not to reinsert this material into this article again unless you can obtain a consensus on Talk: Coral calcium. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

"

1. 02:59, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 - continued edit-warring)
2. 02:52, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Calcium‎ (→Coral Calcium Merge - Oppose)

"

• User Ronz enlists the help of a respected colleague: User Someguy1221 to help him resolve this edit war in his favor.

• Someguy1221 Gives good advice including the fact that parts of this article may be a content fork.

• User Magnonimous takes advice to heart, and proposes reintegration of content fork into main calcium article.

• Ronz opposes proposal based on advice of his friend, and then proceeds to retaliate by claiming the edit war continues, in his tireless quest to ban his arch nemesis, who's only crime is to have a differing opinion, and to express it, with sources to back it up.

Magnonimous (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and stop wasting our time. Thanks --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to have me blocked. As in a court of law, I am allowed to call your character into question, to weaken your credibility, as it pertains to your objectivity in this matter. Magnonimous (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are operating under some severe misconceptions here. The administrators' noticeboard isn't a court of law, and "calling someone's character into question" is usually a personal attack, and can be a good way to get yourself blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now creating a content fork

While Magnonimous clearly understands what content forks are (Talk:Coral_calcium#Content_forking) he's decided to create one [46]. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And is now using this new article to continue his edit-warring [47] --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've boldly deleted the fork as a clear creation of a page to circumvent a discussion at an existing page. If anyone has strong reservations about this deletion, I would be willing to list it at AFD, but simply moving content that is being edit warred over to another article isn't a good way to deal with the core issue of the content. Please note this action is only based on WP:FORK and is no judgment on the content and it's worthiness to be at Coral calcium; that is a decision that should be reached on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, is this chap doing anything constructive?

Or should we apply a topic-ban from anything related to calcium? Admittedly, he's only been here a week, but he's packed months of disruption into that brief time. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's been editing since 5 December 2007 through the ip address. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Defense

I don't believe this; all I ever did was try to balance this grossly biased article. And now you're all talking about banning me?? You've deleted my contribution. Deleted it again when I found sources for it. condemned me for even suggesting we should merge this obvious POV content fork back into calcium (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Rallied against me when I suggested a compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Confused me into creating a proper place for the POV content by not contesting my compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Deleted the new article even though it was balanced. And are now trying to have me banned for good.

It seems patently obvious that you aren't concerned with factual accuracy, neutrality, reliable sources, content forking, of the original content of the article. Only when I try to add something new. Could it be that you are averse to change??? Which is particularly stupid when you consider that this is a wiki, which changes constantly.

Or are you all just intolerant of other views that happen to conflict with your own. You obviously care about this wiki. You aren't overtly malicious. What is the motivation behind all this??? Magnonimous (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. As such, collaborative behavior is prized. Editors whose activity is limited to advocating for a specific controversial viewpoint are not necessarily disruptive, but when such advocacy takes precedence over Wikipedia's policies or collaborative editing, then there is a problem. More simply, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Change may very well be resisted when it is imposed by edit-warring and vitriol. Without commenting on the validity of your proposed changes, I would suggest taking a couple of days, reviewing some of the core policies, and remembering that there is no deadline. It is extremely unlikely that you will force your desired changes into the article by "winning" a war against the other editors there. It's much more likely you'll be able to incorporate your viewpoint if you discuss the issues at hand calmly and collaboratively, and pursue dispute resolution in the event of a problem. That's all the unsolicited advice I have for today. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

User:Quadell decided to expand the function of User:Polbot without getting permission to do so, without posting any notice on the bot's user page describing the fuction and without monitoring the edits to see if they were being done correctly. This is totally unacceptable behavior. The added function which was the addition and editing of FUR's has very little in common with its other approved functions. An administrator has blocked the bot. Many of it edits have been reverted as vandalism. This kind of behavior should never be tollerated. Bot operators have a greater responsibiliy to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and need to be held to task when they so blantly violate them and even more so when the operator is also an administrator with over three years as an administrator. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion forming at User talk:Quadell but I informed him of this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but that discussion is basicly a discussion of the problem with the bot, this is more of an abuse of power issue; of not think that expanding a bot's function needs approval, of not monotoring a bot when it is given greater functionality. Of forgetting that as an administrator you need to take even greater care not to blantly break the rules and damage pages in the process. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not impressed at the wholesale reverting of the bot's edits without any check to see if the changes were valid -- isn't that what the bot was accused of doing itself?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the wholesale reverting was not the best approach, especially in light of the fact that much of the material added is of a usable nature, but since that is being done by another agressive editor, I was simply commenting that it was being done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale reverting is a common approach when a bot makes a large number of possibly broken edits; on its own it isn't problematic. If the bot is fixed, it can make the same positive edits again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the bot was adding things that it shouldn't have been guessign at without human intelligence. I don't see what other way there is to fix the problem, except for humans to individually go through the thousands of edits it made and check them all over again, which, to be honest, won't be happening any time soon. In any case, it wasn't reverted wholesale, or at least no one finished all the reverting yet, as there are still literally thousands of Polbot's edits that are the current revision, starting with all its contributions on December 17 [48] continuously until it was blocked a couple days later. Dmcdevit·t 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DerHexer and I have reverted a couple of thousands of the bot's edits, but we stopped since we encountered the overlapping of the article backlink. DerHexer said he'll work a solution today. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some bots and bot operators are given more latitude than others. As far as this incident goes, the bot was blocked, its edits reverted, and Quadell has committed to open up a discussion for approval of the new task. I don't think there's anything more to address. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but when that latitude is abused, turning a bot loose and not monitoring it, it needs to at least be noted as a serious violation and acknowleged as such, not called a simple mistake. If an administor is not held accountable for his actions, then there is absolutely no grounds on which one can hold an ordinary user accountable for his. The minimum that should be expected is the acknowledgement that is was a serious break in protocol and judgement and the committment that it will not happen again. Without that, some of that extra latitude needs to be withdrawn. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I'm sure it was a mistake. Maybe he just forgot to get the permission or something. I just don't think this AN/I post is hugely necessary, given the fact that he's a long-time editor and admin who likely just made a mistake. No reason to grill him over it. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not getting approval is one thing which could be looked to as a simple mistake. But turning a bot loose with new functionality and not monitoring it, that is another totally unacceptable action, not a simple mistake. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

People who believe in the "flawless administrator" will never, ever find him or her. Administrators are trusted editors who have access to an extra set of tools to assist in maintenance work on Wikipedia, and they are also human. Therefore, even the most respectable administrator is liable to human misjudgement, such as mistakes and the occasional bad judgement call. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not expect to ever find a "falwless administrator". But I do expect that when one make as SERIOUS mistake that he would acknowledge such and commit to not doing it again. So far the only acknowledgement has been for not getting approval. The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Polbot is/was doing a good service and after Quadell gets the correct permission, I hope Polbot can continue to add fair-use rationales to images in need of them. If anything, it would cut down on work for deleting them, mass postings on talk pages and the "hundred or so" discussions on BC Bot a week.

Having a bot that adds F-URs is a damned good idea. Quadell made a mistake not getting permission, no biggie. We all screw up. But let's give Polbot and Quadell a second chance. What it is doing is a good idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: The above user is not an admin, but an editor voicing an opinion.)

Based on this, is it now OK to block bots that you see making mistakes while they tag images at speed or delete images at speed (without having a human reviewing the process)? Those bots or scripts have at least as many errors as Polbot was generating, if not more. Equally, can a bot run be reverted in its entirety if you find a few mistakes? I think that would justify reverting all the edits ever made by... No, I won't go there. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My view is that reversion of removal of content should always be reviewed by a human (you need to look at what you are re-adding). But reversion of addition of content is generally OK, as long as the removal doesn't make something less OK in terms of copyright, sources and rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that User:Quadell/Report on backlinks is a useful report that Polbot is producing. That should be discussed at the botrequest and that should be no problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overstating your case here, Dbiel. I didn't think to get approval to run this bot, and I have apologized for that in multiple places. But you claim "The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it." Isn't that just a negatively-biased was of saying "running a bot"? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the attitude that bothers me. The idea that it is OK to assign a bot new functionality and turn it loose, allowing it to make countless edits without checking to see if it is working correctly and calling that simply "running a bot" and "overstating your case". That is just plain wrong and also, totally a violation of Wikipidia policy. As far as not getting approval, that issue has been handled and apologized for. The failure to monitor your bot is another issue, which if I am understanding what you have written, you are saying that it is not your responsability to make certian it is working correctly before turning it loose. Unproven bots should NEVER be left to run unattended. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that, and I don't see how you read that into what I've said. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the issue seems resolved. The unapproved task has stopped, Quadell has apologized several times, it's the first time (AFAIK) that such an issue happens with Polbot. I've also unblocked the bot. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Snowolf, the issue appears to be resolved. FWIW, I hope the bot gets approval, because it would be very useful. Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: A BRFA has been opened for the task, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait, was User:Dexter authorized to simply undo every single one of Polbot's actions? Because he did, making literally thousands of reverts within the space of a few minutes, most obviously using a bot (a human cannot make 4000 contributions in one hour). I find it interesting that, in order to undo someone who has done something against process, we now have an administrator doing something even more against process: running a bot on his main account. Anyone care to address this? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean User:DerHexer? 4494 edits in 112 minutes (40/minute) seems implausible but I managed 8.5/minute for 18 minutes while reverting massive spam (see this AN post) with Twinkle and a 256k/64k connection. Admin rollback is much faster and I believe DerHexer has access to real broadband. Then again, it was 3x faster than what Wiki.java 0.11 can do (13/minute). MER-C 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback is in fact much faster because it only requires one click (so, with a tabbed browser you can open many without waiting for the result) and only downloads a tiny page confirming it worked rather than downloading the whole resulting rendered html of the reverted version of the article. It's not often that the situation comes up where a large number of contributions from one user need to be reverted, but when it does, 40/minute seems like a very plausible rate at which it can be done with no automated assistance. Also note that, while DerHexer did not do this in this caseI can't tell if DerHexer did it in this case, there is an option to make such mass rollbacks set the "bot edit" flag on both the rollback and on the edit being reverted, in order to hide it on recent changes and watchlists: see Help:Reverting#Bot_rollback. —Random832 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 probation

Resolved

 – Probation stays per [49]. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

[50] I have removed myself from probation as this was not in accoirdab=nce with the ruling. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot remove yourself from probation, Aatomic1. The probation was valid. Alison was in no conflict with you, and ArbCom endorsed the rights of admins to place those users under the status of probation. You were only placed on probation for one month. The terms of the ArbCom case state that we can apply that probation indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

is this acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereis the section that clarifies the ArbCom ruling, Aatomic1... that specifically states that the admins who were involved in the Troubles case but NOT involved in any edit warring CAN place people under Probation. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to state a couple things here. First of all, the two edit summaries cited are certainly sarcastic and snarky, but are not personal attacks. One was dismissive of what I considered trolling on my talk page (keep in mind WP is not censored) and wasn't directed at anyone. Also, when I blocked Domer for his Segi edit warring, I was not involved in an edit war with him. That developed later. Finally, Aatomic1 did encourage me to take actions against Domer on my talk page, but I have done nothing about it and don't intend to. That much should not be an issue in regards to me. -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no actual arbitrators commented in cited thread discussing the meaning of "uninvolved." I suggest posting a Request for clarification at WP:RFAR, unless some admin here wants to unilaterally lift the probation. However, the probation placed by Alison remains in effect until otherwise lifted. Thatcher131 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note Sir Fozzie has also tampered with the mediators decision aswell as removing my comments from this ANI] Is this really acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up, Thatcher. Considering past history with admins Tyrenius and myself placing users on those remedies without any problem, I think it's rather clear, but agree that an unequivocal clarification of the remedy would be useful. And Aatomic, considering I was praised by the mediation cabal for rephrashing the mediator's decision without attempting to make it seem like it was an official ruling, I think it reflects better on me then you.. (who was placed on probation specifically because you ignored the mediation and continued to play silly buggers with the Birmingham pub bombings article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you are saying I ignored the mediation the you are a liar Sir Fozzie. You delibarately tamperded with the mediators decision to back up Alison. Your comments were subsequently amnded by the mediator Aatomic1 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA not the way to go about things. BigDunc (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was well aware of WP:NPA when i made the above comment. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well could you adhere to it instaed of callin other editors liars. BigDunc (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you want to impugn my honesty, Aatomic1, let me walk you through it step by step, K?

Step 1: Here's the original decision of the mediator Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list."

Step 2: Addhoc, another member of the Mediation Cabal, changed it to just plain closed, and the reason was (trim comment to avoid appearance of giving a judgement or ruling)

Step 3: I change it slightly to indicate the mediator's suggestion, while making sure it did not appear to be a judgement or ruling.

Step 4: Addhoc Thanks me for rephrasing the mediator's comment, saying my suggestion was much better, then just leaving it as closed.

So. Would you like to apologize for calling me a liar, or would you prefer to add hypocrite to your resume? SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Step 1: I note you have said Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list. My reading is Comment: Closed as "Do not add the list... Aatomic1 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in that (in fact, it was Addhoc who tried to make sure that it wasn't taken as an official decision) . However, you are incorrect that I tampered with the decision: What's the differnce between Closed as "Do not add the list... and, Closed: Mediator's suggestion was "Do Not Add The List" (besides a couple capital letters and making sure that it was posted as the mediator's suggestion? SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So what was your motive for this slight change? As far as I can see, you deliberately tampered with the comment to undermine a valid edit of mine. The mediator was not satisfied with your edit and yet your edit was used by Alison to undermine my defence to her ultra vires placing of me on probation. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "facts" don't support your theories, Aatomic1. It turned out that folks decided that no the mediation wasn't done, and argued the mediator into reopening it afterwards, so the mediator reopened the case. Please note that two INDEPENDENT admins took independent looks at the decision by Alison to put you on probation, and they both agreed with the decision And if that's as far as you can see, may I suggest a good Optician? SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

..Er they did not ...they simply made off the cuff comments. if they had looked into the decision thay would have reversed it as being by an involved adminstrator anf, if they belived it was justified they could have, being uninvlved imposed it themselves. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, as you have been told numerous times, that the commonly accepted viewpoint is that no, you have your definition of "uninvolved" wrong.. and in fact you ended up calling one of the admins a buffoon, after he told you.. I also know that you asked for an outside admin's input. Interesting that now that it's been given, you're still trying to make a case. That tells me you weren't really interested in accepting the input, unless it went your way. For what it's worth, I'm not putting primary stock in the mediation. I am, however, putting a lot of stock in the ArbCom decision, which clearly says that anyone, regarless of whether they were involved in the original case or not, edit wars, then a probation ban is appropriate. You edit warred, you were put on probation.. Sounds to me like he was endorsing it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• ..commonly accepted by whom? Aatomic1 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By every admin who's used it previously (myself, Tyrenius and Alison), and considering that every logged action has been put on the article, and that it had been discussed on WP:AE when Alison put you on it.. the only reason admins were "involved" was because they were not edit-warring, attacking others, etcetera, because we had been involved in tried to keep BOTH sides from edit warring all over the place. There was NO evidence provided at the ArbCom case to even SUGGEST that any one had used the tools inappropriately, and in fact, several workshop proposals dealing with both sides had wide acceptance that all the admins involved had acted appropriately, from BOTH sides? SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on this: Alison may have admitted her nationality, and that is the only reason I can think of for her being "involved", but even so, the ruling is to stop abuse by admins heavily focused on one side of the debate. Alison is not. Given that she has checkuser and OTRS rights, I will not even think of doubting her trustworthiness. Will ^(talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For your two cents let it be known that both Alison and Sir Fozzie are specifically named in the Arbcom decision as involved parties. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we brought evidence against people who were edit warring and tried to stop both sides from inserting PoV into articles. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But still, Alison is a checkuser and OTRS clerk. If the Foundation can trust her with confidential information, then I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't trust her with something as petty as probation. Will ^(talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ie let us not bother with what the Arbom rules? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly am I being dragged into this? IrishGuy ^talk 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it Ironic? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether Aatomic should or should not be placed on probation, he does bring up a valid point. When I issued a warning to Vintagekits that he was violating the terms of the probation issued under The Troubles ArbCom, Vk and his supporters protested that I was not an appropriate admin to be making such warnings, since I too was listed as a party at the ArbCom (albeit, like Alison, SirFozzie et al only as an admin who had previously had the misfortune of getting between the warring factions, having attempted to help sort it out). Despite strong objections from myself, John and Tyrenius that having prior experience of editors does not make one an "involved", there was significant support from people like NewyorkBrad, Alison and Fred Bauder that I avoid interpreting the ArbCom's decisions in future on the basis of my "involvement". While I strongly disagree on principle that disruptive editors get to veto admins enforce ArbCom decisions (especially when those admins are the ones most familiar with the history of this dispute), I nevertheless acceded to their requests.

However, we seem to have the same principle here, and the commmunity appear to be coming to a different interpretation. Irrespective of whether Alison was right or wrong to place him on probation (and, personally, I fully expect she was right), we either have to have an established situation where so-called "involved" admins can use ArbCom remedies in which they were named as a participant as a consequence of previous admin action, or one where they cannot. What was can't have is it arbitrarily decided based on how much of a fuss the editor wants to kick up (or, to be more realistic about it, they have an agitator par excellence - hello Giano! - in their corner). Rockpocket 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I was away yesterday and I appear to have missed all the fun. As this issue is now closed, I'll not really comment other to say thanks to all involved for resolving this issue and maybe point out that having checkuser and OTRS access doesn't grant me additional standing over any other editor. Sorry I wasn't about - Alison ^❤ 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check on this user/user name

User:You need a name (YNAN) has a similar user name as User:I need a name (INAN). Another editor flagged the former as a sockpuppet of the ladder. YNAN claimed to be alter-ego for INAN and the discussion was closed since the new user did not appear to be avoiding any sort of ban on "I need a name" or otherwise curtailing policy.

However, I believe YNAN is semi-imitating INAN and is not an alter-ego/alternate account. YNAN made these edits to INAN's user page, which INAN reverted as vandalism. YNAN made several other oddball edits that look like vandalism (specifically removing from another user's page the entry for a list he uploaded and this userbox about what hand the editor masturbates with; both of these edits have been reverted, one by me and the other by INAN).

For these reasons (but only citing the INAN vandalism), I listed YNAN as a vandal. User:Dreadstar cleared the entry without further action, but the edit summary only mentioned the editor being cleared on the sockpuppet issue.

Anyway, INAN has had several vandals closely imitate his user name (e.g. User:I need a mallet, User:I need a game, User:I need a lame) that have vandalized his and others' (including my) user page. Since my post at vandalism intervention got wiped, and this is more than just the blurb that is mostly friendly in that section, I'm chiming in here. If this is a vandalism account, would this vandal's tenacity (e.g. creating another account two months after the last) warrant a checkuser and possible IP block? --EEMIV (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted User:I need a name, still awaiting a reply. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Smells like an impersonation account just as EEMIV presented. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think you're right. I've blocked User:You need a name as impersonator until further communications from User:I need a name. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You's on first, I's on second? LOL Bearian (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How long until User:We need a name, User:They need a name, etc. pop up? Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS alert. —Kurykh 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Doppelgangers now in place. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:You need a name is not me. -- I need a name (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyoshka, legistorm

Lyoshka (talk · contribs) was blocked for adding links to his or her own site, legistorm.com. This was discussed right here on WP:ANI. Lyoshka has emailed unblock-en-l and requested unblocking. He has read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI and agrees that he will refrain from adding links to any site that he or his company own. His reason for adding the links in the first place seems credible to me and I am strongly inclined to unblock this user. Any objections? --Yamla (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am voting for not only unblocking the user, but also to allowing the additions of the links to legistorm. IMO the blocking editor was too fast and fierce. The links are obviously useful, since the site looks unique: where else you have a comprehensive list of US congressmen salaries and other expenditures? the information is clearly encyclopedic, so I don't agree with classification of these links as spam. The site itself looks notable & pain in the asses of congressmen `'Míkka>t 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur; he seems cooperative. if he does add more, he can easily be blocked again. Now that the other editors here know about the site, they will use it as appropriate. If it is on any spam blacklist, it should be removed, for it does look like the best non-partisan site for the subject--it has more than just salaries: see its information on staff & legislator travel. I cannot put the link here because the spam filter blocked it. Some uninvolved party might well want to write a WP article--given that posting, there will probably be enough news coverage to make it appropriate. Introducing a bill to close it down would seem the best publicity for it possible. Well worthy of adding to 'he sponsor's article. DGG (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Per his mail on the blocklist, I'd have no problem with unblocking. He seems to understand the inherent problem with mass linking a site you are affiliated with to articles here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the spamming evidence. It represents many hours of Hu12 stepping through hundreds of editor diffs:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Storming Media LLC Spamming
  • 5 sock/meatpuppeting single purpose accounts, plus a Storming Media LLC IP. Why bother with sockpuppets if you don't think someone will question your edits?
  • >600 links spammed.
  • No other useful content added besides links.

There are 4 more Storming Media LLC domains besides legistorm that contain over two hundred more links that no one has even started to go through. That's largely because the admins that warned these users and called these links "spam" got burned here and elsewhere for "abusive" editing and "bad faith". I've wasted hours on this since the blacklisting as have several other admins (I didn't even get involved until after the dispute broke out on this page).

Our 200+ patentstorm.us links, for instance, go to pages that offer nothing more than scraped content from the US Patent and Trademark's free available website. Nothing more, that is, except ads. Example:

• Patent storm page
• US Patent Office page

Then there are our 40+ stormingmedia.us links:

• stormingmedia.us' abstract (18.95 to buy the full document from Storming Media LLC
• Defense Technical Information Center's abstract of the same document
  • DTIC's full length version available for free

Something to consider. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Net

I'm a bit concerned about the edits of Lollipop-3 (talk · contribs) - almost all of her edits have been to user talk space, and she's impatiently waiting over at WP:CHU for a name change. I'm also concerned about I love entei (talk · contribs) since she's also got a very poor UT:mainspace edit ratio, but she has gotten involved in actual editing. I've given Lolli a socialnetwork warning; could we have some more admin eyes out here? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a lot of the users listed at User:Daniel/Sandbox/1 for similar reasons. Daniel 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agh, the user page hurts my eyes! I would keep an eye on Lollipop-3's edits as all five of her mainspace edits - the ones that haven't been deleted, that is - are somewhat problematic (all were reverted or made into redirects), and she appears to be hostile in her posts at WP:CHU. She seems to be a kid who is unfamiliar with WP:NOT; it might be a good idea to explain this to her in more detail (aside from the template) and see what happens. If she continues to be impatient and refuses to contribute, sterner warnings/a block might end up being needed. --Coredesat 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, more useless bureaucracy! All the users on Daniel's list need absolutely stern warnings that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as well. Quite a few of those users' recent edits are all in regards to obtaining positions at Gp75motorsports' latest attempt at creating a useless project. --Coredesat 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was worse before I took a hack at it. Daniel 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if what's left would warrant yet another MFD; it seems to be clear they have no intent to actually contribute. --Coredesat 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten word back from I love entei; she told me that she's been trying to tutor Lollipop-3. However, Lollipop-3 has not edited since ~0100 PST. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations

Just letting you guys know that there is a backlog of 229 articles over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.M.N. (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't need to have the administrator buttons in order to review Good Article nominations. In fact, I think most of the editors who review Good Article noms don't have admin tools. Neıl ☎ 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I know, but I'm trying to get more people to review articles to clear the backlog over there. Cheers, Davnel03 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting it on Wikipedia:Backlogs. If people want to clear backlogs they will look there. Don't spam here, this is for incidents - what if every backlog got noted here (AND on AN, where you've put it too)?--Doc^g 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of spamming, all I was doing was informing you guys about the backlog. Sorry if it was in the wrong place, but I certainly was not spamming. Davnel03 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with single purpose accounts

I know many are tired of talking about him. But is this sort of thing [51] (as part of this kind of content dispute [52]) considered acceptable behaviour? To my mind, this is exactly the sort of thing that turns articles into battlegrounds. (The disputed edit was originally reverted by MONGO with the summary "rv CT" and later justified with the claim that he did not have "time to examine the ridiculous" [53]. When arbcom rejected the last request in regard to MONGO, there was some suggestion that we had reached the outer limit of what can be tolerated. It would be great if were possible to edit the articles on the WTC without these sorts of accusations, which seem to arise at the drop of hat and don't seem to stop even when requested.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it might be nice if people would edit other things now and again other than WTC-related articles. Y'know, there is the rest of the encyclopaedia, and no, by that I do not mean Steven E. Jones. Would also be nice if single-purpose accounts, such as yourself, would leave Wikipedia:Single-purpose account alone. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you know what you are talking about before making judgments. If you had read the talk page you would notice that Thomas was not involved in the edits other than trying to find a compromise between Mongo who made the first mass edit and myself who reverted it. Wayne (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I seem to remember first reverting Thomas long before he was, what was that again....trying to compromise. But surely, since I support only completely factual information in these articles, not weasel words and other efforts to minimize the factual evidence...I must be the extreme POV pusher![54], [55] Lo and behold, yea we must be wary of those who want to report both sides of the story...as if one side has any evidence that is factual.[56] But see, Thomas can go to other's talkpages and make completely incorrect comments but when I go to his and am factual, he comes here, whining...and then, in light of his admitted knowledge he is a SPA...he then tries, as he has previously, to ensure the page that discusses spa's casts him in a more favorable light....[57]...hum.--MONGO (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, MONGO reverted a series of edits I made to a single section of the article with the edit summary "rv CT". I can't claim to have sought a compromise solution to that revert, but I have spent a good deal of time trying get MONGO to explain what was actually wrong with the specific changes I made. Right now, the changes I have suggested are being dealt with on the assumption that they are POV.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not for dispute resolution. There is nothing here that can be resolved by using the toolbox. Please choose an appropriate means of dispute resolution instead. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: your opinion is that the diffs I provided does not constitute harassment? (And doesn't the top of the page ask us to state both the name of the involved user and the nature of the incident?)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to stress Jehochman's comment: AN/I is not dispute resolution, and this situation does not require administrative action. Perhaps an RfC would be in order if you feel strongly? east.718 at 20:14, December 21, 2007

I don't see any behavior here that can be solved via the toolbox. That's not to say that you don't have a legitimate grievance. I am just saying we can't solve your problem here. Perhaps informal mediation would help, or simply avoiding the other user for a while until everybody calms down. Thank you for pointing out the flawed header instructions. We recently discussed thread titles and decided that they should be stated neutrally to promote calm discussion. I have changed the header accordingly. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this is a recurrent problem and most everything has been tried. But I'll consider other avenues. Thanks for taking the time to comment.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The recurrent problem is you, Basboll. Wikipedia does not exist so single purpose accounts can slowly and doggedly erode the known factual information in our articles. Your ongoing lack of ability to understand our purpose here is really getting tiresome, and I really do urge you broaden your horizons here.--MONGO (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with SPA's as long as they are not anons and in fact i have never checked any users edit history since I started editing. The quality of edits is more important than what is edited. Everyone makes POV edits at times and I accept it happens but Mongo will support an edit even if shown to be wrong by the very RS he himself uses to support it. That he is not willing to compromise or even alter his edit to reflect what the source actually says is frustrating and the reason for this current dispute. He may be a very good editor on other subjects but for this particular subject he is disruptive. I had no idea Mongo reverted Thomas because he also reverted material from other sections with the same revert. I thought I was the first to revert what looked like to me a very POV mass edit so i apologise for making that mistake. An edit across multiple sections is not a good idea and I would expect anyone to revert it regardless of who did it or what it said. Wayne (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged request for article deletion by article subject

Maybe this discussion will be better served on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, I'm reposting it there. Please feel free to ignore this. --Bobak (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I don't say "alleged" because I completely doubt the person is who they say they are, rather I don't know for sure and thus I don't want to say it absolutely is the subject making the request. The subject article is Arash Markazi, a columnist for Sports Illustrated, and the situation happened thusly: (1) an anon account blanked the page (no clear IP identity from a WHOIS), (2) ClueBot immediately reverted and placed its generic "sorry if I'm wrong" tag, (3) I have the article on my watchlist, so I saw the vandalism and replaced ClueBot's tag with a lower-level warning to not delete content. Last night I received an email that alleges to be from Arash Markazi, simple and to the point: "Hi Bobak, I hope all is well. Is there anyway to delete my Wikipedia entry?" Since this was only a day after the anon IP blanking, I realized it could possibly be related (or an elaborate hoax by someone who doesn't like Markazi... some sports fans can be extreme). The email included phone numbers to call him, but before I replied (or called) I wanted to first check and see if this is even possible --and it if is I'm not sure admins can decide so on their own. Would he have to contact the foundation? I'd like to have a fuller answer before I reply. --Bobak (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking to initially ask if there's a particular part of the article that he wants removed/troubles him, but I'd first like to have an answer as to whether we can simply delete the whole thing. --Bobak (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just consider BLP policy. If the article is nasty about the person, fix it. Even gossip can be eliminated if not reliably sourced or POV. If the person is not notable, an AFD is in order but I'd try to fix it first rather than try to say a notable person is not notable. Be nice to the guy whether or not he's really the person or even if the person is really a she pretending to be Mr. Markazi. Archtransit (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, people don't want others to know they had cancer. The sentence has no citation. The man's birthdate is shown. If that is the person's objection, then I would discuss with others whether a deletion and then re-creation of article without the birthdate is a solution. Maintaining privacy of birthdates is a valid concern as noted in WP guidelines. Archtransit (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I assumed people would read (or at least glance) at the article I linked in my first post, so let me be clear: the article Arash Markazi has nothing that's either on-its-face objectionable or hasn't been cited --his cancer has been in articles with him smiling in the picture as well as written about by his colleagues. So please, let's keep on target: what is the policy for an article subject requesting deletion of his page. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion will be better served on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, I'm reposting it there. Please feel free to ignore this. --Bobak (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You might direct him to file an OTRS request, they have experience reviewing these types of problems. Generally speaking, the criteria for inclusion is notability - not whether an individual desires an article. If the article notability is debatable (which it seems to be) then it can be taken to AfD, but it shouldn't be deleted outright (there is no Wikipedia opt out). Avruch talk 16:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's so borderline notable that I think we should frankly just respect his wishes. That is, if it is him. I think OTRS is the way to go, since he can forward them proof and discuss confidential material safely. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arash Markazi. Lawrence Cohen 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion moved to another, more relevant section and now I see an AfD that actually goes against where the discussion on the page (that was clearly marked) had gone. --Bobak (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unstopable vandal

User:BjarneMG removing speedy tag, leaving false warning on my talk page and various other rubbish. Reported him in AN/V. Nothing happened. Needs emergency attention. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now falsely accusing me as previously banned user and vandal. See below.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:BjarneMG is a new user and probably didn't like that the articles he created, T5PC and Henrik Ellefsen, were tagged for a speedy. Although (s)he was wrong to remove the tags, the articles are not speedy deletable, so please take it to WP:AfD if you want it deleted. Both of you have templated each other enough. Spellcast (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that a cup of coffee and a nice cookie might be in order. Antagonizing each other will solve nothing, and may will breach WP:CIVIL. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now mocking me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to speedy delete T5PC based on vandalism, which is why it was revoked and why you were given notice on your talk page. The article asserts notability in the opening lead, although it needs to be expanded upon. A general query reveals plenty of potential sources for this.

Don't like it? Take it to WP:AFD but continuing to edit-war is only going to result in a 3RR block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus, a previously banned user (see block log, is constantly trolling, edit-warring and vandalizing several pages. That include adding nonsensial speedy-tags, false warnings and various other rubbish. Reported him in AN/V. Nothing happened. Needs emergency attention. BjarneMG (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, repeating what the other person is saying? That's a new level of childishness. Someone needs to play in a different corner of the sandbox soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The block log you linked does not indicate a banned user. Learn what these terms mean. —Random832 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't really tell "who" is to blame for this, it seems both parties are very upset. I have verified that the T5PC situation is real and at least partially accurate and have added english reliable sources so maybe that will help cool things down. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, additionally, both editors need to be aware of WP:3RR and quit warring over templates before you both end up blocked. Avruchtalk 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Trainshift

Resolved

 – Editor blocked.

Seems to be on a campaign for Wikipedia Review, I've no idea what it's all about though. RMHED (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The account has already been blocked indefinitely for vandalism, so there isn't much we can do. Maser ^(Talk!) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Zoomzoomzoom101101 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Editor blocked

Time for another pair of admin eyes on this one. This user's edit history consists solely of vandalism edits to Train. I short-term blocked him on a previous edit for it, and now he's back. I'm tempted to indef block him as a vandal only account, but as rail transport is my main specialty, I'd like an uninvolved admin to review first to avoid a potential conflict of interest. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really hope no one would accuse you of a COI for blocking him; this is pretty trivial. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

His edits are uniformly unconstructive, and warrant an indefblock. Maser ^(Talk!) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

67.159.50.131 (talk · contribs)

The IP above seems to of made a threat to the White House. Suggest that the IP is blocked indefinitely. Davnel03 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IPs generally aren't blocked indefinately. ALthough, this one seems to have a strangely barren WHOIS report...open proxy? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy confirmed via portscan. Law enforcement should probably be notified? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is nothing but an attempt to get attention, if the user continues with threats or there are continuing threats then the need to call the proper authorities may arise. But as I am no expert on these matters I think you should do what you feel is right.Rgoodermote  22:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This should really be quietly forwarded to the secret service. They like to keep track of this kind of thing. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It isn't our place to determine what is attention-getting or not in that kind of situation. That's for the Feds to do. --Mhking (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The threat said in a half hour he would be there. I think that half hour is way over. Rgoodermote 

Turkey king

Someone please take care of this nonsensical page (all versions in the history are quite speediable). The article's creator and a pair of IPs keep removing the speedy tag. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Kurykh 21:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image/Article vandalism

User:72.65.223.86 just replaced the state seal image at Mississippi with this image and also added that image to White American and Hispanics in the United States. I don't see a way to report image vandalism at AIV -- ALLSTARecho 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The image is fine it is part of a legitimate article, the image has been removed from the article. Basic vandalism. Rgoodermote  21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user editing while blocked

Resolved

Blocked 71.107.186.223 (talk · contribs) is editing while blocked under a new IP: 71.107.146.206 (talk · contribs). His edits could probably use some eyes, too, he's involved in several massive and seemingly stupid edit wars. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The IPs are dynamic and so this is not a case of sockpuppetry or block evasion per say. Just continue to revert and report the IPs as they come. Rgoodermote  22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Edits reverted. IrishGuy ^talk 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Husond

There was recently a move discussion at Talk:Padan Plain . (In case anyone is wondering where that is, it's the valley of the River Po.) Husond closed it as no consensus. I think this decision was itself weak: a third possibility had just been mentioned, and might have resulted in genuine consensus, and the closure ignored the evidence that the present name is dozens or hundreds of times rarer than Po valley.

Since a discussion was on-going and possibly productive, I reopened the discussion, changing the proposed target (a no-consensus result can be reopened any time). I should have informed Husond, but I expected him to notice, as indeed he did. He speedy closed the renewed discussion, which is manifestly improper: the function of admins is to implement consensus, not to prevent discussion. I ask that he be overruled, and the discussion be re-opened, with a target of "something else"; we will probably converge on Po plain, but let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two initial points: firstly, I would like to note that Husond is a highly trusted Administrator with an excellent track record for closing discussions; and secondly, the duty of an Administrator is not to implement consensus. Perhaps you are thinking of a Bureaucrat? However, that is irrelevant: we are here to scrutinise the action in question. Could you please highlight firstly the consensus expressed, and secondly Husond's implementation contrary to that? Cheers, Anthøny 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that, in processes requiring administrative action (XfDs and such), we are expected to judge consensus and act upon it. Aren't we? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm a bit confused by your comments. As I understand Pmanderson's comments, he does not seem to be stating that there was a current consensus, or that Husond closed the discussion in contrary to that. Instead, he is stating his objections to the discussion being closed and re-closed in light of new evidence which had not yet been discussed. If this had happened in an AfD the discussion might have been relisted and closed at a later date. Also, I'm a bit confused about your comment, "secondly, the duty of an Administrator is not to implement consensus. Perhaps you are thinking of a Bureaucrat?" An administrator does regularly implement consensus: everytime he or she closes an XfD discussion, for example, or everytime he or she closes a move discussion. --Iamunknown 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't fault the closing admin - it does look, at first glance, to be a "no consensus" discussion. I agree, however, that on a second glance, the discussion looks like it was closed early, and suggest that discussion be allowed to continue. --Iamunknown 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Septentrionalis, I did not find any evidence that a consensus was close in this move proposal. Opposers presented valid arguments, as have supporters. Move proposals can't last forever, and if consensus isn't near, they have to be closed as "no consensus". Nothing irregular. This is not a new situation. Unhappy with the outcome, the proposer attempts to revert the closure. I'm just surprised that an experienced user like Septentrionalis would attempt it, especially without contacting me first. He should have explained to me why he disagreed with my closure, and I could even have reopened/relisted the proposal if I found his reasoning sound. But acting unilaterally could only have resulted in a speedy closure. I peremptorily reject his accusations of admin abuse on my talk page. Húsönd 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be okay with re-opening the discussion to allow for more discussion? --Iamunknown 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I would agree. There seems to exist some agreement that using "Po" would be better than "Padan", but it's not evident that users would agree with the option "Po Plain". I would not oppose a new move proposal to determine if "Po Plain" is okay. But reopening a proposal which was meant for determining consensus for "Po Valley" is probably not the best option anymore. Húsönd 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a realistic chance that we can find a consensus for a new title, I see no problem with reopening the discussion. Both of the editors involved should be considered highly trusted when it comes to requested move discussions. However, the reopening should likely have happened in a new section below the old close instead of being implemented through reverting the close itself. I'd suggest that we both reopen the discussion in a natural, consensus-building way, and leave Husond's original close visible (with the speedy close comments removed or struck through). Would this suit everyone?

Husond comments at WP:RM a lot, but he doesn't often close discussions there. We have very few closers, so we should encourage people to help. Separately, though, there is always a choice to be made for the entries in the backlog among officially relisting the request, closing it as no consensus (i.e., not trending towards an actionable consensus in favor of a move), or just letting it sit in the backlog. Personally, the reason I haven't closed any of the discussions in the current backlog is because I don't think they are ready to be closed or I don't feel I'm qualified to close them (transcriptions of Arabic/Farsi, etc.). Perhaps this means they should all be relisted, but if someone like Husond wants to take a look at them, I think that's great.

This might touch on too many topics, but I'm about to be away from the computer for 24 hours, and this is the only place I have time to give a response. I hope everything works out. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Heh, I do visit WP:RM frequently, the only reason I haven't been closing many discussions lately is because the ones in the backlog are usually those insanely complex with unclear outcome. I don't always have enough patience/time for handling them. Húsönd 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GoWest8 Garry Kasparov

User:GoWest8 continues to delete sourced information on the Garry Kasparov article with no basis other than his own argument, "it's just bullshit and you know it" and "it's only an opinion, and it can be in the article only as opinion, not fact", [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] despite the fact that the sources say that "Widely regarded in the West as a symbol of opposition to Putin, Kasparov's support at home is slim and pollsters say he had no chance of winning. " and "But polls show few Russians support Kasparov or the marginal pro-Western parties under his banner." This clearly shows that his support at home is slim. He has a history of constantly deleting sourced information which he claims is "incorrect" [63] [64] [65][66] [67]. Looking at his comments on talk you begin to see that he doesn't have a clue. This one statement proves it, where someone added the valid point that 'despite the fact they are both strongly opposed to the president's policies'. Anyone who knows even a little about Russian politics knows that Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces are strongly opposed to Putin's policies, but he keeps deleting it and says, - "absolutely biassed statement, nothing common with reality in my opinion." This shows that he does not have a clue. I don't want to keep reverting him because it seems he will just keep reverting with no basis. Looking at his contributions, he has a single purpose account [68].--Miyokan (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be justified to add some language like, "due in no small measure to Putin's tight management of the media," a statement which could very easily be sourced. However its not really something administrators are going to decide for you, try a WP:RFC for starters. <eleland/talkedits> 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the poll results were because of, "due in no small measure to Putin's tight management of the media,". The issue here is that User:GoWest8 is not even allowing the inclusion of the sourced information that Kasparov's support is very low in Russia.--Miyokan (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kacey43

Resolved

 – spam removed

Kacey43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Might need a block, or probably just remove the list of sites? See User talk:Kacey43 (first edit). It is a list of proxy servers. Obviously the user is going to be making any constructive edits here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon talk page again

Resolved

 –  Confirmed by checkeduser and blocked accordingly - Alison ^❤ 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think it's obvious enough that Makemewish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a reincarnation of Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If it's not, I'll file another checkuser. Here's the relevant info:

1. user Mister ricochet was indef blocked on 18:02, 16 December 2007 after checkuser results
2. new account created at 17:41, 21 December 2007 by Makemewish, who goes right back to the John Lennon talk page
3. Relevant archived ANI thread is here and
4. relevant checkuser case is here.

I've also left a note at an admin's talk page but I see that they are offline now. . . so bringing here. Thanks Happy Holidays, R. Baley (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification diff. R. Baley (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed and  IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Quackguru doesnt tolerate opposition

Quackgurur thinks those who dare to disagree with him should be blocked, perhaps some admin would care to point him in the right direction. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute rather than parties in need of admin input. Suggest WP:3O to help settle this, which will likely allow edit summary language to also cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeard vanU, and have requested temporary protection hoping to encourage discussion. --Iamunknown 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, although QG is generally disruptive, this particular dispute is due to JW taking ownership of the article, regardless of any documentation there may be, others supporting him, and QG opposing. If I cared about this particular article, I might agree that JW and supporters shuld be blocked, but that would have to go to the Foundation for resolution. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spaahm (spam) articles

Resolved

 – WinHunter ^(talk) 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These two articles and a category have been created. Speedy deletion templates have been repeatedly removed. Links posted today are not found or dead or irrelevant.

• Eduardo von Spaahm
• Graf von Spaahm
• Category:House of Spaahm

Fg2 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking into these articles there appears to be sockpuppetry involved by using IP and accounts. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

All deleted and blocked the accounts involved as sockpuppet. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fg2 (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishTraveller attacks on editors

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

There was an incident in which I requested an RfC about him adding un-sourced or improperly sourced, inaccurate information to the articles Burger King advertising and Coca-Cola. He came up on the "loosing" end and had his entries deleted as such. Now he his making abusive comments about me and other editors on the Talk:Burger King advertising page and restoring them after they are deleted. He has also made attacks against editors on the Talk:Coca-Cola page.

I warned him on his page and he continues to do this.

I would like to request a block of this user for his attacks as well as his violation of the 3R rules on the original posts as well as on the attacks on contribotors

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)), amended (07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Original ANI thread:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive341#Golden Compass controversies - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Block of User:Sarah777

Resolved

 – Both editors' unblock requests granted

Hi all. I wanted to bring this here, because the block of this user was clearly by an administrator who was involved in an edit war with her, and was unquestionably a bad block. However, I have been looking at Sarah's contributions as of late, and I find that indeed she has been relentlessly POV-pushing, edit warring, and taking a very wikilawyeristic view of 3RR (which she certainly has violated). Thus, I believe the block was entirely appropriate, and done by an entirely inappropriate admin. I do not believe this user should be unblocked simply because of who blocked her, but we need to deal with this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is your claim that the wrong admin did the right thing? Please clarify. Also, what action would you recommend be taken at this point? I noticed the problems you identified above, attempted to guide Sarah777 in improving her edits, and blocked her when she persisted. I see no problem with that. Rklawton (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks should also note that this is not an article I've ever edited before. I simply saw a problem with a user's edits and took a shot at trying to help her understand what she needed to do to fix the problem. Rklawton (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The right action would have been to report her to the community. Of course, you might have then had the pleasure of experiencing what the rest of us have to go through: watching a user violate 3RR, and then get their version of the page protected because "blocks are not punitive" or some bullshit like that. In any case, I would ask any reviewing admin to notice, by Sarah's own words at the bottom of the talk page, this is not edit warring. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I can appreciate that, RK, but it looks a whole lot like you were reverting, reverting, reverting while Sarah augmented her edits with (somewhat biased) references. She seemed to be making best effort and was providing long edit summaries. She was edit-warring, largely, but then you blocked without warning. Personally, I'd have at least put down a {{uw-3rr3}} and then taken it to someone else to review - Alison ^❤ 07:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did RKLawton and Sarah777 both violate 3rr here? If so, shouldn't both be blocked? Lawrence Cohen 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton did not; I checked meticulously. Only 3 reverts. I believe Sarah reverted "all or part" of the page though, more than 3 times. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. RKLawton removed sources initially, removed them again, once more, and then again. My understanding was that the first also counted. It doesn't? Lawrence Cohen 08:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it does not, because it was not really a reversion. Or do you have the place where it was originally added? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RKLawton's first edit to the article was about two weeks ago here, so he was an active participant. I thought admins were not allowed to use tools like that for a content dispute? It looks like the Fallujah entry had been in place since mid-November when Sarah added it here. Lawrence Cohen 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alison though; procedurally it was a very bad block. Wikipedia:Block#When blocking may not be used: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." is pretty unambiguous. Blocking someone to gain in a content dispute is a no-no. However I won't unblock as they were edit-warring, but the block, if it was necessary, should have been placed by another admin. There absolutely should have been a warning as well. --John (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Alison and John: your suggestions as to an alternative solution have many merits, and it's an approach I won't hesitate to take in the future. Thank you both for that. With regard to concerns about blocking without warning, I did warn her here. Rklawton (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As an active participant on the page, shouldn't you not be using your admin tools there? You first began working on editing that page two weeks ago and were in an editorial conflict with Sarah777, who you blocked from editing yourself. Lawrence Cohen 08:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A single edit to clarify wording without changing the meaning of a sentence hardly qualifies me as "an active participant". Rklawton (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I was simply correcting your earlier statement that you had never edited the article. I meant your actively edit warring over content with Sarah777 before blocking her made you a participant. Lawrence Cohen 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RK, you have a lot of people suggesting this was a bad block. How about unblocking Sarah, and, now that this has visibility, if there are any further transgressions by that user another block will be applied by another admin. Blocks aren't punitive and "her" version has been restored for further talk page discussion. Is that a fair call? --Stephen 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

With this edit in mind, and with several admins noting that Sarah deserved to be blocked - but not by me - I must decline. John has also reviewed the matter and formally declined an unblock as well.

However, given the comments above made by respected editors and admins, I see clearly now that I failed to follow my basic philosophy "trust Wikipedia" (meaning: if I'm right, other editors will help sort things out in the end, and if they don't, then maybe I wasn't right...).

I apologize to all participants for the inconvenience my actions have caused. This matter would have been long settled by now had I only taken the approach recommended by Alison and John above. And I resolve to follow this approach should such a matter present itself to me in the future." Rklawton (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how blocking Sarah can be seen as an unbiased action by this admin. There is clearly a problem here and this unwise and misguided block is only going to exacerbate what is already a deteriorating situation. Sarah should be unblocked on condition she does not edit the page for 24 hours, User:Rklawton should agree to not edit it either. There is too much of this heavy handed admin actions going on. It is wrong and it needs to stop. Giano (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The same situation is taking place here on this page. A no warning block, by an admin involved in a number of articles, only the admin added abuse to their list. Sarah, did use the talk page, and I would agree with Giano, There is too much of this heavy handed admin actions going on. It is wrong and it needs to stop. One thing I will say though with Rklawton, they had the good grace to apologize, and take part in this discussion. The right thing to do is unblock Sarah. --Domer48 (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that RK meant well here, and that he was trying to prevent disruption. However, the block was done out of process, as agreed above. I've stated I will unblock under certain conditions - see Sarah's talk page - but she needs to keep away from the contentious article for the duration of the otherwise-block. See how things go - Alison ^❤ 09:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked Rklawton for edit warring. See User talk:Rklawton#Blocked. I share the concerns expressed here that Rklawton used the tools to "win" the edit war. --bainer (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can editors sort this out one why or the other. Just want it over and done with. --Domer48 (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock granted of Sarah777

After reading the discussion here and on Sarah777's talk page, and since I happen to be awake when everyone else is asleep, I have decided to grant the unblock under the conditions specified above: that Sarah avoid the article until the block would have expired anyway. Yes, she was edit warring and continued despite warnings, but we cannot let an admin do this with someone they were directly involved in a content dispute with, even if the content dispute started over an admin's attempt to intervene. Daniel Case (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'm good with that - Alison ^❤ 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request of RKLawton

Still see problems here. I am not sure if you noticed the fact that User Rklawton has been blocked by User:thebainer for editwarring. (noted above) Both sides have engaged in editwarring and 3RR violations, so why did we unblock one and block the other? Having said that, I agree with the unblock, providing that Sarah777 promised to cease making contentious edits; however, the bainer's block on Rklawton is still highly punitive, as Rklawton showed no intention of continuing the war (and has in fact made an apology). This block is therefore hardly necessary and should be lifted. PeaceNT (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton need only place an unblock request. If they haven't, for whatever reason, then that decision should be respected. No point in starting a wheelwar over this at this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably is offline and not aware of the block, thus has not requested an unblock. (my guess) In any case, that has no bearing on whether or not the block on him is appropriate. I was only discussing the legitimacy of the block. No intention of wheelwarring, that you can be sure. PeaceNT (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If he requests an unblock, I have no objection so long as he agrees to the same conditions as Sarah. I do think however he need to be reminded of his responsibilities and the expected behaviour of an Admin. I see he has apologised which is good as Sarah has every right to feel aggrieved over her block. Giano (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Sure, I never meant to imply that wheelwarring was being considered; I was suggesting that thebainers actions shouldn't be undone outside of process. I have the talkpage watched and will unblock providing Rklawton makes the appropriate comments. As for the appropriateness of the block; 3RR is a maximum - blocks for editwarring before the magic figure are permitted, thebainers reasons for blocking are well articulated.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton has requested unblock. I feel I have gotten too involved to be impartial. If someone could review? Please note that the blocking admin appears to be off-Wiki.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Before unblocking, RKlawton seems to feel he's still done nothing wrong. See comments to me, a non-apology, and the unblock request. Has he vowed to not use his tools on this article? Lawrence Cohen 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless he seems likely to repeat his ill-advised block, he should be unblocked. Blocks are preventive. In fact, I'm not clear what preventive role the block of rklawton (who I agree had misused his admin tools) was intended to play in this dispute. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Ah I see now. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This unblock has also been granted (not by me). Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I unblocked. I feel it is time to move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. This was an unpleasant episode. I would've unblocked if you hadn't, LessHeard (take that as uninvolved support). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Only for the record, in my experience RKlawton has a tendancy to declare sources as (in his own arbitrary judgement) unacceptable and encourage edit warring whilst leveraging his admin status in favour of his personal PoV. I believe he sincerely thinks he's being helpful, which makes it all much harder to talk about with him. I hope he'll think carefully about these recent incidents and that this will all blow over. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CBKAtTopsails

CBKAtTopsails (talk · contribs) seems to be on some sort of mission to add mathematical rigor to CS articles on Wikipedia. The problem is that he's doing it at the expense of comprehensible, encyclopedic content.

So far he's created a few unencyclopedic articles that consist only of a proof taken from Sipser's Theory of Computation, such as Union of two regular languages, and started a few inscrutable edit wars, like on Talk:P = NP problem where he wants to redefine the word "the" to have a peculiar mathematical meaning. He's left some nasty comments for those who disagree with him.

I've put prod tags on the articles he created, but clearly more cleanup will be necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article he wrote has no place on the WP. The result could be stated comprehensibly with a reference to the proof in a much more general article. (A very brief indication of the proof could be given, if appropriate). This is not PlanetMath where such proofs are de rigeur. There is a list of articles with mathematical proofs, which is not comprehensive. These seem generally designed to be helpful and have a quite different style and purpose to Union of two regular languages. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Crazymusicman2k

Crazymusicman2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either Robbie Glover or an obsessive fan. Most of his edits have been to promote Glover, but have been reverted as unverifiable and some at least, according to VRTS ticket # 2007121110020869, are actually false. I issued a warning. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in over a week. Do we really need to have this here? Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ehud Lesar Trolling, Insulting other Users, and violating WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF

Lately user Ehud Lesar has been openly insulting other users, engaging in trolling, and seriously violating the Wikipedia policies requiring Civility and Assumption of Good Faith.

Just in the past 24 hours Ehud Lesar trolled and insulted several times. Following are the examples.

Here is an obvious act of trolling against another user (Fedayee):

"Keep talking. Maybe this compensates your anger." [69]

Here is again similar offensive remarks and trolling, this time not only against Fedayee, but all Armenian users (notice the highly provocative "do you guys"):

"Do you guys mass mail each other and decide how to "treat" other users?"

"But please do continue writing. Otherwise it'll get boring." [70]

Once again, Ehud Lesar seriously violating WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF, against Armenian users:

"Or, is it better for you that I am not checked so that you keep repeating the same melody over and over? I think the latter option suits your interests well and that's why you're inactive." [71]

Such behavior is completely unacceptable in Wikipedia, and requires some sanctions to ensure it will not happen again.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

New login, same Adil.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

Moved thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. Davnel03 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta —Random832 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi once again

The following thread above was archived so I had to start a new one. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muntuwandi_and_the_Origin_of_Religion. This user has once again thumbed his nose at the process and recreated the same entry now under the name Evolutionary origins of religion. He has been warned by more than one admin not to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like a neutral admin to look into this rather than me - I don't think Muntuwandi appreciated my warnings of "stop recreating deleted content under different article names", and someone he has not previously interacted with may have better luck with him. The content is, at first glance, good, but it is pretty much identical to the recently deleted Origin of religion, so needs a considered approach. See the above thread as Pelle mentions for context and background. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would very much so appreciate someone looking into this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to my responses earlier to Mutuwandi above, I may not be considered an objective observer, but taking a look into this matter I found something disturbing: he claims two Wikipedians support this article he repeatedly inserts into articlespace, when to look at what both actually wrote, neither do. This is dab's comment to Mutuwandi: "you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this." (italics mine) Bruceanthro's is far to long to quote in total, but he says much the same thing as dab: the topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but how Mutuwandi handles it is a problem & gently suggests a couple of ways he believes would be better & not result in these objections. I can only wonder how Mutuwandi would consider they support him.

FWIW, I know just enough about the subject this article treats to know that it is a fertile ground for potential original research problems. Any attempt to cover it would need to be extensively referenced, & would include many diverse and controversial opinions -- & this from the sources any contributor would agree are reliable or expert! Personally, I wouldn't dare touch such an article beyond simple copyediting without extensive preparation, & can only speculate the dread any reasonably qualified but non-expert Wikipedian would have. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed some important part of Dbachmann's comments.

"ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

• 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
• 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
• 3. the teleological view (revelation)

the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?

These are some of Bruceanthro's comments

Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world. Perhaps rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!) .

As mentioned earlier I would welcome any admin who is neutral, willing to listen to all sides and who will follow wikipedia guidelines to participate in helping to resolve this dispute. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please supply links to the page where dab's comments appear. As for BruceAnthro's comment, you have only quoted part of what he said, as well as quietly removing indications that the text after "Perhaps" is one of two proposed solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab made those comments (just above) during the AfD and prior to realizing that Muntuwandi was about to revert all of his attempts to help improve the entry in question. Muntuwandi was unwilling to accept Dab's assistance in order to preserve his own version, the version that was being but through AfD, and subsequently was deleted. This is in part, I believe (sorry if I'm inferring incorrectly) why Dab made the other comment more recently about the manner in which Muntuwandi participates being the real issue. It is exactly that issue that I'm asking for assistance with here. Muntuwandi also has a nack for quoting other editors in the same manner he quotes scholars -- very selectively to serve his purposes despite the fact that those being quoted may in fact have written a whole lot else that contradicts those purposes. Of course he doesn't just do this with quotation. On the talk page of Prehistoric religion he is currently arguing that the term "prehistoric" is derogatory and therefore we should delete the entire entry, yet despite this argument every single source Muntuwandi uses in relation to this subject matter uses the term "prehistoric"--of course in reality there is nothing derogatory about using this term to describe the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras but he'll make any argument or utilize any out of context quote he can in his weird crusade.PelleSmith (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case -- or it may not be. I'd like to see a link her to the edit so I & any other Admin can form their her/his own opinion -- although seeing Ryulong's note below, this request may be moot. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually its not the case, and I was wrong. Those comments came after the AfD (on Oct. 30th) when Dab was putting in work on the Development of religion entry. Here is the link. I would suggest contextualizing the comment with prior and later discussions on the same talk page, as well as the entry history, especially since Muntuwandi never engaged the comment at the time. The essence of what I wrote above, despite the mistake I made in identifying where and when the quote came from, remains pretty clear throughout all of this, and Dab did oppose the AfD only to find Muntuwandi unwilling to work with him on the entry. My apologies for the missed identification.PelleSmith (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider this a well-meaning error PelleSmith; my language was simply an attempt not to favor any one side in this matter. Consider this a lesson why we need links to diffs in WP:AN/I when making a report. -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMINS: Please see the thread I posted above. This is not a content dispute, this is an issue of refusing to abide by the results of established processes. Muntuwandi was warned by two admins but it seems the warnings aren't going to be backed with any kind of action. I have suggested that he only work on the materials on his user space since the entry was deleted but he doesn't care for this suggestion. He has now even recreated Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion and redirected it to the latest entry. Whatever the outcome is regarding this content his behavior is unaccetable and I thought it was being dealt with until now. Could someone please attend to this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody has "issues". Up until now, I had not come across an editor who was so determined to see another article deleted. This article causes no harm, it meets all the standards of WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY. Because of past disputes this article is heavily referenced, from peer reviewed scientific journals, and contains the works of a number of high profile scholars. There is no one who will be misled, cheated by the contents of this article, in fact most will learn at least one or two things. I am aware that I have been the ogre, in this fiasco, because I have insisted that this article is necessary against what on the surface appears to be a consensus. But if anyone is interested in giving it a closer inspection, one will actually find that other editors have engaged in a gross misapplication of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They believe the WP:OWN, these articles on religion. I am aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but this article is much more in line with wikipedia's policies than a lot of other articles. For, example these editors accused me of creating a content fork of Development of religion. Development of religion has only 4 footnotes for the entire article and they are only found in one subsection(in short the article is crap).The article evolutionary origins has over 30 footnotes from highly related articles. None of the citations is titled "Development of religion". Any admin is free to verify this. How they came up with this accusation of content forking is still a mystery to me. The notice board isn't a place for content dispute, however because it is an active place frequented by admins, i believe it is ideal place to make an appeal for dispute resolution. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked Muntuwandi because I have never seen him on these boards except as a part of a dispute or because his activities lead to long and winded discussions. I have explained in full why he has been blocked on his talk page at User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block. His most recent recreation is practically identical to recent deletions. I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but seeing his name here multiple times has never seemed to be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but I've seen his name a few times" - that's one of the worst reasons for an indefinite block I have ever seen, and I have seen some stinkers recently. I'm going to consider unblocking unless I see a better rationale for this. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

At User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block Ryulong states that the block is for repeatedly recreating deleted content after multiple warnings. Sandstein (talk · contribs) has reviewed the block and declined the unblock request. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef seems a little extreme, even for a user that has been blocked before for editwarring, in my opinion a few months could have helped us to do a better assessment of the situation, let us see if he has any intention of contributive contribution (if he does agree to be contributive of course). - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong may be unaware of this, but there's a pull down button on the block page that allows one to select block lengths other than indefinite. 24 hours would be reasonable, but indefinite is ludicrous. Neıl ☎ 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I shortened it to a month, seriously a indef seemed like overkill, not that I don't agree that issuing a block may have been appropiate though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely because he has repeatedly created deleted content despite warnings not to, and at multiple titles to obscure this fact. I have indefinitely blocked him because his actions are sporadic, but he has created this particular article under three different titles and on four different occasions. His unblock request does not reflect any reason as to a way that he feels that he will change his activities following his block, but instead discusses how he feels that this is only a content issue. I acted as a completely uninvolved administrator in this manner and acted in a way that I feel is beneficial as Muntuwandi's actions, while in good faith, are not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Should he see the particular error that I blocked him for and says that he will not act in such a way in the future, then he can be unblocked. As of right now, what he has stated does not reflect that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying hard not to take a side here, but as I noted above this topic is a rich field where one can collect all of the materials to create some truly disruptive editting -- WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH -- as well as the always contentious subject of religion. This is one of those subjects where, I regret to say, a heavy Admin hand is too often needed -- or several knowledgable editors need to adopt this article to keep it on the straight & narrow. I'll be surprised if this is the last we hear either of the topic of the origins of religion -- or of Muntuwandi. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

some comments have been posted at User_talk:Muntuwandi#Consensus_can_change. Systemicbias (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ

Could someone semi-protect Churches of Christ as an anonymous editor keeps reverting with pov edits? --Ichabod (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The amount of edits, at this time, does not warrant the need for protection. If vandalism persists, please make your request at WP:RFPP.↔NMajdan•talk 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the request there, so we'll see what happens, but I'm not sure what else to do. I don't want to be part of an edit war, but what the user is doing is disruptive. Suggestions are appreciated. I'm hesitant to call this vandalism, the person doing it very likely believes what they're putting is appropriate and accurate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I misreading the page history, or did this anon editor cross the line & violate WP:3RR? This may point to another solution to this problem. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need an opinion

I reverted an edit and left this comment at the user's talk page. It turned out that I was mistaken with my revert to a certain degree, for which I acknowledged and apologized for. The issue revolves around this discussion on my talk page. The reason for the revert was because of the addition of the word "pussy". The user I reverted was infact removing vandalism, and when I checked the diffs to investigate, I checked the previous 3 edits by anon editors to search for more vandalism before reverting. I explained why I did that, and how I missed that the addition of the word "pussy" wasn't vandalism. An other admin Random832 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) accused me of biting this user based on my comment at his talk page, to which I'd also like an opinion. Was my comment bitey? I don't think so, and don't see how it is seen that way.

The user in question Amaltheus (talk · contribs) is convinced that because of the mistaken warning left on his talk page by ClueBot, and my comment on his talk page as to why his edit was reverted, that his talk page and edit history are completely "thrashed". He's displaying an copious amount of incivility and borderline personal attacks. [72] [73] [74] and comments like "If anybody can edit, anybody should be able to remove vandalism from an article before editing it without getting attacked by a bot, its lazy owner, and an administrator for doing so." There are more examples which can be found at his contribs page.

Normally this amount of incivility would result in a block. But since the user hasn't been warned about his civility except on my own talk page, I'm not willing to enact one. I'm posting this thread in order to get advice and opinions on what should be done. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly jumped into righteous indignation awfully fast. He's declared he's leaving; maybe let him cool off for now, and hope he cools down enough to realize that he's been apologized to and can continue to edit without any issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really biting... maybe you should expunge their user talk page history if they really want it? It's an unfortunate incident and its history really need to be around. east.718 at 07:19, December 22, 2007

(2 x ec, and a database lock to boot!) I don't think it was bitey, just an honest mistake. As for whether you should have caught the mistake, I honestly doubt most RC patrollers look too deeply once they see swear words being added to an article. I also don't think you should beat yourself up over an editor who loses his nerve over an honest mistake; assuming good faith goes both ways. And you could always delete his talk page to clean that slate for him if it's really bothering him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

KoS, I saw the situation that led up to this unfold the other night and left (what I thought to be a nice) note, including an apology-by-proxy, a plea to reconsider, and an offer of any help needed, on his talkpage [75]. I'm sorry I didn't give you a head's up about it, I should have. Altheus returned today and blanked his page with a "Fuck Wikipedia", so I figured he'd either cool off and come back someday or not - I didn't see much to do after that. I don't think your initial note on his talkpage was bitey at all. cheers, --guyzero | talk 07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I should clarify for posterity. I caught this situation upon seeing this contrib: [76] with an edit summary of "how much more crap is involved with this bot? did it save anyone any work by turning an editor so off of Wikipedia that they would rather be a vandal?" If I had caught it earlier in the evening, I would have alerted KoS - which I still should've done. You've done absolutely nothing wrong here except for a mistaken revert - for which you apologized - out all of your copious RC patrolling. I would've probably made the same mistake if I saw an edit that cluebot just reverted that had the word 'pussy' on it. regards, --guyzero | talk 08:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bite, but you should have apologised to user Amaltheus for mistakenly reverting their edits. PeaceNT (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't think I was bitey either. I did apologize for the mistake. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean you should have done so as soon as you realised the oversight, and on Amaltheus's talk page, not on your talk page and after the new user contacting you. PeaceNT (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the mistake until a few hours ago when it was brought to my attention on my talk page, when I became aware of it I did apologize, both indirectly and directly when the user posted himself. He saw the apology which I made numerous times on my own talk page. He saw it, acknowledged it, and basically said he didn't want it. I'm not going to go beg him to forgive me. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I can see that I perhaps overreacted. My perception of it as "biting" was mainly related to his reaction to it, and that was maybe a bit unfair on my part. However, I still don't quite understand how you went through all those diffs from before the version he reverted to, and didn't notice that none of them were insertion of the word "pussy" - I'm also concerned that it seems like when you looked at the original diff, you looked exclusively at the added/removed text (i.e. what is highlighted in red) rather than looking at the surrounding text [...bit of a '... clearly has a missing word as evidenced by both the sentence fragment and the fact that there's a space before the quote]. And I should think that you ought to have given a little thought to the possibility that the word "pussy" belonged in an article about a cat. In other words, is this going to be repeated every time a vandal removes a "bad word" that is correctly in an article? —Random832 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

KOS, I think you did well, and I still hold you in high regard as one of our best current RC-patrollers. People make mistakes, including us, and Amaltheus's overreaction is one of the most extreme I've seen in a while. We don't have to put up with unlimited abuse from newbies, and "assume good faith" does indeed apply to administrators as well. To the others on this thread, thank you for your various attempts to assuage the newbie's rage -- it doesn't always work, but the effort was commendable. Amaltheus, you're always welcome to edit here, but please recognize that we are people too. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Double creation

FYI, User:Strandlightingmx just created Strand Lighting MX and Strand MX, both with the same content. -- ALLSTARecho 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the user removed the WP:COI tags I placed on both articles. -- ALLSTARecho 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tempted to delete the whole lot for blatant advertising. Probably a copyvio from some brochure too (at least the images are). What do others think? — Edokter • Talk • 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree if that was done. The user uploaded the image twice as well according to the user's talk page where a bot left a message. -- ALLSTARecho 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful talk page comment(s)

Sorry to be here twice in one night, but does anybody else think this is an appropriate use of the talk page (diff). I reverted once, but am standing aside for other input. For the record the edit was made by 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If it helps, take some time to peruse some of the other "contributions". R. Baley (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just someone's point of view, and as such is fine if kept to the talkpage. It should be remembered that NPOV is not one "middle" or aggregate viewpoint, but a fair representation of various sourced viewpoints. As long as they are citing their arguments, and not removing any sourced viewpoints, then their contributions to articles should be welcomed.

My own (biased) viewpoint is that Wikipedia is too right-wing/conservative in its tone (like someone disparaging The Independent for being too left-wing and thus "unreliable") which likely means that if 69.244 and I both think it goes too far the other way then it is probably in the right area. How's that for a liberal response!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to view that IP's contributions before brushing it aside as "someone's point of view". There are obvious breaches of WP:ATTACK, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and disruptive edits in general. I don't have time to compose a formal post to ANI today (though I'm glad to see someone has reported this conduct), but as the victim of harassment/attacks I'd like to see someone do more than the cursory "who cares". Any help would be appreciated -- this conduct certainly is not "fine if kept to the talkpage", and I find it disturbing that ANI would think otherwise. See the diatribe left on other users' talkpages for examples. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair is now a Catholic!

Please may an admin unblock the Tony Blair article. He is now a Roman Catholic, the most significant event in the Church's recent history and its all over the BBC News Channels. Please let Wikipedia spread this wonderful news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. News has just been updated by an established user, you may request changes and discuss the edits on the article's talk page. PeaceNT (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But many Catholics will want to celebrate this news by adding relevant parts to his article. This is big news for Catholics in the UK, we have always been discrimated against by the Government. Blair's conversion is a big step forward in our campaign for equal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.64.21 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair was semi-protected because of heavy vandalisms. Also, the fact that there's been breaking news about him today effectively makes the page in an exposed position. Thanks for your comment, said article has been updated, please use the talk page, this matter requires no administrative action. PeaceNT (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

'Celebration' is not a good motive for making NPOV edits to an article.--Doc^g 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc is correct, of course, but since Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Be bold are 2 of our guidelines, I think the article should be fully unprotected at least on a trial basis as new unregistered users might want to get involved. It's likely any problems would be quickly reported and protection could be just as quickly reinstated if deemed necessary. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly meets the protection policy/criteria. Unprotection request Declined, go to RfPP in future also. Daniel 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this in ANI I thought that maybe it was so much an emergency that WP dispatch admins to capture Mr. Blair and force him to leave the Catholic Church. Perhaps this topic is better discussed on the page protection board. At the very least, suggest the title of this topic be changed to "page protection change needed for Tony Blair" or "Admin attention needed to capture Mr. Blair and force him back into the Anglican Church". Archtransit (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Striking out joking comments (comments made in jest are better left at user talk pages, if at all) Archtransit (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• 17:13, 22 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Tony Blair‎ (Reverted edits by User: BenedictXVI (talk) to last version by Canterbury) (top) [rollback]

--Doc^g 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, its a joke! I thought we wouldn't be allowing that username... Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

Resolved

 – St.Jimmy666 has clarified his comments and LessHeard vanU has discussed it with him. Metros (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

`

St.Jimmy666 (talk · contribs) wrote, "This would actually encourage me to do something simillar, because I want to have my own article on wikipedia, and this is a quick way to do it is to go through kill a bunch of people and "set a record" for the number of deaths...I know I already have a plan if I ever consider going through with it, is that messed up or what? I actually started a book "Songs To Kill To" about the music and mainstream influences that glorify "death culture", but I was side trekked. Also, is it messed up that I can just see myself on national t.v, have what the cheesey announcer guy will say in my head already, about this kind of thing?" --Strothra (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the most important part of the quote; "Is this necessary?" the first line asking whether such individuals and incidents deserve the exposure given by Wikipedia. In context, I don't think that Muttlee/St.Jimmy666 is considering a "copycat" action, but giving the mindset of someone who might. I will drop them a note in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting the record straight

To clarify, yes I was presenting the mindset of a "copycat", I would like to clarify that I have been in that mindset but have taken no actions towards the initiation of any simillar events, I have just considered them.Sorry for the confusionMutlee (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious, unaddressed BLP issues on List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism

This article is currently locked, so I can't address the issues myself. A small number of users persist in re-inserting information that clearly violates both WP:BLP and WP:NOR, especially conjectural interpretations and inclusion of unreliable sources. I'm especially concerned about the "Usage not embraced by the subject" section, which is rife with bad sourcing. I've gone through the sources one at a time, and here's what I found:

• Kenneth Blackwell: Three sources are listed.
  • Theocracy Watch — this article does not even mention Blackwell's name.
  • Talk To Action — this is a blog post that calls Ken Blackwell a Dominionist. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources except in a few narrow areas (like the subject's own statements about him/herself). They certainly do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP.
  • Yurica Report — Accuses Blackwell of supporting a "Dominionst document." I've never heard of these authors before, and Yurica Report appears to be a self-published website, and thus an unreliable source. Again, only high-quality sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP, and self-published websites are specifically excluded.
• Tom DeLay: Two sources.
  • Theocracy Watch — Cites Paul Krugman, a notable op-ed pundit, who says that DeLay was promoting a "biblical worldview" and bending ethical rules to do so. A New York Times article, obviously a reliable source, calls DeLay's tactics and ethics into question. But nowhere does either the Theocracy Watch article itself, or any of its cited sources, say that Tom DeLay is a Dominionist. Per both WP:NOR and WP:BLP, conjectural interpretations of sources are specifically forbidden.
  • Paul Krugman — a New York Times op-ed. Obviously this is a notable opinion. But the word "dominionist" does NOT appear anywhere in the article in any context. Again, this source does not substantiate the claim made in the Wikipedia list.
• James Dobson: Three sources.
  • Molly Ivins — This probably comes the closest to an actual accusation of Dominionism. The relevant section is as follows: "Some Christian Dominionists decided the Almighty is in favor of changing Rule 22. Led by James Dobson, who runs Focus on the Family, they decided 22 is "a filibuster against the faithful," implying and in some cases stating that anyone who opposes them is anti-Christian and probably working for Satan." Ivins was a notable commentator, so this may be acceptable for inclusion.
  • Chris Hedges — a subscription-only link that I have no way of verifying without paying money (which I'm not going to do). I would appreciate if someone who does have a subscription could briefly quote the relevant section (if any).
  • Discernment Ministries — Implicitly accuses Dobson of being a "Patriotic dominionist." I see no evidence that this is a reliable source, and it appears to be a fringe website with no connection to any reputable news agency or academic institution.
• Bill Frist: Two sources.
  • Theocracy Watch — Frist's congressional activities are criticized. However, the article nowhere states that he is a Dominionist. Another conjectural interpretation.
  • Rolling Stone — Says that Dominionists are "pressuring" Frist and that he is an "ally," but does not actually call him a Dominionist himself. Besides, is Rolling Stone — a music and pop-culture magazine — really a reliable source for such claims in the first place?
• D. James Kennedy: Three sources.
  • Theocracy Watch — Kennedy's name is not even mentioned. This citation is a joke.
  • The Christian Science Monitor — Cites Frederick Carlson as saying that Kennedy is a Dominionist. Although Carlson doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, he did publish a book on the subject, and the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. This entry should be OK.
  • Rolling Stone — Kennedy is indeed specifically called a Dominionist in this entry. I'm still not at all convinced that Rolling Stone is a sufficiently reliable source for this subject.
• Roy Moore: Two sources.
  • Theocracy Watch — Moore is mentioned twice in the article, but neither mention calls him a Dominionist.
  • Rolling Stone — Comes close to calling Moore a Dominionist: "To pack the courts with fundamentalists like Moore, Dominionist leaders are planning a massive media blitz." But why are we citing a music magazine for political commentary?
• Janice Rogers Brown: Four sources.
  • Austin Cline, About.com — No link, not even to archive.org. Unverifiable. No evidence of notability.
  • Commentary on FindLaw — Brown is not called a Dominionist. She is cited as one of two judges of "the kind who would satisfy the court packing plans of the Christian nationalists." Again, no conjectural interpretations are allowed.
  • Online Journal — as far as I can tell, this site allows just about anyone in basic political agreement with the site founders to publish whatever they want. Thus, it is a self-published source and not reliable. Who is Kéllia Ramares and why should we care what she says? Even at that, the source does not call Brown a Dominionist in so many words.
  • Theocracy Watch — again, Brown is not called a Dominionist.

And I'm not even halfway down the list yet! This is shit. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Look, I have no brief for these people. I voted straight Democratic in 2004 and 2006, and I fully intend to do the same in 2008. I don't want these people in charge. But that doesn't let us off of following basic Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content issue. How does it require immediate administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article was protected in a state that violates WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The protection will expire tomorrow. In the meantime, I recommend you continue to seek consensus about this content on the article talk page. The BLP claim does not warrant an immediate intervention, IMHO. The entries you cite have some sources, at least, and whether these are sufficiently reliable is a matter for discussion. Sandstein (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAICR Dominionism-related stuff is a mess, though. I remember getting a series of fights over this a while back and didn't get a very favourable impression. Worth looking into. Maybe cross-post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A conflict beetwen the users Protagon and No Free Nickname Left

User:Protagon

As you can see in the Revision history of Russians, this user started puting alot of tags in the Contribution to humanity section in the Russians article. He was reverted by Fycenko, and later by me, but he continued a revert war. Here is the discussion on the talk page. Every thing he brought up was answered. When he started to threat to being an administrator to decide, i said it will be best, but he havent done that. As you could see thru the history and at the talk page, i constantly tried to reach a compromise, but he ignored it and continued a revert war. I offered him a compromise long ago, but it seems like it's a paranoia. Please read the talk page and come between us, because it seems we cant find a compromise, and while i try to get one he simply keeps on having a revert war. He also abuses tags (for example theres no use in puting a dubiouss tag near a statment that says this is an opinion, so about what is he arguing, is this the opinion of the man or no??), and gets insulted and threads to complain when i blame him in Vandalizm, wiythout understanding that abuse of tags is listed as vandalizm. He also tagd the whole Culture section, which was not nessesery since there is already a template that the section is bad and needs to be re-written. Just for the case, Contribution to Humanity also exists in the English people, Italians, and a similar section "Achievments" appears in the Ashkenazi Jews article. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:No Free Nickname Left

Very bad faith, abusive, hostile and threatening talk and behavior from User:No Free Nickname Left, particularly here:

1. Talk:Russians#The_section_.22Contribution_to_humanity.22_and_the_section_.22Culture.22_is_disputed,
2. and many of his edit summaries display the same behavior: Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left

He seems to set his own rules, and refers to other edits which he don't like as vandalism; he has called me a vandal (and my edits to the article Russians as vandalism) on 10 occasions(!) on Talk:Russians and in the edit summaries in the Russians revision history. He had accused me of "abusing tags" on 3 occasions on Talk:Russians.

He has IMO a case of WP:OWN for the article Russians. He has said that "you'll get blocked", see particularly this diff.

SHOUTING in edit summaries: Diff1, diff 2, diff 3, more on Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left.

Racist behavior: diff: Could the little Balt stop vandalizm? I know he's sad their not known to exist due to the fact their little and useless, but vandalizing this page on Wikipedia wont change that. - anon comment (not directed at me), but I'm pretty sure it's from him (using the word "vandalizm" with "z").

Far more further notes on this behavior, please see this case of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:M.V.E.i., which I have filed.

I hope this helps the integrity of Wikipedia. Signing off, --Protagon (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, the irony here as well; he filed an ANI just before me above, after I told him I will take this to ANI). Interesting. --Protagon (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Me threatening?? You were the one who said he'll bring an administrator to the argument, it's weird you havent after i said it's the best option. 2. I said you can suggest, and i revrote the section alot to make it more nutral. Yet you continue the edit war without moving from your position. 3. I'm not the first one who told you to stop. 5. I'm not a sockpupet, unlike you (and you admitt it on your talk page, cant get more snobery then that). The prove i tried to reach a compromise and worked hard to make it more nutral, while you only held a revert war, can be found at the History and Talk page of the Russians article. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And still more abuse under "Comments" on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:M.V.E.i. : Its nothing but a dirty trick, you are simply a Russophob. ...you are a sockpupet, so shud up and Get a life. Please NFNL, go on, keep 'em coming... --Protagon (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC), signing off.

1. You yourself admit to be a sockpupet. 2. It is a dirty trick, you see you cant win in a fair game so you get durty. 3. Get a life because i dont get whats the thing with your obsesion. 4. Your a russophob because for a reason i dont see you making a skandal at the Italians, English people and Ashkenazi Jews articles who have this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Free Nickname Left (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, mate, I think you need a break. 72 hours. Hopefully we can whistle up a checkuser before then. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Yeah, he was User:M.V.E.i.. Checkuser was pretty confident and the behaviour patterns match very nicely. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb

Over at Moneybomb, we've been dealing with this editor. Despite a number of warnings from myself and other editors on his talk page, this single-purpose account has been consistently adding biased information to the page. There's been an edit war for several weeks about trying to get the page to be NPOV and unbiased, and this editor is working against that. The user does not respond on his talk page, nor on the page's talk page. I'm sorry to jump directly to ANI on this, but it's been that much of a nuisance to the editors working on the page. I didn't think that WQA would be helpful, as the user does not respond to comments anywhere. Is there anything that can be done, or should I just keep reverting his edits? Of course, if I put this in the wrong spot, let me know and I'll change it. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably add some diffs in here to help show what I mean. Twice in the past few hours he's added Ron Paul-biased text and images, one, two. He's altered text to negatively spin other candidates. And some of his edits just turn the current text into really awkward English, though I suppose that can always be fixed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not intended to mediate disputes about content. Please see WP:DR on how to handle such situations. How does this situation, in your opinion, require immediate administrator intervention? Sandstein (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured that I'd try here, since until a few hours ago the user wasn't posting on any talk pages, which seemed to eliminate WQA as a possibility. Since then he's come out of the woodwork and posted on both my talk page and the article's talk page. It's not a 3O issue, and there's already an RfC open for the page, which has since yielded no results. I guess I was just looking for an admin to step in and warn the user about conduct. The page has been under such a heavy edit war, but I don't think the page is significant enough to warrant MEDCOM or RFM. I guess I'll withdraw my listing here, as the editor has started talking. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are not normally issued over content disagreements. They are usually reserved for unacceptable conduct in editing (such as violating WP:3RR). I recommend that you continue discussion for now. Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Typos fixed in this comment, Sandstein (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, though this does look to be shaping up along typical disruptive single-purpose-account lines. Keep talking and in month we can sit down and see if we've got any decent encyclopaedic contributions. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from waiting to see if the user violates 3RR, what else can be done here? I'm trying to assume good faith since the editor has made a few decent edits, but it's these disruptive POV-pushing edits that are detracting from that. What can be done? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Zilch, my friend, zilch. Write him a lengthy missive explaining all the rules very carefully and showing him where he's gone wrong - if he still makes no decent contributions in a month apart from the SPA-crusader type then we can start really talking here. Hey, I don't like it any more than you do. It's just the way the game is played. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If the situation does not improve after some time and extensive discussion, consider initiating a user conduct RfC or another WP:ANI post, as appropriate to the situation. Sandstein (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I need a little more help, then. Should I sit here and revert edits such as this one, the edit line of which does not assume good faith? No other editors on the page are currently active. Maybe I just need a Wikibreak. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, actually. Just sit tight and whistle for a wind, or look to others for your answers. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page for the opinions of other editors, so it'd probably best if I just sit tight and wait for them to respond. Maybe I'll go play some video games or something... sorry for being a pain here! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talkpage to apply AGF in their dealings with editors in the article. If they don't mend their ways, then up the warning severity. If that fails then you have recourse to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personnel attacks by LifeStroke420

• LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made a few personnel attacks towards members of WP:PW in the past few hours:

• Called a user "fucking dense"
• Seemed to say "Jesus fucking christ"
• Called me on my talkpage an "ignorant newb"

I suggest this user is blocked for at least 36 hours. Please also note his blocklog, his warnings on his talkpage and contributions like this, and this previous ANI thread. Cheers, Davnel03 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a "no personal attacks warning" and see no need for further action unless such attacks persist. Sandstein (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Review my block of User:The King of Clay

Having recently reverted some unreferenced additions by this user, I glanced at his contribs and noticed this vile comment left for User:Megacheese. Accordingly, I have blocked The King of Clay indefinitely. I intend to request that the edit be oversighted as soon as possible.

I'd appreciate your opinions on this. I don't *think* that I've overreacted here (though I *am* a new admin). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't over-react. That sort of conduct is unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the block. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare User talk:Megacheese, a possible sock- or meatpuppet, now also indefblocked by me for a similarly disruptive edit, pending a very good explanation. Sandstein (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep a close eye on Megacheese's talk page... Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse both blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse both blocks, don't think you'll get an oversight however. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez and VartanM

I would like to request an impartial investigation into User:Golbez claimed mediation activity at Nagorno-Karabakh. He recently violated neutrality by singling out the contributors of one ethnicity and offending them:

1) [77]

• "Maybe the Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs - stop treating Nagorno-Karabakh like it killed your damn puppy"
• "To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better"

I think after such statements against contributors based on their background, User:Golbez has exhausted all his chances to be a mediator and needs to formally apologize for singling people out based on their background.

2) He also uses uncivil language and assumes bad faith in his "mediation" efforts:

• [78] -"This isn't about origins or accusations or comparisons to the Nazis or any of this bullshit"
• [79] - "Go bitch at their talk page, I'm tired of you all.

3) Targets me as contributor:

• [80] - "my first executive decision is to ignore Atabek
• [81] - "I would dearly love to see the Azeri position presented - by someone other than Atabek, who has shown to be entirely illogical"

After the last note, he generalized about all Azeri contributors as mentioned above, and I don't see how he could be mediating this article further. My report is specifically about this mediation case, I find User:Golbez as a valuable Wikipedian otherwise.

Also, while attempting to mediate, User:Golbez continuously engages three Azeri contributors at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, while User:VartanM, who posted this note [82] at User_talk:Golbez is pretty much editing and pushing POV [83] on the main page without any restriction or discussion. User:VartanM further posts notes attacking me and assuming bad faith [84]. User:VartanM has also attacked again a whole group of contributors by generalizing their ethnicity with "bazaar mentality" [85]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, when I say "Azeris", I mean what I've termed the "Azeri contingent" - I have no idea if the people promoting the Azeri point of view on that article are nationally or ethnically Azerbaijani, but I mean the people promoting that view. I can't be expected to write longhand every time. That said, I note you posted diffs made by VartanM in the last 12 hours - Not exactly time for me to respond to or deal with, I'm not here 24/7. Secondly, who said I was giving VartanM an equal ear? He just isn't as annoying about it as you are. Your complaints about VartanM are valid and can be dealt with in a thread independent from mine.

Second of all: For #1, you skillfully left out the first "the", which makes it clear, I think, that I'm speaking about the suite of editors here, not the entire goddamn country. For #2, I have given you good faith for however long you've been here, and you still pull this crap, so it's over. My language escalated with my frustration, and for that and that alone, I apologize. As for #3, there's nothing wrong in what I said. Finally, I have no clue what VartanM's note on my talk page meant. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when do mediators ignore participants or make 'executive decisions' about anything? It sounds like, just from reading what Atabek wrote above, Golbez needs to withdraw from this and request that another uninvolved editor act as mediator. He may also wish to review his suitability for future mediator roles. Avruch^Talk 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediators have to ignore people who are not amenable to consensus or compromise; if they did not, they would never arrive at such a consensus or compromise, and would only go crazy in the meantime. Like I have.

I'm leaving it as I found it: It's yours. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, saying "Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs" is not only diametrically opposite to any thought of mediation, it's simply generalizing of contributors due to their ethnicity. I hope you will be able to calm down and understand that you did offend people based on their background for no apparent reason. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I name each of you by name? It's obvious to any logical person reading this that I wasn't impugning the entire race. Please take this to arbitration, I look forward to them laughing at you. If I offended you, good. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, it's obvious that you are unwilling to take a neutral stance. Just look, in light of so much insults, assumptions of bad faith from VartanM and Fedayee without checkuser proofs, VartanM's calling Azeris "bazaar mentality", edit warring, harassing banned users by names or questioning the Jewishness of the background of others, you can only see Atabek as a "provocateur" :) Who else is, oh yes, Grandmaster and Parishan, other Azeri contributors are also "raving maniacs" - for disagreeing with your "mediation" approach.

As far as arbitration goes, I don't see any use for taking arbitrator's time at such an obvious case. My concern about your inability to mediate or assume neutral stance in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles was addressed, so I don't see any necessity for further comments. Apology is more of a good faith suggestion from me, since you did insult a group of us, and a matter of own business for you. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, I admit, not for the better, but since you have not read any of what Atabek says or does, you can't understand the situation. Atabek was not trying to reach consensus, he was basically there to sell his position. When you fill the article’s talkpage with comparisons between the NAZI regime and Armenia, compare Khojaly with Auschwitz, and dragging people into exhaustion by changing what has been there for months after reaching a difficult consensus after months, if not over a year, of discussion. I don't think that it is to run against AGF to say that Atabek is a provocateur. Golbez and Francis have been mediating the article for months and have achieved a very difficult consensus… months later you have Atabek coming here without discussion and making a move which he knew will again cause a worthless conflict between editors. I don't think more evidence is needed that Atabek’s conduct is not compatible with Wikipedia but since we have all lost faith in the arbitration committee, we are here wondering what next could be done. - Fedayee (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mediation is voluntary on the part of the mediator and the other editors, and the result is non-binding. If Golbez became frustrated at the behavior of some editors in this dispute, it merely means that the mediation has failed. Thatcher131 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right now, I just need a break, but if this is going to be dogpiled on ANI by people who make judgments on my quality as a mediator purely and solely by reading what Atabek wrote, then I don't know if I can continue. Atabek made me frustrated; him getting others to agree with him made me want to quit. There's a difference. I'm probably willing to keep trying if I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis). --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Atabek on this and I think that Golbez should withdraw as a mediator on all Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, because he was never invited by both parties to mediate and he clearly takes sides instead of remaining neutral. If you noticed, Golbez's mediation is supported only by the Armenian users, while no Azerbaijani user wants to see him as a mediator. His recent comment directed against the Azerbaijani users was the last straw. Please see this thread for more details. [86] You can see the joy of some Armenian users who really enjoyed Golbez's comment misrepresenting the Azerbaijani position. I don't think Golbez can be considered a neutral mediator, he admitted his sympathy for separatist movements in the past, and I personally always objected to him being a mediator, as his mediation only resulted in further escalation of the conflict. The above should not detract from Golbez as an editor and admin, and he is free to contribute as a regular editor, but the mediation task should be taken up by someone else. I agree that Moreschi or someone else takes up this role. Grandmaster (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Golbez makes decisions one or another, not takes sides, he doesn't care about Armenians or Azerbaijanis, he is third party, and now when you disagree with his third party decision, you are trying to basically impeach him, instead of making a case and showing point where he might change opinion about. The main thing is constructive process of discussion and coming to conclusions. Atabek violated that process being illogical, irrational, so it was impossible for Golbez to continue considering Atabek's opinions, as they were non-sense, so he decided to ignore him. So Grandmaster you should really blame Atabek as a person who as a representative of Azeri side undermined Azeri based views on disputable questions. I would suggest 1. Ignore Atabek, 2. Start presenting Azeri arguments in a logical contrsuctive way, 3. Stop blaming Golbez or any other third party admin for your own mistakes. Steelmate (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Golbez, if you actually tried to listen to opinion opposite to yours on talk pages, instead of "I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis)". If you really tried to be an impartial mediator in case, where "fellow Azerbaijanis" are one of the disputant sides, and you were eager to reflect the best and most neutral information in Wikipedia article, there would be no necessity for my report here or elsewhere. As I said earlier, you're a very valuable Wikipeditor otherwise, but you just can't mediate in a heavily disputed article by taking a non-neutral stance. And talking about frustration, imagine how frustrated I, Grandmaster, Parishan and few others can get unable to add any reference or citation, or make any contribution to article, without being reverted by VartanM, Fedayee and now by yourself. The only hope is for impartial mediation, and there we are with you attacking "fellow Azerbaijanis" for sounding like "maniacs" for simply presenting facts and views. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe mediation is the wrong word here. In mediation (at least as practiced by MEDCOM), the mediator maintains neutrality on the issue and tries to facilitate the agreement of the parties. However, it is also possible to make positive contributions and to help resolve conflicts even if you have taken a side, just "mediation" is not a good word for it. For example, I mediated a conflict for MEDCOM where I truly didn't care one way or the other about the outcome. I have also stepped in to edit several articles where I had definite opinions about the content but was able to negotiate compromises with both sides because I was seen as reasonable, I did not have a lot of baggage from prior conflicts at other articles, and was able to use facts and policies to my advantage. It wasn't "mediation" but it was progress, and resulted in significant agreements on content and a cooling of the rhetoric between the two original sides of the argument. If Golbez wants to do that then more power to him. He doesn't have to be neutral. Thatcher131 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • That's OK. One does not have to be a mediator to contribute to the article. The problem here is that Golbez assumed the role of a mediator, while he was clearly a party to the dispute with his own strong views. Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the most troubled articles in Wikipedia, if you look at the log of the article you'll see that it was protected many times even before most of the current editors joined Wikipedia. Therefore mediation is really needed to help maintain a shaky balance that existed in the article for the last few months. Golbez is a valuable contributor and is very welcome to contribute to this article as a regular editor, but his mediation efforts only lead to further escalation of the situation. The thing is that Azerbaijani contributors are unable to make any edits to the articles, which is de-facto controlled by Golbez and mostly reflects the Armenian position. That’s why Armenian users are so ecstatic about Golbez and would not want another mediator. Grandmaster (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Offer to participants of Armenia-Azeri conflict

Note: this is no comment on Golbez or Vartan or Atabek or anyone. This is simply a response to the general picture I'm seeing from the Armenia-Azeri fights, and is copy-pasted from my response to this thread here on my talk page.

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to control the destructive users such as Atabek, untill that, changing admins is like changing captains on a sinking ship, we need to fix the hole first. Steelmate (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur, posted my agreement at WP:AE as well. But I think both Golbez and VartanM need to reconsider their generalization about contributors of one ethnicity and apologize for insulting people. We should not forget, that Wikipedia editing is not a paid job, people do this for fun and enjoyment, while contributing valuable information. So we should not discourage others by fueling ethnic conflicts or trying to insult others ethnic identity. In my turn, I apologize to both, if I insulted their ethnic background in any manner, although to my knowledge I did not. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for nothing. I did not insult any ethnic background, nor you as a person, only the method in which you present your arguments. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has been provoking members into fights; he's been pushing them literally to exhaustion. If it isn’t his provocations with offending remarks about the Armenian Genocide, it is to replace countless articles' terms, when was it, months ago? True, this was documented in the AA2 arbitration case. But Atabek did continue his provocations by using offending words, reporting members and engaging in pissing matches. Comparing the Armenian regime to the NAZI one with explicit words and as usual, there were no consequences for any of those provocations and attacks along national lines. So it is somehow naive to expect that some level of reasonable discussion could take place if Golbez, Tigran or Vartan feel engaged in this unhelpful discussion which takes place in a battleground atmosphere, being fooled into believing that there are no consequences, since Atabek’s disruptions have been totally ignored by two arbitration cases and what followed.

When someone pursues his provocation as far as comparing the Khojali event with Auschwitz [87], how is Golbez supposed to answer to such an atmosphere of illogical and irrational comments destined only to provoke others? I don't see how he expects any member to behave when those members know that acting like Atabek will bring no consequences at all. In short, how is Atabek actually expecting others to react when he's provoking them day after day after day? Vartan, Tigran and Golbez did take the bait, but who is the administrator who will realise that Atabek is doing just what Adil was doing prior to his ban.

Also, wasn't Adil banned? So how on Earth is he allowed to continue contributing under his Ehud Lesar account? - Fedayee (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek is shown to be completely illogical and after spending in talking to him half a day, I realized he is trolling the talk pages, he has an ill faith in editing Wikipedia by ruining the constructive process itself by provoking other users to escapades and emotional exhaustion. After that I decided myself, separately from Golbez, to ignore him. The decision by Golbez to ignore him came later and it has all foundations to be so. Regarding the language Golbez used, I can categorically assert it was intentionally provoked by Atabek. Steelmate (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that; I got frustrated and let my words get away from me. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I got frustrated too, he was provoking me all the time. Steelmate (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a loss of faith in ArbCom is warranted - they simply aren't setup to mediate content disputes, as they freely admit. If Golbez is fed up and driven crazy with this mediation, then as I said - he needs to withdraw and request the assistance of a different mediator. It may be that no side will ever be satisfied completely with the status of the article, and there may be some actors who are clearly driving that impossibility. It doesn't seem like an AN/I issue, really, but I think its worth it to suggest to Golbez that he withdraw or act henceforth as an editor rather than a mediator. Avruch^Talk 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Moreschi has made his offer, there's really no need to continue this discussion here. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because Morschi has made an offer, doesn't mean it's been accepted by all participants. I see no problem with Golbez' mediation--he knows the history of the dispute between editors, he is patient, and he takes the time to learn the issues. Since Atabek caused Golbez to make that comment by his disruptive style, asking Golbez to step away would be rewarding a disruptive party who keeps pushing mediators away as long as he disagrees with them. Anyone involved in the discussion would find it healthy to ignore a disruptive user such as Atabek. And Atabek is not the only Azeri user anyway--he is just the most disruptive (after Adil_Baguirov's permanent ban).--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not reward the disruptive party? That's how this works, even after two toothless arbitrations. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why you shouldn't step down. I respect Avruch's and Corvus' opinions, but they cannot be expected to properly conclude who should be a mediator in the few seconds it took them to read Atabek's post. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with Golbez, the problem is Atabek as a disruptive user, by changing admin we are not going to solve the problem. Nothing against Moreshi or any other admin, but I think you are trying to cure not the issue but symptoms (see my comments above). Steelmate (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No no, you've misunderstood me. I want to work full-time on all the Armenia-Azeri articles you chaps are fighting over, and those are not, unfortunately, limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh set of articles. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, Steelmate, VartanM and Fedayee, with all sense of reality, if Golbez returns to these articles, after his insults and "raving maniacs" words, no Azeri contributor will work with his mediation. Grandmaster and Parishan have already stated their positions at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. So I am not sure what he will be mediating and between whom will he be mediating other than following this suggestion from VartanM [88]? I think you're viewing the issue from the position of eliminating any and all Azeri viewpoint, while arbitrators and mediators aim at protecting the fundamental "neutrality" rule in Wikipedia, which is not about to be changed. I am sure most of you don't want to spend your times in perpetual discussions going around the circle and reaching nothing, new user appearing every day, disagreeing with radical wording of the other side and new battle starting. No one wants to participate in such time-wasting lengthy exercises, so it's more practical to simply engage in dialog (and I mean really try), and come up with truly neutral wordings to preserve the hard work of contributors in long term. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, since Moreschi's offer hasn't been accepted, how about taking the whole discussion off of this page, since this isn't the complaints department, nor is it the dispute resolution department. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know see why the contributors rejected Moreschi's offer (did they?), perhaps, this should be discussed in Arbitration Enforcement, where Moreschi made his proposal. All I can say is that Golbez mediation on Nagorno-Karabakh or any other conflicting article is no longer acceptable in light of the facts listed in the report above. Now, perhaps, opposing contributors can present us with facts showing why Moreschi would not be qualified for mediation, at WP:AE? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say Golbez' mediation is unacceptable doesn't make it so. Considering his knowledge on the issue, he is the most qualified at this point. If you can't get along with him, step away. There are other Azeri contributors other than you, who hopefully can learn your lesson and be less disruptive.

By the way, Golbez hasn't insulted anyway. He simply said that you should calm down instead of acting like a raving maniac. Despite being an accurate statement, it is a sincere, friendly, and quite useful advice. You will be wise to thank Golbez for it.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I Reject offer of Moreschi as it is not going to solve problem which we have now. The problem is Atabek's destructive behavior. Golbez been there long time and in this complex conflict we need someone with good knowledge of the conflict and history of this particular article to avoid stepping on the same wounds. Steelmate (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The issues are not limited to this article, nor even to this set of articles. I have no complaint with Golbez's mediation on the Nagorno-Karabakh article - like as not he's been doing a fine job. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Per suggestion from admin above, I opened another thread at WP:AE to discuss this. Just as a reminder, we were all asked not to post here on this subject, and I think Avruch spelled out the final conclusion on Golbez mediatorship. So let's move the discussion to WP:AE. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. After skimming the NKR talk page I see what looks like discussion of the issues. It is clear from this incident report and many many reports at WP:AE that Atabek dislikes a lot of users and wants to run them off, and a lot of users dislike Atabek and want to run him off. But the diffs offered by either side never seem to support the arguments. Thatcher131 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to run off Parishan, Ulvi/Aynabend or Grandmaster. How come Atabek succeeded in pissing off Persian and Armenian editors or Pocopocopocopoco and Golbez who are neither Armenian nor Persian? Didn't it occur to you that Atabek is doing something reprehensible which makes contributors want to run him off and only him? You read the exchanges... did you also consider that the NK article was in a form of relative peace that had never been reached before, thanks to Golbez and Francis who have put so much energy on it, before Atabek screwed it up? There must have been something really bad which Atabek did that would make Golbez react this way. - Fedayee (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco managed to piss off many users on various articles by supporting the separatist POV, and many Armenian users pissed off many Turkish users on related articles, does it show that all those users are disruptive? People happen to disagree with each other, the problem here is that mediation is supposed to help the disputing parties find the middle ground, and not take sides by promoting a certain POV just because the self-appointed mediator happens to share the same views with one of the sides of the dispute. I suggest getting a more experienced mediator to work with the parties from now on. Grandmaster (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that you want to run Atabek off :). And who is we? You mean you have a group strategy on which users to target? Apparently, I am not the only one, Ehud and even banned AdilBaguirov are also targets, check your own comment here [89]. I am not sure if WP:AGF principle of recent ArbCom had quite any effect on your editing, Fedayee, to keep accusing contributors this way. And by the way, mediator should not call a group of contributors, not only me, as "sounding like raving maniacs", there is WP:CIVIL after all. Golbez is still trying to mediate right now at Nagorno-Karabakh page, without Azeri contributors. I hope Thatcher131 will read this comment too, and make necessary conclusions. I realize I may be annoying with reports of all violations at WP:AE, but I am definitely not trying to run anyone off, as in such case, I would not even spend my time discussing article contents on talk pages. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue with Atabek is that he is illogical and non constructive. Anybody can have their POV and that is ok, if YOU are being pissed just because other users POV, than it is YOUR problem. But if user is illogical and it is impossible to cooperate with him than it is THIS USER's problem and beeing pissed off is fully understandable. Steelmate (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

View from user:Pocopocopocopoco (re: user:Atabek's conduct)

Greetings, I am neither Azeri nor Armenian if that means anything. I follow and contribute to articles about de facto independent republics including Nagorno-Karabakh. I want to say that from the time I've been contributing to the Nagorno-Karabakh article I believe Golbez to be an excellent mediator for this article. I don't always agree with him and he's reverted me a couple times but I believe him to be fair and even-handed. I also believe that User:Atabek's conduct in this matter is reprehensible. We were having a productive conversation in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and he came in and made some very inflamatory statements that could also be considered trolling, broke Godwin's Law several times by making comparisons between Armenians and Nazis and ruined the discussion.[90][91] Note that Atabek is under civility parole by two Arbcom descisions.[92][93] I urge you to read Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and get a full picture of what happened. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not find those two diffs objectionable. The allegation that the Armenian population ethnically cleansed the region of Azeris is a matter of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, the sources that I can easily find seem to agree that it was the Armenians who were ethnically cleansed by the Azeris. Either way, stating this argument is not uncivil or a personal attack. It would be quite a different matter if Atabek accused Armenian editors of trying to ethnically cleanse the article, or if he accused Armenian editors of participating in the alleged crimes. You're trying to enforce a standard of "whatever offends the most easily offended editors is not allowed." To enforce a sanction against Atabek for making a historical argument (not directed against any particular editors) we would also have to be prepared to sanction any Arabic or Palestinian editors who criticize the government of Israel, on the grounds that it offends Jewish editors, and we have to sanction any editor who is critical of radical Islamic terrorists on the grounds that those comments offend moderate Muslims. I need some real incivility here. "The referendum was invalid because 30% of the population had been ethnically cleansed [94]" just doesn;t ring the bell here. Thatcher131 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not his POV about ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh that is objectionable but his repeated comparisons to the Nazis, Auchwitz, and Anchluss. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After I read Atabek's statement above and commented initially, I did in fact go and read chunks of the talk page (I don't know much of anything about the conflict, aside what I've read lately in the papers about the Armenian/Turkey genocide issue) and I still believe that it would be useful to trade out mediators. Golbez is obviously frustrated and finding it difficult to maintain his neutrality. Even if Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor, the statement 'If I offended you, good' is inappropriate for someone trying to be a content dispute mediator. I also wouldn't necessarily conclude that Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor - these pages attract folks with very strongly held POVs, and so it takes a particularly practiced and even-handed mediator to make any headway at all. I've left a note with some advice on Atabek's talk page here. Avruch talk 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be extremely difficult to understand where we all are coming from (me - Steelmate, VartanM, Fedayee, Golbez...), but the frustration with Atabek is fact. No other Azeri user is casing that frustration. What he does is avoids answers on the question, changes topic of conversation, adds illogical to the point of discussion imflamatory statements, comes back to where it all started - being non constructive in one word. F.e. if I asked him if (A > B) and (B > C) so can we all agree that (A > C)? his answer will be NO, because 1. A - is illegal and is not recognized by any country, B - is supporting A economically and C was a genocide made by A and B just like Nazi did, and also I have a very small D that looks like A but D can never be bigger then C.... So he changed the topic of conversation about logical statemnts and started bringing other topics non relevant to conversation and wants to discuss them in order to find solution for a problem, and solution (that A > C) is absolutely independent on all those thing which he brings into conversation. So he is completely illogical and I decided for myself to refrain from communication from this destructive user. I am ready to communicate with any logical person. His behavior is simply distracting from finding solutions and destructing the process as the whole. Who wouldn't become frustrated? Golbez is a human and he was provoked by Atabek as well, maybe he is tired, but the cause is Atabek's behaviour. Steelmate (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, can you explain what behavior of myself are you and Golbez keep talking about? Saying that population was ethnically cleansed prior to establishment of "NKR"? Why would Golbez get frustrated by this and how was I provoking him to make demeaning comments about me and other Azeri contributors? Atabek (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally see no provocation on part of Atabek. He expressed his opinion, and he is free to do so. Atabek never personally attacked or insulted anyone, unlike some other users. I understand why some folks representing a certain POV like so much Golbez, but I don't find acceptable when a person who wishes to be a mediator makes comments generalizing all editors representing a certain position. That's not the way mediation is done. Grandmaster (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmanster maybe you are right and there was no intentional provocation from Atabek's part and he might have a sincere difficulty for logical thinking due to maybe he is too emotional person, or not mature enough, I don't know..., the fact is - communication with him fruits no results and is frustrating, no consensus can be reached and time is just wasted in such a non constructiove talks. Steelmate (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are contributing to Wikipedia for about a month, and to NK related articles for about 2 weeks. As a new user who had very little communication with Atabek, how do you know that communication with him gives no results? Or maybe there's something I don't know about your past difficulties with Atabek? Grandmaster (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My communication with him did not gave results. Period. I spent half a day with him, and am not planning spending the rest of my life talking to absolutely illogical person. Maybe you would like and prefer, as long as that person is pushing Azeri POV, maybe you would also like to recruit volanteers - patients from Azeris mental hospitals and have them edit Wikipedia with prior training that NKR is illegal. It is up to you but I am not. Steelmate (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have no interest in responding to Steelmate's attack above. But I would like to yet again attract administrator attention to his personal attacks right above. Perhaps, the indifference to such attackers only serves to fuel more of them. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get something clear. You are saying that NK was ethnically cleansed before the referendum of the independence took place? Wouldn't that make the Khojaly a myth? You are making a major contradiction. VartanM (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, if I were Atabek, I would responded to you this way : "There is no contradiction as NKR is illegal".... Steelmate (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"patients from Azeris mental hospitals", ect - and this is considered civil langauge? Grandmaster (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What should be the new process to ban people?

Related to above topic but discussion is about general terms, not the user

What should be the new process to ban people? Before it was CSM. CSM was disbanded. One of the last few cases on CSM was decided in 4 days. This defacto banning has had only 15 hours of discussion when JerseyDevil reinstated his original block. Let's stop talking about this editor and develop a consensus on how to ban people. 15 hours and some opposition is not the way to do it except in a kangaroo court. Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if an admin indef blocks some user, and you disagree, bring it here to AN/I rather than unblocking. If a clear consensus doesn't develop for the unblock, the user stays blocked. No need for a new process, just some common sense use of discussion. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's make an extremely bureaucratic process so as to make it impossible to ban anyone. That way regardless of how disruptive a user is they'll never be able to be banned and the "Never Block Anyone" crowd can be happy.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very troubling to hear such comment from you since you are the admin who blocked CltFn forever. It would have been much more honourable and ethicalless dramatic for you to say in the beginning "since the last block of 28 December, the user has done the following improper actions (diffs below). As a result, I propose ban." After a few days of discussion (perhaps 4 days or whatever the CSN board used), if agreed upon ban, it could be implemented. I would probably support this rather than having an unfair lynching of the editor. a rush to ban the editor. Archtransit (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your implication that Jersey Devil is not "honourable and ethical" and that he engaged in a "lynching" is way over the line. At first I thought you were simply an inexperienced admin who made a few mistakes, but it is beginning to appear that you lack the judgment and discretion we expect of an admin. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording modified, sorry. Archtransit (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the process should be: if there is disagreement about an indefinite block, either turn the indefinite block into a definite block (in the range of months or a year - which ever the community of admins agrees on), or pass the matter to the arbitration committee. The arbitration committee rarely (if ever) ban for a year, and the community should be sensible enough to grade its blocks up to and including a year, before going to indefinite. In my opinion, the only reason an individual admin indefinitely blocks and then (in the face of opposition) maintains that an indefinite block is needed, is either a misplaced sense of WP:OWN about their blocks, or an unwillingness to trust that repeated behaviour after a lengthy block will be dealt with. Indefinite blocks should only remain if no admins at all disagree, either now or later. In essense, I'm saying use indefinite blocks only for vandals and the most extreme misbehaviour, and use blocks of months (up to a year) for everything else. This system would be workable, and is how Wikipedia used to operate, but in the current climate it may be difficult to persuade some admins to agree to it. The attitude of "indefinite block and routinely deny unblock requests" for first offences needs to stop. It is excessive and damaging. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with the implementation of fixed term blocks as the first response to serious disruption. The flexibility of the indefinite tariff is what is so useful, as against a pre-determined term. An unblock of an indef block can indicate that the tariff has expired rather than a reduction of a certain period. Otherwise an indif block that is never undone indicates that the community feels that the account remains disruptive. Therefore placing an account under an indef tariff does not mean that the account is banned forever, but that there are issues that require resolving before the editor can contribute again. While there is discussion then there is no reason why the indef block cannot remain, the editor being able to communicate via their talkpage or by email as required, since the appropriate tariff or conditions for unblock can be imposed once the discussion has concluded. Only in the cases of obvious vandalism or other disruption is there any suggestion that a discussion is not needed, and only in the most obvious cases of improper blocking should a block be otherwise undone. In the meanwhile an indef block should stay unblocked until a consensus is reached for the appropriate period - including indefinite - of a block or circumstances under which the account may be allowed to return to editing. I agree that indef blocking followed by a denial of any request or discussion is the worst possible solution on this thorny question. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the logic here. How can the community have a sensible opinion on whether an account "remains disruptive" when the account can't edit, and therefore can't be disruptive? I agree that an indefinite block during discussion is reasonable; but it should be replaced by a fixed block at the end of the discussion unless there is consensus that the user ought to be gone permanently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinion is formulated by review of the editing history prior to the block, and all other available evidence. An account may thus be considered disruptive even while blocked, if the evidence warrants that conclusion; the vast majority of blocked accounts must be disruptive, otherwise they wouldn't be blocked.

Sometimes an indef block, to be lifted when certain conditions are met, is preferable to a fixed tariff that can expire without the account acknowldedging that they were in error - which often means that the same behaviour will surface again. I also consider that banning should not really be an option in respect of disruptive behaviour; banning should be the only response to certain violations of Wikipedia rules, and not a more severe sanction than may be applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a "new process to ban people". We banned people for years before the existence of CSN and I imagine that we will do it just fine now we don't have CSN. "Let's stop talking about this editor and develop a consensus on how to ban people." Waaaa? Honestly, I can't work out what the hell has been going on in this place while I've been away. Sarah 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to examine the reasons (sometimes spurious) that people give for indefinite blocking and banning. In the past, this was done as a last resort. Now, it happens all too often, usually the first time someone shows the slightest signs of not understanding how things work around here. Instead of mentoring and guidance, the response is "indef block". Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In total agreement with Sarah on this one. Let's have some common sense here. Orderinchaos 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this not common sense? "an indefinite block during discussion is reasonable; but it should be replaced by a fixed block at the end of the discussion unless there is consensus that the user ought to be gone permanently." The point is that this does not happen. People get blocked indefinitely, and then if enough people raise strong objections to any overturn of that, there is little chance of any compromise, and reasonable people hesitate to unblock or shorten the block, while bolder people have little restraint on raising a short block to indefinite at the slightest excuse. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a bunch of indefinite blocks today. Check my logs. Tell which ones were bad. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets after checkusers? Of course that's fine. I'm talking about the cases where there has been no checkuser and little independent review. If the unblock request is denied, the editor may face months of arguing their case before they can convince someone it was excessive. And I see you blocked the puppetmaster for a week, with more to come if this continues. That is good blocking judgment. I'm talking about the cases where a long discussion ensues about an indefinite blocked editor, and people chose between unblock and indefinite, with not many people thinking of other options, such as a long, but definite block. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Broad criticism without specific examples should be avoided. At WP:BLOCK the cases where indefinite blocks are used have been enumerated. I wrote some of that text. When an account is used primarily for disruption, vandalism, of other serious policy violations, we can indefinite block. The tradition is not to indefinitely block experienced users without a community discussion. If the community discussion deadlocks, the case can go to ArbCom. Our process, while imperfect, often works well. Those who wish to improve policy, feel free to start a discussion at WT:BLOCK. If there are specific instances of bad blocks, let's discuss them here. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)