Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Repeated false Accusations and Insults by User Supreme Deliciousness (SD)

Ever since I became an editor on Wikipedia, User Supreme Deliciousness has been falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user, Arab Cowboy. SD has even made a formal request for investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy, the conclusion of which has shown that Arab Cowboy and me are unrelated editors. Yet, SD has continued to make these false accusations and to call AC and me liars on this Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Identity_Section and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Sockpuppetry_Allegations. SD’s false accusations and insults are not acceptable. He is stifling my freedom of expression and impeding my ability to freely contribute to Wikipedia. He should be reprimanded, blocked, or banned altogether. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not, in fact, what the SPI said. It said that there was not enough evidence to justify looking at your information. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, as usual) While the US Congress may not make a law abridging your freedom of speech, Wikipedia can - a policy, that is. That said, I looked through the threads you linked to, and I can see no admin action necessary or even remotely warranted. Tan | 39 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan, do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Wikipedia? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear the voice of the duck, calling "Plaxico!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has shown that you two are related or unrelated yet, just that there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant CheckUser. MuZemike 00:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for some replies: do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Wikipedia? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us?
• The burden of proof that Nefer Tweety is my sockpuppet is upon SD, and if he has "insufficient evidence" to support this accusation, then he should be reprimanded for making it, especially that he has already done so through a formal route. And to start calling NT and myself "liars" will open the door to a very different kind of dialogue on Wiki pages.
• Tan has stated that Wikipedia can stifle a user's freedom of expression by policy. What kind of violation has NT or myself committed to warrant that action? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Were I an admin, you and Nefer would have been blocked some time ago for the sheer obviousness of the fact that you are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps it's a good thing I'm not. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux, obviously, it's a good thing that you are not. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Maybe you should just focus on good editing, and leave the personal stuff alone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "logic" of some of the users here is pathetic. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that there is "freedom of speech" here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget the constitution if you so desire, but to intimidate users through allegations of sockpuppetry and lying is not the sign of civilized behavior. If you find that to be an acceptable norm, then so be it, but from the way the answers have been coming here, it's more like a madhouse than a place to have an intelligent discourse. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Forget the constitution" is a red herring. How do you figure the constitution comes into play here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning. Tan | 39 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't. It wasn't I who brought the constitution into play here. It was Tan who brought up Congress and the Constitution in the first place, and diverted attention from the real issue. On your user page, you state, "Wikipedia is a community, not a crazy den of pigs!", yet you have shown it to be exactly the latter. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy folks! I am not AC, I have no idea who this person is! Honestly, it is kinda funny to see that some users still think we are the same, even though I tried to clarify it!!! Is there a way I can prove it, as obviously what I keep repeating isn't of much value :( --Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With edits so close together, this would be a good time for a checkuser to take another look at these two redlinks and see if there is any additional evidence tying them together. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a sock investigation, but it was declined due to lack of evidence. How does one go about reopening it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, now Nefer Tweety is on AC's talk page, offering help. And there's the usual calling for "thorough investigations" into my "abuse of power". Meanwhile, a second unblock request is pending - anyone want to tackle it? Tan | 39 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They are acting, at the very least, as meatpuppets. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a second unblock request: this individual didn't like my decline & removed it. (And he & Roux edit-warred over this for a short while.) For that reason, I've gone ahead & protected his talk page for the remainder of his 72-hour block. Since an uninvolved Admin might consider this a conflict of interest, review of my acts welcomed -- & I'm stepping away from this matter unless further developments require my input. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The version you just recently reverted - this one - seemed to have both the request you declined and a new, second unblock request. As far as I see, he does have the right to an appeal of your decline. Perhaps reconsider? Or am I missing something? Tan | 39 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well no, I am. A nearlier version here had him deleting the decline, & the following comments to AC & Roux's reverts convinced me that they were edit warring over this template. He does have the right to appeal my decline; I never meant to imply otherwise. I'm reverting my change & the protection -- & won't intervene again. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to leave a note on his talk page explaining the situation. Tan | 39 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I left an apology. Does that work? -- llywrch (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. It was clearly a mistake on your part; I was just suggesting that you leave an adequate explanation of the block on his page. Tan | 39 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• In User_talk:Arab_Cowboy#Apology, what Jpgordon and Nsaum75 said.--Caspian blue 03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether a CheckUser confirms that they are related or not, it is somewhat suspicious that Arab Cowboy first edited on June 25th. Only a week later, Tweety first edited July 2nd. My logic on this one may be a little tainted somehow, but the fact remains, they are both VERY NEW editors who's first edits were only A WEEK apart.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but as far as I've known Supreme Deliciousness' way of speaking is quite disruptive and hostile, and he has carries out strong agendas to the article in question and other Arabic related articles such as Talk:Hummus by repeatedly asserting of "Israeli culture theft" and making relentless attacks to people who disagree with him. Therefore, I think the original complaint seems legitimate but everyone steered the main point with wrong ways.--Caspian blue 04:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in huge trouble for this

Resolved

 – Editors have worked through the issues in a collegial and cooperative manner and are moving forward on improving the encyclopedia accordingly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-reporting.

1. My edits: moving discussion[1], moving discussion[2]
2. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: this is not "discussion"; these are, quite plainly, lulz. do not refactor or otherwise fuck with our lulz, Durova. you're treading on thin ice, young lady.[3]
3. My edit: restore move: commentary is admittedly disruptive[4]
4. I post to his user talk:[5]
5. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: You're in huge trouble for this....[6]

He has not replied to my attempt at polite communication. Seeking independent review and opinion. Durova²⁷⁷ 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Durova's moving of threaded commentary to the talk page conformed to accepted RfC formatting guidelines. The reverts and even more so the edit summaries by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are incivil, disruptive, ownerous and incomprehensible. ("Lulz"? This is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz.) He should be blocked if he keeps this up.  Sandstein  14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, he did mention your youth... style points? Anyway, if shenanigans like that continue, sanctions should ensue. Tan | 39 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back made a disruptive comment in his edit summary. To be fair, you responded with a sarcastic comment on his talk page that didn't really address the conflict. If I had found a message on my talk page like that I wouldn't have known how to immediately respond to it, and neither would I have seen it as "a polite attempt at communication". It's quite possible that I don't understand the seriousness of moving this text, or the immediate trouble that is sure to follow anyone who does so. IMHO, both parties are at fault. a little insignificant 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have significant respect for you as an admin, but anyone who has spent as much time on this "project" as yourself should have long ago relieved himself of the delusion that "this is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz." Look around.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

technically TFMWNCB is not an admin so your edit summary was incorrect Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right... I keep forgetting, sorry... a little insignificant 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the above. The revert, and edit summary seem to be pretty uncivil and disruptive. I've gone ahead and informed The Fat Man Who Never Came Back about this thread. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was attempting to lighten the tone, rather than attempting sarcasm. Durova²⁷⁷ 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I ad an edit conflict, so I was actually agreeing with Sandstein & Tan :). I can't see a big problem with your message. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alternately, Durova, you can be satisfied in the knowledge that people agree that you are technically in the right, but then just let it go as not worth the drama. C'mon people, this is not Utopia, we can allow things to get slightly messy and imperfect without threats of blocking and sanctions. Durova's response on his talk page was perfectly fine. It's all a joke, it isn't hurting things that much, TFMWNCB pushed the joke a little too far when reverting a second time. But let's go find something else to do. Also, I wish someone would call me young man. It's been decades. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If ever there were a page that needed some lulz, that would have been it. Nonetheless, Durova's edits were proper from the prescribed format point of view. Let's drop this now. Incidentally, given the number of times that he seems to come back here, I call BS on the Fat Man's username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So I come to back to AN/I from time to time. Big deal. I like my name. If you found out I had a svelte, Pilates-toned physique, would you complain?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see either one of two editors blocked over something like this. a little insignificant 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore him Durova, you are definitely not in any trouble. It clearly states at the bottom of the page [[7]] that discussions should be taken to the talk page. And his personal remarks to you are also unnecessary. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure Durova is relieved at your reassurance that she is not in trouble. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the swift responses. This looked like the kind of thing that could turn hot, so was mainly seeking third party intervention before any blockable action happened. If the threaded commentary was correctly moved, would someone reinstate the move please? Other than that, would be glad to mark this resolved. Durova²⁷⁷ 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why. So. Serious? Viridae^Talk 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Norcalal & User:Highspeed

These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion. I have blocked User:Highspeed as a sock of User:Biaswarrior per WP:DUCK as Biaswarrior had engaged in previous similar stunts, but Norcalal considers that I am biased against him and so I'll let an uninvolved admin figure out whether he's a sock, a problem, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see where Norcalal has 'vandalised [your] talk page'. Would you please back this up with a diff(s)? — neuro^(talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He posted this to Highspeed's talk the same day that Highspeed vandalized my talk page, it's clear who the personal attack was refering to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Long thread on the larger topic here, WT:WikiProject Cities#Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities. Pfly (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That provides some background, but that issue and vandalism/wikistalking/sock puppetry is what we're discussing, unless you think that others in that discussion are involved? I don't but maybe you know something more, please advise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to the following: "These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion." ---I have never vandalized anyone's talk page or nominated any article for deletion. Therefore, I could not have wiki-stalked articles for deletion. Its true that a lot of article creation in California counties has been a cause for concern, if not occasional ire but the charges from Carlossuarez46 are unfounded or untrue. However at this time, I would make the point that it looks like said editor is willing to trump up charges against me over a difference of opinion related to the value of some (not all) of the articles created. I do not know what a sock is. I imagine it has something to do with a ghost account that an editor might use to look like someone else. But as far as I can see that has nothing to do with the articles in Humboldt County that I am mostly concerned with. It is true that I have been trying to make sense of the rapid article development as of late in many counties, but I have made mostly small adjustments related to some of additions in articles I know quite well. I think that is normal editing. No one has ownership of any article. In at least one case, I made a very clear point in the City of Arcata. If San Francisco was briefly called Yerba Buena why is it not listed as "(formerly Yerba Buena)" in its header. But the information related to use of Arcata's brief original name, that information was ALREADY cited and placed in the history section long before any more recent changes. As I read the interesting arguments about the use of GNIS I see that there has been much considerate deliberation. I hope it all leads to more complete, well organized articles and templates. But one thing is for sure at the moment. There are repetitions and errors in templates that are ill conceived by relying totally on the GNIS. The issue with Bucksport and Buck's Port in Humboldt County is one of the issues around recent prolific stub article creation that needs clarifying-there was only one and the same location, but references may have developed from old sources to confuse that. Even so, there should be an (single) entry about this (single) historic location now completely absorbed by the City of Eureka. Again, I have seen some similarity in concern in Mono County and Monterrey County for what I saw happening in Humboldt, but I have never wittingly worked together with anyone in the manner described above. It is not in my nature despite being upset at the onset of this period of massive article creation in many counties in California that I am familiar with. Norcalal (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What caused you to post on Highspeed's talk page about me on the day he vandalized my talk page? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of vandalism from Highspeed toward you or anyone else. My perception was that he was having a similar reaction in Monterrey as I was having in Humboldt. The posts of his that I noted were only related to your edits/article creation that he tagged for "speedy deletion" related to obscure article stubs related to the GNIS source debate (a real debate going on parallel to this issue here). I assumed Good Faith (not knowing otherwise) and had no idea that he had tampered with anything. I still have not researched the claim of vandalism to your talk page...mostly because I only look for discussion on the GNIS issue, which has taught me quite a lot about the process of development around here. I track a lot of coastal articles (and their counties and templates for that matter) related to my many interests, so there is good reason for me to watch this issue and others in the larger California setting. My issue is only this: If you created an article related to a mistaken/misspelled name of a locale in GNIS, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a resource to say that a place that never was never existed. I resent being brought on trial here and lumped in with this "Highspeed" character because there is no connection. This is the last I will engage this discussion. Norcalal (talk)

So, you see that he is trying to delete geographic article - a kindred spirit you had no prior contact with and leave a negative comment about me after he vandalizes my talk page, which you didn't notice per WP:AGF. OK. FWIW, if an article's title is mistaken/misspelled, you can always WP:MOVE it to its correct title, but after being here as long as you, I assume you know that. Just make sure that you have a reference that verifies that title. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not research why he was trying to delete an article, I saw others as well suggesting articles for deletion...again I assumed he was a real editor with a vested interest in the locale. You still seem surprised at the undertone of antagonism that comes your way. Perhaps your responses where you decide calling other editors a "DICK" might be inflammatory. I have not had a stranger call me that since the 7th grade so I know I was taken aback...perhaps others are/were too. On the flip side, I have had extraordinarily patient editors and admins have reason to be upset with a mistake I or others have made, take time to help make sense of it all and none of those reduce their interaction to orders and demands as you do. So whatever. Your use of "Kindred spirit" in the above may relate to what I expected (assumed) to find in Highspeed: A local editor in shock over your rapid article creation (without knowing otherwise). The statements made here and in other posts related to the GNIS mess as I see it are honest ones from an editor who has been here a while. I don't research everything in a controversy, just the stuff that matters to me. I bet in that respect I am not alone. Norcalal (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wassermann

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#User:Wasserman. An IP editor, User:172.131.130.5, has been editing identically to the edits for which User:Wassermann was brought to task in the above section. Behavioral evidence alone is obvious, although I misread the block log and thought Wassermann was still blocked, and reverted all the edits. Is a longer term user block combined with the appropriate IP anon range blocks called for or not? -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wassermann's contribs, he hasn't edited under his main account since June 25. Agree with Avi--the quacking is getting awfully loud. Indef might not be too harsh at this point, considering his block log. Blueboy96 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This account has been a problem for a long time, and this new editing looks like the same kinds of problems as before. He was most recently blocked for a month. Either a much longer block or an indef would appear appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP's just AOL, so not much to be done there; I'd indef the guy, but I'm not particularly fond of yellow-badgers, so I'm way biased. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with an indefinite block: socking, long term bad edits... let's just get it over with. Triplestop x3 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. Blueboy96 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Cite check tags on Kosovo article

Resolved

 – Purely an editorial dispute, no need for admin intervention.--Aervanath (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dbachmann, an admin, has unilaterally removed the tags here, with the reason "rm stale templates. There is the usual nationalist noise on talk, but this doesn't establish that there is any bona fide issue. If there is, use inline tags to help localize it."

The POV tag is dated December 2008. The Cite check tag is dated February 2009. I have been here for a couple of months, in that time no substantial edits have been made to merit the removal of the tags. I explained my position to the said admin here and was asked to inline tag all the non-neutral and dubious cites on the article - a move which would mean over half the article is tagged. This was explained to the admin in his talk page. The admin also accused me of improper conduct on Wikipedia, an notion I reject. The said user did not agree with my views and thus branded me a Wikipedian who gives the "usual nationalist noise on talk". I would agree that my actions have not always been proper, but my presence in the article is necessary to counter other points of view. The said user has assumed bad faith on other occasions, but I would like a response to this incident.

Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I observe Kosovo with amusement, and can only condone dab's actions here. If the article is really that bad, please go and inline tag it. ninety:one 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article beings; "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans." This, in its self is a POV statement as according to 62 nations (mostly English-speaking nations), it is a country located in the Balkans. Why shouldn't I be allowed to address these points without being called a "nationalist". Why should we remove the tag when a Serbian POV has been allowed to override the article and thus un-due weight is given throughout. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

No, it's an NPOV statement because it fairly describes the existing situation. While Kosovars have unilaterally declared independence from Serbia and 62 nations have supported this, Serbia still claims Kosovo as a province and not even a plurality of the world's nations have given their support to its declaration of independence. Until Serbia drops its claims and nearly all nations have accepted Kosovo as an independent nation, then it's quite fair, objective, and NPOV to say it is a "disputed reason". If you could provide reliable sources confirming that Serbia has accepted Kosovo's independence and given it such recognition, then your POV would become NPOV. As it stands, there is no reason for administrator action in this case. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys could formulate some compromise wording that is acceptable to all - I doubt that we would use the phrase "Israel is a disputed region in the Middle East." because a number of countries do not recognize Israel; or "Iran is a disputed region in the Middle East." for similar reasons; or "[North/South] Korea is a disputed region in Asia." or anywhere else. Perhaps using facts rather than the ambiguous weasel-word "disputed" such as Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, 62 countries recognize such independence, and XX countries recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. or something else. I'm not sure any admin action is required here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Friends, my comment was with regards to the tags being removed, this discussion on here highlights the point I'm trying to make -- that the Kosovo article still has outstanding issues which have not been resolved? What do you mean this case has been "resolved" when none of the users commented on the topic I discussed (?) The said administrator removed the tags without any consensus on any issues having been resolved since February or December respectively. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

The fact that this was marked "approved" without any proper discussion or relevance to my discussion on the tag removal is testimony to what I am pointing out. I have tried here and here to have a constructive debate surrounding the issue and the said user has not justified his unilateral act once. He has merely weaseled his way around answering the qeustion. Ridiculous how much power administrators have. Will an administrator not involved in Balkan related articles please look into this properly -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead

This user has been a minor problem for some time now, being a single-purpose account that exists apparently only to promote and maintain positive comments and puffy text regarding the film The Hurt Locker and people connected to it. This has been going on since mid-2008, including a series of edits that add glowing comments, excessive details, selectively chosen review quotes, delete negative remarks, add non-standard formatting, and so on. Editors who challenge his edits are usually reverted, often with misleading edit summaries. I have had to constantly watchlist the article, and to also review all changes to it by this editor (including following up on reviews and references to ensure they are used correctly). Today, after dealing with the latest problematic changes, I noticed that Inurhead had begun to indiscriminately revert other edits I had done in articles unrelated to anything he had seen before, This included restoring spam links and incorrectly placed material. Anyway, long story short, I don't feel comfortable acting as an admin in this case because of the past history of having to clean up after this guy, so I'd appreciate a third pair of eyes to review it. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a (veiled) warning, and with luck it won't happen again. If it does, let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is a bad faith, Bad Lieutenant of Wikipedia. He trolls around certain limited sites and deletes and undoes the neutral hard work of other contributors. He should be thrown out of Wikpedia forever. Seriously. This guy is VERY, VERY bad news and so much so that other users have created third party thesaurus entries to describe exactly what a "Ckatz" is. Please, if anyone of authority at Wikipedia has an ounce of integrity, back track this user and see where he has chased certain contributors and maliciously deleted their material. Ask yourself, why has he chosen this one single movie to pick on? Why not TRANSFORMERS or BRUNO? Or any number of films? Inurhead (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Nor is this rather eyebrow-lifting talk page. → ROUX ₪ 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the guy chooses to use hate pages by banned users as a way to justify his actions speaks volumes to the problem here. As far as I'm concerned, Inurhead has had more than enough chances to try to cooperate within the parameters of what is expected. He's a single-purpose editor who is determined to promote a particular pet topic, and he is completely unwilling to tolerate input from others. Frankly, I could care less about the foul garbage he spews when his work is questioned; his most recent toxic blast on his talk page is proof enough of where he is coming from. However, I certainly don't think this attitude should be tolerated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've focused on one small part of the changes noted above - the release date. From what I could tell from looking at WP:FilmRelease, the correct release date for the film is 2008. I've opened a section on the talk page, left a message on Inurhead's talk page [8] about the warring and pointing to the talk page. Inurhead has deleted that message, plus others on this topic. Yup, the year is a minor aspect, but if the user won't even attempt to discuss that, let alone anything else, on the talk page, it's not worth the time to go into the other topics raised above. At least today (so far), the edit summaries from Inurhead has been polite, so I guess that's some sign of hope. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Aasi (A sub Clan of Chadhar Rajputs)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi

I, Shehzad Asif Javed, President,The Club Group of Companies, Pakistan belong to a prominent Aasi family of Jhang and i head the aasi tribe, whenever i tried to write down my name at that page it always goes for speedy deletion, You are requested to solve the issue... Regards. Shehzad Asif Javed shehzad@theclubgrouppk.com

Removing unreferenced material about living people? Sounds good to me. This is not the "solution" that Shehzad Asif Javed is looking for, but I stuck an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article and removed the section where a few names were listed as "Prominent Aasis" with no sources or even explanations. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the OP IP promptly reinstated the list.--64.85.211.140 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a symptom of a huge number of South Asian articles. Lots of lists of names, puffery, and little to no sourcing. I mentioned this at the Village Pump just the other day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparent AfD trolling?

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed here. Now play nicely. the wub "?!" 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Moondyne is rapid-fire copying and pasting across multiple AfDs, including even four of these copy and pastes in even under one minute, i.e. nowhere near enough time to actually read the individual articles under discussion, the comments in the respective AfDs, and to verify whether or not sources exist (checking Google News in at least some of these cases show that they do...). Anyway, see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. As I am not sure what to make of this and thus seek a neutral opinion as editors should be making serious considerations when discussing articles, especially ones being actively improved as seen at Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Addressing_articles_on_individual_characters and as such it is discourteous to those of us actively working on these articles to treat with them in a copy and paste across even four articles in under one minute rather that checking for sources (some of these actually are sourced, incidentally) per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling? I can assure you I at least scanned them all before !voting. I opened several Firefox tabs to save going back to the deletion sorting page which is why it my have appeared to you they weren't read. Posting this problem here is ridiculous and an inappropriate use of the ANI noticeboard. –Moondyne 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond ridiculous; beggars belief even. For those who don't know, Moondyne is a long time editor and former administrator, who has never demonstrated any propensity to troll or disrupt, and has many times over earned the good faith A Nobody can't be bothered assuming. Hesperian 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It gets old when some of us have been working on articles to see these kind of rapid fire copy and pastes that demonstrate neither knowledge of the topics under discussion or effort at researching the individual articles and considering what specifically is out there for the specific articles under consideration. Editors in discussions do not just repeat the same thing tirelessly as doing so is not a discussion. A discussion considers what the participants have looked for and what specifically they have found and how it might be used in each individual case. When I see four copy and pastes done in one minute's time, it is hard for anyone to see how that adds anything to the actual efforts to see what can be done with these articles over on the wikiproject page and yes, rapid fire copy and pastes across AfDs is rarely a sign of anything constructive, but as I do not like outright accusing, I included the question mark above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the section heading is accurate. Reporting somebody at AN/I for voting to delete something that you want kept is indeed "apparent AfD trolling". Hesperian 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Verily. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't personally want all of those to be kept and I wouldn't bother here if it was a mere concern about some disagreeing with me. I noticed a slew of rapid fire copy and pastes across multiple discussions, including even four of these in under a minute, which from past experiences with accounts that have done that at AfDs, naturally seems suspicious, and as such asked, not asserted, if others thought something of it here rather than just declare as much to the user. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, "I came straight here to Drama Central because I didn't want to cause unnecessary drama." Hesperian 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I came here because I saw something that struck me as odd (applying the exact same comment to articles for award-winning performances as to ones that truly are not all that notable) and was hoping for good faith input if it is okay to just say the same thing in rapid-fire fashion without more carefully considering these differences. My hope is that if it is a bit haphazard, a fair admin would politely advise the user to be more careful. I am not asking for anything beyond that. If I was, I wouldn't have a question mark in the section heading and would be far more declarative. Ideally, the user would see that some of these can be sourced and join in our efforts to improve those we can so that we can work colloboratively together to improve our project. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You should do more than just "scan" them, but check for sources and discuss specific sources rather than simply copy and paste the same comment that does not necessarily apply uniformly to all half dozen plus articles, let alone providing no valid reason why at worst we would not at least redirect these verifiable articles as deletion is an extreme last resort. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We know that you hate to see any article deleted. We get it. But get over it. It happens. Also, what Hesperian said. I certainly see no admin action needed here, and this should have been dealt with via a conversation with Moondyne. Framing a good faith vote as some sort of action against 'some of us who have been working on articles' is repellent; there is no grand conspiracy to destroy work, and this sort of thing is precisely why a) the inclusionist/deletionist identification needs to stop, and b) why groups like the ARS should be turfed as promoting divisiveness. I suggest this be closed and you be stringently warned against using AN/I to further your extreme positions. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes and libelous content should be deleted and I have nominated and argued to delete those sorts of articles. My concern here is not about wanting to delete, but about copy and pasting the exact same comment across four discussions in under a minute when it does not adequately consider the individual merits of each article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. Moondyne holds exactly the same opinion about four different articles on four different characters from the same TV show. Time for a community ban then? Hesperian 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you descending into hyperbole? I certainly did not call for a community ban. I asked what the deal was with this rapid fire copy and pasting that did not seem to reflect careful consideration of the individual articles in question. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the need to read every word of every article in that walled garden to form a view of which ones are minor characters and non-notable. –Moondyne 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that some are not easy to fix, but take one for instance where the actress won an award and was nominated a second time for her performance, i.e verifiable real world information about the reception of that character's depiction. They are not equal in notability and thus do not deserve the exact same comment. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the actress won an award then the actress is notable. Not the character. Sheesh. → ROUX ₪ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They go hand in hand, because the coverage of course includes it being a notable depiction of the character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah um no. → ROUX ₪ 07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By any reasonable standard, yes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why you didn't, y'know, just talk with Moondyne? → ROUX ₪ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to see what someone totally neutral from either of us thought. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you couldn't be bothered? You'd rather stir up some drama? Please. The correct response is to talk to the other editor first, rather than accuse them of some underhanded conspiracy against poor hardworking editors. → ROUX ₪ 07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are the one stirring up "drama" with this feigned outrage. I asked a question; if someone thought his approach okay, then they could say as much and then that is that. I didn't come here demanding action. I saw something odd that didn't seem right and hoped a neutral and fair party would see what they thought and if they agreed it was just going down the Afds indiscriminately would caution against that, or if not a big deal, suggest as much and that's that. Why you are reading beyond that is beyond me. People should be able to not feel bullied out of asking questions when they see something that doesn't feel right and not everyone who posts here does so expecting or desiring some kind of needless uproar. There is no reason why one fair minded admin could not have politely said either "Yes, that does seem strange; let me ask him" and then archive the thread or "Well, not too big of a deal; just check with him instead" and then so be it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Feigned? I assure you not. Your final statement is telling; "just check with him instead." There is no good reason why you did not. None whatsoever. You have been here more than long enough to know that. → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several accounts who actually do troll AfDs with rapid fire copy and paste deletes and are indeed now blocked for it, which is why I am suspicious when I see it again. Yet, I do not want to assume that is the case. And anyway, I am not an admin; I cannot make any final judgment myself. Thus, I cannot imagine why it would be a bad idea to in good faith first ask for a neutral admin to see what he/she thought, i.e. for advice. And in the interest of transparency, rather than email someone, just post it here. There is absolutely no reason why on an admin board such as this it should have to descend into anything unpleasant. I was not calling for sanctions and certainly not for any kind of public humiliation of the user, just for a neutral admin's thoughts, because I did not want to just post an accusatory message on the user's talk page if it wasn't warranted nor a more friendly request for clarification if my suspicions are more correct. Where else, other than email, can we ask a random established admin what his or her thoughts are? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of 'discuss it with the user first' have you not understood in your multiple years here? Bah, forget this nonsense. → ROUX ₪ 08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted advice from an admin as to what approach to take in this case. If there's an admin advice board I am unaware of, please let me know. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If in each AFD the same reasons for deletion apply "Minor character, no real world significance," how is Wikipedia improved by making the Delete argument be phrased differently in each case? There is no WP:ELEGANTVARIATION guideline which says that the next AFD has to have different wording "Lacks real world significance, and is nothing but a minor character." Edison (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern stemmed from the shear speed of the copy and pastes. I usually spend several minutes on any Afd I comment in: 1) to read the discussion; 2) to read, not just scan, the article to see if I agree/disagree with the comments in the discussion; 3) to see if I can find any sources on Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, Academic Search Complete, and J-Stor; 4) if I do find sources, to add what I can, or if not at least make some grammar or stylistic fixes as evidence that I did review the article and so that if it is kept, then I at least did something to improve it. One cannot do these things for four articles in one minute's time and a fifth article in the next minute. And when I do argue to delete, I vary my arguments to fit the circumstances and discuss where I looked for sources and the results of my searches a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Shanti Giri, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chihuahua heights, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Negative Value Theorem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Scott Hilk, etc. Moreover, my concern was that while some of those did concern minor characters, others did have real world cited significance, such as for one performance that won and was again nominated for an award, i.e. the same copy and paste wording did not accurately apply across the board. Doing more than just a scan of the articles would have revealed as much. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Don't know when I first noticed, feels like a few weeks on a slow burn, but it seems to be ramping up and certainly seems to be the very definition of wikistalking. Drawn Some (talk · contribs) noms numerous items, articles, redirects, etc. that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) created or works on for deletion and then, when they aren't deleted, works at removing content that just survived the XfD. I don't care why they feel this behaviour is acceptable - it clearly isn't. Could some non-involved folks take a look and see if this is alarming? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has stated in numerous XfDs that this sure feels like being wikistalked. Personally I would take that as a strong hint to back off. -- Banjeboi 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, I just noticed this too - on checking today's RfD log every current nomination is one of RAN's redirects nominated by Drawn Some. Most of them are at least vaguely reasonable rationales, but it's still rather worrying and does suggest an element of wikistalking. ~ mazca ^talk 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel rather involved as being pretty active with the Article Rescue Squad which Drawn Some seems to not approve, I think Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) also does ARS work but I only pay so much attention unless something seems troubling, like this situation. Clearing out unneeded items is fine, within reason - they are just redirects so really I'm not sure I agree with the urgency to removed them. Coupled with an ongoing pattern and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) statements they feel wikistalked I would say there's no winners here. IMHO Drawn Some should simply disengage and walk away. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It does seem odd to start something like Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and to then mass nominate redirects of that user for deletion. Why complain about an editor and then when the complaint doesn't build momentum start targetting the articles or redirects he has worked on? You would think if Drawn Some really was concerned about Richard, Drawn Some would avoid him, not of the millions of articles and redirects we have make it a point to go after those created by Richard. After all, you will not see me start nominating articles an editor I am in conflict with created for deletion as doing so would be needless escalation if not counter to the purpose of the complaint. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow and RfA irregularities

• Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Michel Mapaliey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jauarbeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jauarback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tnxmen307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kateshortforbob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At Kateshortforbob RfA, impersonator accounts JauarBeck and Tnxmen307 (now blocked) voted supported. Jauarback, another impersonator account, voted in Skomorokh Rfa. Today, Mikhailov Kusserow voted support in both RfAs. In his votes he included <noinclude> tag, effectively hiding the support and neutral sections on the main RfA page. Mikhailov had previously been blocked for abusing sockpuppets on RfAs w/ a supposedly alternate account Michel Mapaliey (see spi), but was unblocked because he supposedly didn't know that it was against the rules.

This does not look reasonable to me. Both accounts had been registered for almost 2 years, and even if he really did not know, it's commonsense not to vote twice. Now combined w/ his recent actions, I see too much of a pattern to assume good faith. I believe administrator intervention is needed at this point. Rami R 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence to link Mikhailov to those impersonation accounts? I agree that circumstantially he could be involved, but it doesn't look clear cut at the moment. ~ mazca ^talk 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond what's listed here, no. I'd ask for a checkuser, but the SPI page suggests that for ongoing votes ANI is preferable. However, even w/o the impersonator accounts, I'd say that something too fishy is going on. Rami R 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that the following are mutual matches for each other:

1. Backslash Forwerdslash (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Tnxmen307 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Jauarbeck (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Jauarback (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Queengirlq (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Siabeff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Don't Feed the Zords (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

IP's already blocked. I have not checkusered Mikhailov Kusserow or Michel Mapaliey at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you throw in Free Hans (talk · contribs) and Bullrangifer (talk · contribs) to see if there is a connection with these two accounts, as well? MuZemike 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I should be flattered. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force

Nearly a year ago I initiated this RFC , and ended up giving up in disgust and un-watchlisting the page. Random Wiki-happenstance led to me viewing the current talk page today, and guess what? Nothing has been resolved in over a year of argument. I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like the same conversation spiraling on and on endlessly, mostly with the same users who were doing the same thing last July. The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users! Personally, I'm not going to wade back into this mess, but I thought a post here might prompt... something, anything, some attempt at sanity through article probation or other WP:SANCTIONS or, something else that can end this madness. Honestly, this is one of the most screwed up things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, a circular argument that never ends, and users who apparently never tire of arguing on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you visited WP:WQA today :-) The problem when people who are involved in the sciences is this:

• in science, you're more important the more you write
• many scientists have different points of view on any given topic
• all scientists are right

These corollaries cause all the problems. (Note: the second is the only one that is actually true). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've popped over there and said that my gut feeling is that this saga won't stop without a topic ban. It is probably time to do something about it, it's been going on far too long and the discussions on that talk page would put anyone off from trying to edit the article, and we shouldn't allow that situation to persist. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This showed up at ANI in November last year (here) and was eventually closed after David Tombe and Brewers_ohare resolved to take their discussion off-wiki. Those two users (plus a couple of others) are clearly still up to the same endless arguing; I'm thinking topic bans may become necessary if this doesn't abate. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The pattern I am seeing at Centrifugal force and related pages is one of long term POV pushing by David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, David Tombe is attempting to bring Wikipedia into line with his own peculiar views about physics. This is being resisted by several users. Recently, David Tombe has been [forum shopping in an unsuccessful attempt to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter, who is one of those resisting David Tombe. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, it seems others are seeing what I see, let's take this to the next step:

Topic Ban on User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe

• Should these two editors be banned from editing this article and it's talk page, and related articles due to their extremely prolonged arguments on the talk page?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for David Tombe only. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having watched this play out for a while but being otherwise uninvolved, I believe a topic ban for David Tombe only would be the best approach. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no reason to assert that the article proper is excessively edited, and I tend to think that long discourses on article talk pages are not intrinsically evil. A solution in search of a problem. Collect (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the discussion is just normal WP back and forth. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. As an interested party, my view is that the argument has gone on much longer than necessary because the controversial material in question was initially opposed as a knee jerk reaction on the erroneous belief that is was unsourced original research. Although that idea has now been dispelled, the momentum of those who opposed the material in the first place has kept the argument going. A wider investigation needs to be conducted before individual editors are singled out for sanction. This needs to be done by editors that are knowledgeable about the content matter of the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Should the article and talk page Centrifugal force be placed on probation, with editors subject to WP:SANCTIONS?

Support

• Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A solution in search of a problem - I see no reason to object to the number of edits on the article page, so it boils down to being upset at excessive use of a talk page - which I think is insufficient to invoke any specific actions. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Banning people from entering into discussion is always going to be a bad idea, and will never solve any underlying issue/problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

• I haven't informed the involved parties about this thread, out of concern that they would jam up this page with their usual fifty or sixty edits to make one point, but I guess somebody should probably tell them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that the for first four years this page was on Wikipedia, the page was archived five times. In Talk:Centrifugal force/Archive 6 from April of '08, we can see the genesis of this conflict as these two come onto the scene. The next seven archives are mostly these two going back and forth, although it's worth noting that User:WolfKeeper and User:FyzixFighter are also significant contributors to the fray. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've informed both users. [17][18] Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• You really do need to let people know about this page. IF they are excessively verbal that would strengthen any point you were trying to make. I have no particular comment to make, apart from to ask editors/admins to look at brews contribs to the 'wavelength' discussions. Perhaps someone could help brews contribute in a more constructive manner? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've taken the liberty of analyzing the last 100 changes to the article, ending with this version. Seven users have one edit each, including four IPs. One user has two edits, and another has three; a third has six. The remaining eighty-two edits are accounted for by three people. These 100 edits took place over a period of thirty days, of which fourteen days passed with no edit; but the article has been edited every day from the ninth onward, with 79 edits in those six days, or thirteen edits a day. Only seven edits are not by the same three people mentioned above, and of that, and four of those are two IP vandalisms and their reversions. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to opposers The problem as I see it is that this overly long horribly belabored debates intimidate users new to the page, and it seems the two main antagonists are never going to agree. While I realize the need to discuss changes, this endless circular debate has the effect of making previously uninvolved users not want to join in to such a protracted debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to follow the discussion, you shouldn't raise this problem (unless the problem is a straghtforward disruption of wikipedia, of course). Neverending discussions in physics topics can be effectively dealt with by letting an expert to take final decisions. If you are no an expert in physics, you are not the right person to get involved here at all. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, this was still Wikipedia, not Citizendium. And if the argument is about the science itself as opposed to the article itself then it shouldn't be on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the involved editors, in my view there are two issues with respect to David Tombe that make it difficult to work cooperatively with him. The first is David's complete disregard for reliable sources. The long talk page debates are due in part to other editors trying to teach David correct physics (and him teaching them his version of physics) usually without directly talking about sources. For the last little while I've tried to eschew such behavior and to keep strictly to quoting and discussing sources. This has had very limited effectiveness. However, it was through a source provided by another editor that I became aware of the Lagrangian mechanics usage of the term which I was previously unaware of. The second and more problematic issue is David's interactions with editors that disagree and resist his fringe POV pushing, which the report I made at WP:WQA touches upon. When a request for a source results in something like this, what can you do? Since I'm an involved party, I won't "vote", but I definitely support a topic ban for David Tombe. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• My two cents, from a somewhat-involved editor: An argument with David Tombe about physics is like an argument with Jim Marrs about who assassinated JFK. If this was an argument about whether JFK was killed by aliens, we would have long ago banned the editor who was actively researching and promoting fringe theories. But David Tombe, who is actively researching and promoting ([19] [20]) his own fringe physics theories, is still here and still editing. Why? I don't know. Probably because most administrators don't know any physics so can't follow what's going on. --Steve (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to have separate sections for the proposed topic ban for Brews and proposed topic ban for David? I'm betting that several editors have stronger feelings with respect to one of them - I know I do. Some of the responses below are about one of the editors, only a few are talking about both. The WQA reported that might have partially precipitated this report was about only one of these editors. It could also help to focus the discussion a bit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• FyzixFighter, there was an opportunity for compromise tonight on the centrifugal force page. You turned it down. You reverted my edit once again. You are getting bold because you have seen favourable noises on this page coming from editors who haven't got the first clue about the subject matter. But even any honest editor who doesn't know about physics would be able to see that my edit tonight was a genuine attempt to solve the impasse. You clearly don't want a compromise. I would request that anybody considering your suggestion here should look at the last two edits at centrifugal force before making any important decisions. If that were to be done by an honest and objective administrator I think that it would be you that would be subjected to the topic ban. David Tombe (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing physics and math articles requires extensive discussions

I've not interacted a lot with Brews, but from what I've seen he has the right approach toward editing physics articles. There was a dispute on the wavelength article that we at wikiproject physics were alerted to. When I took a quick look at the talk page there, I saw that while Brews was arguing on the basis of physics, the others shot that discussion down by citing from other sources and disputing things based on wiki law procedure etc.

Now, if you're dealing with a kook who doesn't know much about physics, then sticking to wki law may be appropriate, any discussions of the actual physics would be a waste of time. But Brews is an expert in physics and there can sometimes be difficult issues that one has to talk about even in case of elementary physics topics (usually this then has to do with finding rigorous definitions).

Let me give one typical example of a article in which things went terribly wrong. It was never discussed here, precisely because there was never a dispute between editors. The article Helmholtz free energy contained many mistakes for many years, until 2008. Not just small minor mistakes but huge mistakes that were never corrected. this was the latest flawed version, the section "mathematical development" was totally wrong. And similar mistakes were corrected by me in many other thermodynamics articles, so it was a systematic problem.

The only realistic way this error could have been corrected earlier is if someone had questioned the derivation and discussed that on the talk page, basically the way Brews goes about his business. The tradional wiki way of arguing on the basis of sources alone does not work well for these sorts of topics. The error is most conspicuous when you actually study the equations using paper and pencil and write about any problems on the talk page. The fact that what was written is in conflict with the literature would not easily lead to someone noticing the error. It may als be the case that there exist sources in which the erroneous derivation can be found. It is well known that in engineering and chemistry texts you can often find flawed derivations.

Of course, there are then other textbooks in which you can find the correct derivation. The problem is then that if you have someone who is resisting the correction being made, he could always dispute your source in the basis if his source. If you want to discuss the actual physics to settle the dispute, he could shoot that discussion down.

This is how Brews is being treated and that is completely wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree. It would seem to me that the core Policies effectively insist that we absolutely do not derive any equations ourselves, obviously this is WP:OR and not WP:RS, no matter how correct your derivation. If "expert[s] in physics ... dicuss the actual physics to settle the dispute," you are then conducting research, and using the talk page of the article as your secondary source. Obviously this will not work. The issue of errors in existing secondary sources seems well-handled by WP:NPOV. I think the erroneous approach that User:Count Iblis advises here is a common and systemic flaw in articles on science and engineering. IMHO. Eaglizard (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The core policies clearly led to severely flawed articles on thermodynamics and then Count Iblis came along in 2008 and rewrote them based on his notes he uses for teaching. So, it seems to me that I would be justified to invoke WP:IAR here. The articles I'm talking about were so flawed that any Prof. who teaches this subject who would have stumbled on the pages, should have warned his students to ignore the pages. Worse then not having studied a subject is having it learned wrongly.

Note that when we at university discuss teaching this subject with grad students and think about problems for students, we sometimes discuss things on the blackboard amongst ourselves. Is that "original Research"? Of course not! Why can't we look everything up in a book? We do do this, but a book doesn't always give you all the relevant details. Some subtle things are sometimes missing, some details are found in some other chapters. Note that the very reason why students are given difficult practice problems is precisely because you need to actually solve problems yourself to master the subject.

Writing a wiki article that explains things from first principles is as hard as teaching the subject at university. This can thus only be done by someone who is expert enough to be able to derive everything from first principles. And he must actually derive everything that goes in the wiki article himself to be absolutely sure it is explained correctly.

The mathematical derivation is the ultimate verification, not the citation to some book. Because what's in the book "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" on page 432 is only verifiable to someone who has the necessary physics background to be able to understand this book and has read the first 431 pages. So, a statement quoted from page 432 in isolation is not really a good verification of any statement. Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good excuse to ignore all rules. But it is a good characterization of Brews's attitude that whatever he can derive, or whatever connection he can show to the topic, is fair game, whether he can find in support in sources or not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points made by Count Iblis, but especially the last. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is lack of authority, and that is why a derivation is very important in WP: it provides credibility. Some editors think math is gobbledy gook, but in fact it is a succinct language devised to avoid logical error, or enable error to be traced back to the initial assumptions. It is not window dressing. It is exposition. It is not equivalent to its conclusions because it helps make the concepts clear. Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But WP:V says otherwise. You need verifiability without requiring the reader to have the expertise to check your derivation. You've made enough mistakes in your math-heavy stuff that you can't credibly claim that this "succinct language" is inherently more accurate or reliable than any other creation of fallible editors. Without verifiability, we have nothing to restrain you with. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly impressed with everything that Count Ibliss has said. It's time that those truths were spoken. Sources can be used maliciously, and that is happening right now on the centrifugal force page. I am being billed as the villain who doesn't abide by sources, and attempts are being made to get me removed from the project. But the truth is that certain elements are trying to keep well sourced key facts about centrifugal force off the page in the name of scientific political correctness, and hiding behind wikipedia's rules and regulations on consenus. I should emphasize the word 'consensus' because ultimately it has got nothing to do with sources. Any group of three can gang up against a single editor and claim to be on the side of sources. If the single editor produces a conflicting source, the other three only need to deny the contents of that source, and they will prevail by playing the consensus card while claiming to be playing the sources card. This has been going on at centrifugal force for over two years. And this entire thread here is a misrepresentation of the facts. Brews ohare is not my opponent in this. I have done collaborative editing with Brews ohare on other physics articles and it has never led to an edit war. The difference with centrifugal force is that there are certain other editors involved who are destroying any positive outcome from the discussions by continually opposing any important edit that I make. You can see that right now. If anybody wants to know the truth about this, go to 'centrifugal force' now and watch FyzixFighter playing his game of 'textbook whist'. Look at the history section for the last few days and you will see that it is only FyzixFighter who wants to remove my edits. But this thread has created a situation in which I am in the dock and FyzixFighter has been able to come along and act as an innocent prosecution witness. If you want to talk about topic bans then you should start by bringing in personnel who actually understand what the dispute is about, and you should bring every involved editor into the dock. This thread, by its very nature is totally biased because it has arbitrarily sought out two editors in particular without the slightest explanation as to why those two editors have been singled out, and then allowed their opponents in the dispute to come along as if they were innocent upstanding victims and make their complaints. David Tombe (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, FyzixFighter just wants to remove your edits; and I just want to remove Brews's edits. Anyone interested in finding out why will need to do some work, rather than just reading these complaints. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some comments from Brews_ohare

I agree that a lot of debate has circulated on the various centrifugal force pages, which include Centrifugal force; Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame); Reactive centrifugal force and so forth. This debate is not all about the same thing, however, and none of these debates requires intervention limiting editors or topics for discussion, as is detailed next.

One subject has been a revolving discussion between D Tombe and various editors over the intuitive aspects of centrifugal force. D Tombe has his own perspective, and this discussion has generally not adopted his view. Nonetheless, IMO the articles have benefited by these discussions in becoming clearer and in adding particular examples that arose from these discussions. At the moment, this discussion is not prominent on the Talk pages. Related to this discussion is the desire by D. Tombe to eliminate Reactive centrifugal force on the basis that it is not distinct. I don't think that is supported by anyone else, and is not a topic consuming great space.

A second subject, also involving D Tombe, is the status of the planetary orbit example as a significant departure from other examples, warranting special discussion. This debate is presently ongoing, and I do not wish to state an opinion upon its eventual outcome. It is largely a judgment call upon the significance of this topic and whether it warrants a lot of attention. That might be settled "objectively" by google counting, by logic, by eloquence, or by WP lawyering such as this present attempt to curtail discussion.

A third subject, that involved many editors over a long period of time is the so-called "curvilinear Centrifugal force". This is a terminology that is rather mathematical in origin and relates to the use of (for example) polar coordinates, and to the interpretation of the radial equation in terms of centrifugal force. This particular issue has proved very difficult to deal with. The debate has been correspondingly extensive. At the moment, it has somewhat calmed down with the introduction of the Lagrangian approach to mechanics, which appears to subsume the "curvilinear Centrifugal force" as a special case. Unfortunately, this topic will arise periodically because there are schools of opinion that take the view that "curvilinear Centrifugal force" is the only kind, and with sources that refer only to this interpretation. Thus, the talk page often is a long discussion that eventually acquaints editors with the existence of disparate sourced viewpoints. That discussion will recur as editors believing in the "one and only one" centrifugal force show up. I do not think any action to suppress this discussion by banning editors from participation makes any kind of sense. Censorship may well lead to a complete distortion of the articles by removal of one point of view in favor of the others.

A fourth subject of recent origin concerns the inclusion of the topic of absolute rotation in the article Centrifugal force. Here again, my view is that this is simply a normal WP discussion, and it is at least so far, not long-lived. It is not a suitable subject for any action in banning editors. Brews ohare (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some comments by David Tombe

I might be able to summarize the root cause of the dispute. It lies in the fact that the literature does not give a consistent view on the subject matter, and that the slant in the literature has been changing even in recent times. So part of the dispute even involves a conflict between two generations. On the issue of sources, we should take note of the very valid point that Count Ibliss has made. He correctly pointed out that sources can be used destructively against a person who has an overall comprehension of a topic. This is especially true when the literature contains a wide selection of confused and contradictory sources. This dispute is not a simple case of any particular editor ignoring sources.

The approach which I have wanted to promote (The Leibniz approach) is found in the modern literature. It is legitimate and its authenticity is no longer the subject of the dispute. But the Leibniz approach is not the approach which is being pushed as an introductory approach to centrifugal force in most modern textbooks. I have already conceded that point. The question is how to introduce the Leibniz approach into the article at the right level, bearing in mind that it not simply history.

The article has improved alot as a result of this ongoing debate. All editors involved have learned alot. A topic ban on any particular editor would merely give unfair advantage to a particular point of view. David Tombe (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved user Collect

Scientists are prone to disputes. This is a given. Are those disputes as seen on article talk pages wrong? No. It is how scientists work. It may not be how some writers on other stuff work, but it is a fact, and trying to use topic bans and the like is not the way to go in my opinion. In the case at hand, neither editor appears anxious to lose the colloquy with the other. That is sufficient, in my opinion again, to drop this matter. Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More Coments From An Involved User

It seems to me that the idea of censoring Mr Tombe, an editor who seems to be the most informed of the editors and who has worked very very hard to make this article a physically accurate and meaningful one, is misplaced. The problem is not Mr Tombe but the inability of the other editors to actually open up to the fact that their ideas may not be as correct as they beleive. I wonder why censorsip is necessary if the ideas of Mr Tombe opponents are able to stand alone by themselves. Obviously they can not stand up to his criticism. I oppose censorship of any editor of wikipedia. Mr Tombe has done more for wikipedia and been appreciated less than any editor I know here. Instead of censoring him you should be giving him an award for his efforts to get the correct physics into this article. I oppose this proposed action. That would seem to go against the purpose of wikipedia, don't you think?71.251.185.49 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) — 71.251.185.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:08 15 July 2009 (UTC) [the only edits by this IP are here - perhaps they forgot to login and will identify themselves] (UTC).

• his efforts to get the correct physics into this article - unfortunately Wikipedia is not about "correct" physics. Wikipedia is about the physics in reliable sources, even if that physics is incorrect. You'll see this happen with newspaper articles. They'll be used to support something in an article, but the correction printed a few days later (which might totally destroy the newspaper report) does not get mentioned. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by involved user Dicklyon

I've been actively involved in these disputes at Centrifugal force, too, and just saw this via the notification to Brews. In these articles, David Tombe is the outlier who has been forcing the protracted debates for 15 months or so. He is unyielding in his illogical and wrong-headed misunderstandings of all that the sources and other editors say. Brews, on the other hand, is also pretty much unyielding, and generally responds to David's and others' pushback by adding more and more mathematical and explanatory content, usually in runs of several dozen edits in a day, bloating articles and sections to big messes out of proportion to their relevance or importance. I'm sort of unyielding myself when I see people doing stuff like that, which is why I've been in an edit war with Brews at Wavelength (and now also Wave and Dispersion relation), where he has actually been a much bigger problem than at Centrifugal force.

If I had my way, I'd say ban both of them on any topics where they've demonstrated an inability to collaborate with other editors. Of course, I'd risk having someone judge me the same way, so I haven't pushed that approach. I've tried to get help via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Need more opinions at Wavelength and other sections there, but what little I got, Brews felt free to ignore. He continues to work hard on expanding the article, which is not all bad, but which makes life very hard for anyone who doesn't want to just let him run away in his idiosyncratic directions with it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether an explanation is out of proportion is a hard call. Maybe in a printed encyclopaedia one weighting applies, and in WP a different weighting for this simple reason: the printed case is written by one or maybe a few authors who can set the balance as they see it, and let's say for the sake of argument, make a sound judgment. However, that same article on WP would not fly because there are readers & editors that have different questions than those addressed (whatever their importance in some Platonic universe) and there are controversies that crop up that must be addressed somehow or they will go on forever. The basic points are these: WP is an interactive encyclopaedia with a very diverse audience. It is not a print encyclopaedia. Dicklyon complains about my bloated expansions; I have my complaints about his unduly brief oversimplifications. Brews ohare (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But hard calls can be made in collaboration with others. On Wavelength, you proved your ability to go it alone in the face of unanimous opposition. On Centrifugal force, which I created as a summary-style alternative to the messes you had created on the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and other articles, you insisted on bloating it similarly. Nobody supported you in that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that this forum was a soap box to present personal opinions of each other, which cannot be supported properly without far more detail than a newspaper banner. It's objective is to assess the discussion at Centrifugal force, as I have done above Brews ohare (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about objective, but there are other things to discuss when trying to decide what community sanctions to put on editors. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. Why is this even here, to begin with, and why is it still being discussed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Irreverent comments by Tim Shuba

This is all too typical, and a good example of why I choose not to work much on trying to provide serious content for this project.

David Tombe is a physics crank, and it is highly detrimental to treat him as if he is just another editor with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. It's easy enough to check Tombe's record off-wiki, where you may find a connection with a group of physics cranks called the Natural Philosphy Alliance, which I not so coincidentally tagged earlier for a g4 speedy deletion.

Cranks like Tombe run rampant on wikipedia, which is a big reason why physics articles in general are highly unreliable in spite of a lot of well-meaning contributors. Certain areas have undergone significant improvement since I've been paying attention, in part due to the Fringe Noticeboard and a collection of reasonably sane editors, but the idea that someone wishing to work on an article like centrifugal force should have to worry more about coutering obvious cranks than producing good information is ridiculous. It's little wonder that so many articles are substandard.

I don't particularly blame the average admin for these crank-induced problems, but I doubt things will improve much unless admins with an understanding of the subject are allowed to keep cranks out of such articles. I know how it goes: someone like me who says exectly what many others are thinking -- in this case, that Tombe is a detrimental crank and should be shown the door if we are a proper reference source -- is not showing good faith and is not following the doctrines of civility, et cetera. Well I don't care about that. I will continue (along with perhaps one or more of my legitimate sockpuppets) to do a very small amount to counter the large number of cranks found here, and let the chips fall where they may. Mostly, I have learned to just laugh at the pathetic state of the many articles that are crap due to this failure of the system.

So, whatever. Topic banning Tombe would be good for the other editors who are contributing to the article. In the wider context of cranks who soil many articles, it really doesn't matter. Until wikipedia decides that proper content is preferable to mollycoddling cranks and vandals, nothing substantial will change. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I challenge you to produce a single edit of mine that you consider to be a crank edit, and explain to everybody here exactly why you think that it is a crank edit. David Tombe (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if Tim picked one of your edits at random, you could get me and several others to document why it's crank. Want to try? Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I think that counting on admins is not going to help. You need to speak up and help us get to community sanctions when such things are happening. I just saw what you mean about his off-wiki activities; his Open Letter to the President of the Royal Society is quite a hoot, as is his "Journal"; I thought he was just confused, but now I see that he is actually much worse than that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick. I am not counting on admins for anything. This entire ridiculously long section should be collapsed or dev-nulled. No admin should be expected to wade into it, unless a particular admin has a serious interest in the subject. I only added to this nonsense because I saw it already in progress, and felt like gassing off. This is my final comment here. If the spirit moves me, I'll make a comment on your talk page or at the article talk. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin incident involving 3RR block being lifted on basis of personal attacks

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

Resolved

 – nothing to see here. Admins are allowed to revisit their blocks and change their mind. Snide whiney complaints will be ignored Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

A rather clear cut case of a 72 hour block issued for edit warring was lifted by an admin, William M. Connolley, here upon the blocked editor making personal attacks against the reporting editor in an appeal to the block here. Are personal attacks against reporting editors now an accepted defense against 3RR blocks? Admin User:William M. Connolley is apparently worried about being de-sysopped, as noted here. Yaf (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oh dear. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Well, to be fair, he did self-revert and offer to talk here. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) And then he reverted another 4 times or so, while making the same changes, showing the self reverts were not in good faith, since he continued edit warring. 6 Reverts or even 5 reverts in much less than 24 hours is clearly in violation of 3RR. As for making an offer to talk, you might take a look at: this. Yaf (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) No opinion on the case as a whole yet, but I also see no personal attack in SaltyBoatr's unblock request. Plus, Yaf's method of apparently trying to cast aspersions on WMC's authority as an admin by mentioning the (entirely unrelated) arbcom case, does not cast a very positive light on his conduct here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The MedCom case recommended for ArbCom was a case of the same editor "offering to talk" once before. It is entirely related, since it was about the same POV edit warrior and his "talk", regarding the exact same article for which he is now edit warring. Looks very much related to me. Yaf (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) We seem to be talking about different things. I was referring to your snide remark about WMC being "worried about being desysoped". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Just the facts, sir. He made the statement, not me. As for the personal attack, the comment regarding "And, the reporting editor Yaf is one who flatly refuses[21] to follow WP:DR.", which is entirely false, hence is a personal attack the way I see it. Also, the mention of me removing a note from my talk page after the block was granted. The note was removed from my talk page prior to the block being issued. The personal attacks through lying about facts regarding an unrelated editor (Yaf) to escape a block seem rather clear, but perhaps I am just taking the falsehoods personally, being they were directed at me. Yaf (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Asking here in the bright light of day: Yaf, will you agree to full good faith participation in the procedures outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution to resolve our dispute? For my part, I make such a commitment wholeheartedly, here publicly in front of these witnesses. Yaf, do you make this public commitment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not seeing any personal attacks in the unblock request. This looks like your usual soapboxing, Yaf, against WMF. seicer | talk | contribs 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Stating that someone "flatly refused" is a personal attack? No. Not even close. Tan | 39 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You know, it might be. Using the word "fuck" in an exasperated sense already is. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Contrary to Yaf's original assertion, my block of SB wasn't clear cut. Unusually, I did it on the basis of the reported diffs, rather than on looking through the history myself. Because of that, I missed SB's self revert. That made the block questionnable, and on another inspection I couldn't see 4 clear R. Furthermore, Yaf's failure to mention the self-rv showed bad faith. So I unblocked SB, because I was no longer happy to sustain the block. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kiss-the-cop

I want to query whether any action is warranted to deal with the actions of User:Kiss-the-cop. I don't think I have come to the admin noticeboard previously, so please redirect me if this is the wrong place to raise this issue.

As can be seen here, the user now has had multiple speedy deletes, as well as a bot-generated warning about vandalism (the nature of which I can confirm), all in response to a very limited number of edits in recent days.

User contributions, limited though they are, appear to be either creation of pages that then get deleted, or vandalism. An example is here.

Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The last three edits appear to be vandalism, so I have given the user a final warning. Normally I'd say that WP:AIV would be the place for your concerns, but given the nature of article creation, speedy deletions, and now a pattern of vandalism, AN/I can certainly be of service. I really hope the user decides to consider the warning, but the pattern indicates a downward spiral. Law _{type! snype?} 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders

Stephen (talk · contribs) is removing hundreds or thousands of image placeholders. Another editor and I have expressed our concern about this, asking for a reference to a discussion on the subject. Can we revoke his AWB rights till he answers? Do you perhaps have other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No, admins are approved by default. Long answer: I left this message on his talk page - if this task has consensus, you should file a BRFA so the edits can be done with a bot flag, if this task doesn't have consensus...well, then you shouldn't be doing it! =) He's not presently editing, so no immediate action is required, but I think a BRFA would be Stephen's best bet. –xeno^talk 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It actually appears there may be some consensus for this.

• File talk:Replace this image_female.svg#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2

While there isn't a clear consensus to remove the images, it appears there is one that they shouldn't actually be used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's loose consensus not to continue adding it, but doesn't that final link somewhat prove that removing the image en masse doesn't enjoy consensus? –xeno^talk 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've been removing the image placeholders when I come accross them as well. Mainly I've based the removal on this conversation, which states at the top:

• "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation".

Although I do think they look slightly garish myself, I have no strong aversion to them and was removing them based on what appeared to be concensus that they should not be used. Perhaps there is a more recent discussion that I missed? ponyo (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That bot request above was more recent, and it seems that the main objection was that there were too many ways for the bot to break things. I would urge that these removals not be reverted until a consensus to put them back in is obtained, since the consensus for having them there seems weak-to-nonexistent.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If consensus truly exists for these not to appear on articles, could we not just replace the image with a single transparent pixel? –xeno^talk 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate those bloody single-pixel images. Let's not, and say we didn't....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm a touch uncomfortable seeing AWB used for anything that even smells a smidge controversial. On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that these images shouldn't be used (I say that having supported their use, previously, mind you). It was a good experiment, but hasn't worked out as well as we hoped it might. If there's consensus not to use them, why on earth wouldn't we remove them? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because we like arguing about whether or not to remove them? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, it seems to be a catch-22 situation. No consensus to add them, no consensus to remove them. I support the removal, though if someone wants to edit war to keep the placeholder on I'm not gonna bother reverting the guy, it's a silly thing to edit war over. Wizardman 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, part of the non-consensus here is that they do work. Some see them as ugly, a POV and style issue IMHO, but they remain in the area of things we wish we had a better alternative for so leave them until we do. I like them and wouldn't use them if they didn't work. Until a better alternative - likely an image not seen as "ugly" - is produced there seems not overwhelming consensus to remove them. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, have you read the anecdotal evidence at User talk:Stephen? "I work WP:OTRS, and we get several image submissions per day, almost all of which are for articles with the placeholder image. It really does work for getting us free images. Sandstein 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) " –xeno^talk 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No consensus to add means: don't add any more. no consensus to remove means: don't remove them either. C'est simple. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I see no directive or concensus to forbid adding them, that would seem to be the same reason there is no consensus for removing them. There is just general dislike of their appearance from everything I've read. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? Is it that they're an embarassing reminder of wikipedia's schizoid attitude towards fair use? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I used to be bitter a bit as well, the goal is to produce free content for the world so really, ultimately, we want free images with no fair use requirements. Those can be seen worldwide whereas everything else gets masked in various ways. As our uploading images protocols is overhauled and more images are uploaded to commons the tide will change. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Having the sihouettes there might at least encourage someone to go get their Brownie and do a little celebrity-stalking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that centralised discussion got rather disjointed and highjacked but there was a very promising solution evolving out of the discussion before the politics tired us out and the solution lost momentum. It was the The text placeholder solution illustrated here. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have supported that as a solution, it uses a small line of text, and in that example is rather lost in the shuffle. I think the placeholders work because they are obvious and seen by all who look at the article. I also believe they may help inspire folks to contribute who may not think of that as an option. -- Banjeboi 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The silhouette seems like a better answer - it tells the viewer that we would like a photo but we don't have one. It's like IMDB uses. Unless we're consciously trying to avoid looking like IMDB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the above shows that there still is some discussion needed on this issue. So maybe we can consider the following as what to do next:

1. All editors are reminded not to remove those placeholders for now until community has decided that this is indeed consensus
2. A new RFC is opened to discuss the pros and cons of those images which is advertised to the wider community using a watchlist notice. The RFC should include the question whether removal of those images should be sought.
3. If (and only if) the RFC shows that there is indeed consensus for those removals, then a bot account will be requested to remove those images.

This way, we can avoid cries of "stop him, there is no consensus!" and maybe settle the question once and for all. Even if said proposed RFC does result in "no consensus", we will have a result that allows us to deal with such situations in the future. Talking about the issue itself here will not yield any productive results and Stephen seems to have stopped to allow discussion to take place, so there is no further need for ANI discussion. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a WP:OTRS volunteer who occasionally works the photo submission queue. I can attest that these placeholders are very successful at getting us free photographs. We get on the order of several dozens of photograph submissions per week for articles that have such placeholders. That's why I consider it disruptive to remove all these images without consensus. I propose that a bot revert these removals and I agree that we should have a RfC on the question whether we want such placeholders and whether they should be automatically added to or removed from articles.  Sandstein  08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright news

Resolved

 – Again... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this article to your attention, with the hope that people can "do stuff". I'll mention it on the copyright notcie board too. I have no connection with the NPG. It's a shame that they seem to have had such trouble, eh? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23719265-details/NPG+launches+legal+battle+against+Wikipedia/article.do 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we know all about that. It's been being discussed for several days. See WP:POST. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At some point, the judiciary in these kinds of cases are going to say, "If you upload images, you assume the risk for them being copied. Case dismissed." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That logic doesn't work ("upload a picture? People can treat it as public domain and copy it" doesn't make sense) and it would be a public policy nightmare for them to decide in such a way. Members of the judiciary also don't "pass law" as such (see the void principle) and would only be able to interpret existing statute, much of which is against us. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Websites that are in the business of selling photos will sometimes, or maybe often, have a built-in function so that if you hover over the photo a "watermark" will appear, and/or if you right click to try to download it, it won't let you. If that museum failed to protect their precious photos, they are on shaky ground complaining about people grabbing them. "Here I am! Totally accessible! Don't download me, though!" Right. That doesn't mean those photos qualify for wikipedia. But thousands of other sites could grab them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs, but that doesn't mean that anyone can rip off images from other websites, bring it here, and fraudently post it as public domain, CC-BY-SA compatible, etc., because said website didn't take any actions to protect their images from being downloaded. MuZemike 07:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. I'm just saying that if you leave your car running with the doors unlocked, then you share in the blame when it gets stolen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs)

I blocked 76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs) on the basis of his behavior over several days, as detailed below. I strongly suspected that this was an IP sock of MataNui44 (talk · contribs) and set the block length to match the named account's 3RR block. MataNui44 was blocked for the third time for edit-warring on July 10 at 04:24. 76.95.66.209 appeared to continue a conversation begun by MataNui at Talk:Code Lyoko a few hours later, becoming abusive [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. After MataNui44's block was reviewed by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) he turned up on her talk page to advocate for MataNui44 and to campaign for a retroactive 3RR block against The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) [27]. Increasingly hyperbolic comments ensue [28], [29], [30], and demands for punishment [31]. I tried to engage the editor at that point, resulting in further escalation, unfortunately [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Losing patience with a catalog of incivility that would have had many editors blocked long since, and believing per DUCK that this was MataNui44, I blocked on the primary basis of long-term incivility and assumption of bad faith and set the block length to coincide with MataNui44's one-month block.

Since I'm the one that blocked him, and given his general demeanor, I doubt that any attempt by myself to convince him to modify his behavior will succeed. A sanity check on the DUCK test would be useful as well, as that influenced the block length. As an aside, Code Lyoko could use additional eyes; it's been in and out of full protection and has been the scene of a great deal of conflict. Admins are free to modify my actions if a consensus is apparent. Acroterion _(talk) 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User page to article space redirect

Resolved

 – User page reverted again and fully protected. BJ^Talk 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to User:Otterathome that it is unacceptable for him to redirect his user page to the article Autofellatio in protest over the supposed failure to apply WP:NOTCENSORED on that article? He seems disinclined to take my word for it. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've undone his redirection again. Definitely a WP:POINT violation and also a violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:USER. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've also notified Otterathome about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that cross-namespace redirs aren't allowed. → ROUX ₪ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It also violates Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects. Exxolon (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Only if they are from an encyclopaedic content namespace to a non-encyclopaedic one, e.g. from the article namespace to the user namespace. There's no blanket prohibition, and there are many cases of cross-namespace redirects between project and user spaces, both of which are not part of the encyclopaedia proper. The better points to make are (a) if someone redirects xyr user page somewhere, it really has little to no effect on the encyclopaedia proper, or indeed on any other editor; and (b) it's a bit daft to protest that an article isn't as one wants it by making one's user page the same as the article that one doesn't like. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I really buy that. Redirecting a user page to a non-user page or non-user space page goes against the very reason for user pages, which is "to facilitate communication among participants in [Wikipedia's] project to build an encyclopedia." Also, WP:R#DELETE tells us that redirects must not cause confusion, must not be nonsensical, and must not cross name-spaces. It's one thing to redirect a user page to a user talk page (although I can't see a particularly good reason to do so unless the user is banned), but there is no situation where I can see it being proper or useful to redirect a user page to a non-user page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Well you should because it's the case. It's user talk pages that "facilitate comunication". User pages are used for several sorts of things, far from all of which are facilitating communication. Many people have draft articles on their user pages, for example. And those are, ironically, of far greater concern (because the draft articles might have BLP problems or be advertisements masquerading as user pages) than a daft redirect. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:USER. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots back from a week-long block and back to uncivil behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked one month ACB by Tanthalas39. — neuro^(talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

after returning from a week long block [[37]] for WP:NPA, i noticed that User:Nukes4Tots has been reverting some run-of-the-mill content disputes with the edit summary "RVV" (revert vandalism). I warned him about misusing the edit summary 'rvv' in cases where it is not actually vandalism, as that could be construed as uncivil, and he deleted my warning as 'destalkerized. go away.' I wasn't sure if he understood the message I was trying to convey to him, since I used a generic template to send the first message, so I left this personalized message with another example of when not to use 'rvv' (the misused rvv this time was here.) he then reverted my message with the edit summary rvv. I don't believe that he has interests in working well with others.

furthermore, he is leaving what could be construed as racist edit summaries. someone tried to add the mexican flag to an article and his edit summary was rv: el bandito. someone tried to add the filipino flag to an article and he reverts it as rv: filipino bandit, rv: cambodian bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, rv: filipino bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, turkish bandit.

Theserialcomma (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously hasn't learnt. I'd say block for a month, with the emphasis that it is his last proper chance. If he's not willing to contribute properly after this then I'm perfectly happy with an indefinite block or community ban. This might seem a bit hardarsed, but people failing to treat week-long and month-long warnings as enough of a hint aren't likely to change. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I recommend checking the datestamps on the diffs given above before leaping to any conclusions. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • yep. rv: el bandito was done today. the rest were provided for context of the pattern of his behavior, and hence are older. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Let's see. SPI that was inexplicably taken over by ArbCom with no information provided to the community, a staggering number of AN/I threads, significant block log for edit warring and personal attacks and refusal to learn from same... This user is not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Suggest community ban. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Works for me with all that. I note that arbcom haven't touched it. Should we give them a heads up about this thread? Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, their comment should be invited due to the socking issue. That needs to be clarified before a ban (if implemented) happens, as multiple accounts may need to be banned. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Blocked for one month. Tan | 39 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 57#Please send ArbCom a reminder. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Was there ever any response from ArbCom? → ROUX ₪ 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment needs correction post haste!

This change to my user page [38] alerted me to this creation [39] by this "new" editor [40].

What do I want? I would like the user in question to be blocked. I would like the material oversighted/deleted, then I would like a checkuser to investigate the situation and figure out who the owner of YackThompson2 is and block the owner. How do I go about getting those things done? And if someone with the power to do them reads this can you go ahead and do them. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clear such pages and tag with {{db-attack}} in the future. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Arbitration RFC

More eyes, please, before we have a political purge disguised as a guideline. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyes requested

I came across this watching recent changes and it looked strange. I thought I'd bring it here to see if anything needs to be done. Thanks Tiderolls 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit before that made this an obvious VOA case. Indef blocked. Tan | 39 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to handle the unblock request? Tan | 39 01:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block, I'm sure he'll get denied in short order. Javért | ^Talk 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request declined. Making personal attacks in the unblock request is a surefire way to get them declined. TNXMan 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Har har. I guess I should I ask if I'm allowed to decline a second unblock request or wait for a third admin. TNXMan 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia essay on "famous last words"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a legal threat. If the user lashes out any further, then remove talk page editing privileges. MuZemike 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jccort and Scpmarlins

The user Jccort is removing "AfD" (Article for Deletion) nomination tags on two pages; Greek Life at the University of Florida, and Greek Life at Florida State University. I nominated both of these articles for deletion because they do not meet the general notability requirements of WP:UNIGUIDE and because they contain Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities.

The user contends that this is vandalism because I am an alumni of a rival school, and because our schools Greek Life page was nominated for deletion a week ago. I explained to the user that I nominated Greek Life articles that did not met the preceding requirements, leaving others that meet the requirements. One can check this. I nominated four or five separate articles. In addition, the user is using their rollback privileges to do this. Rollback privileges are not supposed to be used in articles unless it is a clear violation of policy, which these edits are not. Even if someone believes that I did do this for vandalism purposes, which is open to your own interpretation, the articles nomination for deletion lists valid reasons and the user can list their respective grievances on the articles nomination for deletion page.

As well, the editors user page states that he is "RETIRED - no longer active on Wikipedia", when fact he is. This is purposefully misleading.

I will change it to "Semi-Retired" Jccort (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a proud UCF Alumni of 1986, and while I am not a big UF or FSU fan, the nomination for deletion lists valid reasons and should not be removed willy nilly because this one editor believes it bias, that is what the debate is for.

Any interpretation is welcome at this time. --Scpmarlins (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The AfD templates have been re-added. As notability reqs have not been met, any unwarranted removal of AfD tags should be reverted on sight. ~ Troy (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fine I will debate why they should not be deleted on the talk page. I have no problem with that. Jccort (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scpmarlins

• Look the fact is User:Scpmarlins only decided to nominate to delete the UF/FSU Greek Life articles after another poster nominated the deletion of Greek Life at the University of Central Florida. The poster also started the Wikiproject University of Central Florida, and copied wikiproject UF and wikiproject FSU to a tee. Also the posters has not done a mass purge of Greek Life articles on Wikipedia (you only nominated 3 total). Scpmarlins specifically targeted UF & FSU. Also the posters is in fact guilty of deleting the nomination for deletion for the UCF Greek Life article, and then tried to cover it up on the poster's talk page.Jccort (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I did in fact nominate the Greek Life articles only after the UCF article was nominated. I will not debate that. Yet FSU and UF were not singled out, 4 were nominated for deletion. As well I never deleted the "AfD" tag on the Greek Life at the University of Central Florida page (As you can see for yourself). I argued my point on the pages article for deletion page as is policy. The part, as you mention, that was deleted was the notification on my talk page. As per the WikiProject, I have edited the page, on my own time, so that it is no longer like UF or FSU's. --Scpmarlins (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This dispute does not belong at ANI. It's shameful that Americans would act like the nationalist boneheads who make editing miserable at Balkan and Middle East articles, but if you insist on this sort of bickering, do it at the AfDs. Looie496 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Antiedman

Resolved

Antiedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of POV pushing on the Barack Obama article despite repeated reminders and warnings regarding consensus: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. He stopped editing the article for a few weeks, but has returned. I have no idea what action, if any, this history merits, but it seems to me the user should be restricted from editing any articles related to Barack Obama. DKqwerty (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor should be restricted from editing any articles whatsoever. After Graham87 indefed and then unblocked on the grounds that this editor was apologetic and should get one more chance, Antiedman has been at ANI repeatedly for ridiculous things, as can be seen on the editor's talk page; for example, editing warring to place a POV tag in Multiracial American because it didn't state that people with ancestry from multiple European countries are multiracial. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And the user persists: [52]. DKqwerty (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this user been warned about the article probation currently set on Obama (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation)? If not, then give one and only one warning. If so, then block away for violating article probation. MuZemike 06:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Antiedman got a final vandalism warning back in May. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Block, then. He was indeffed and unblocked when apologetic, but apologies mean nothing if not backed up by good behaviour. If he isn't willing to follow the rules of the game he should be thrown off the pitch. Ironholds (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - was given another chance and obviously realises what he is doing is not appropriate. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiokid1010

Radiokid1010 (talk · contribs) is removing his unblock requests and the denials from his Talk page. Isn't that disallowed as long as the block is in place? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says 'may', but in practice it is not allowed. And personally I think it indicates they are attempting to pretend any unblock they put up is the first one. Admins should check, of course, but it's just a bad idea. → ROUX ₪ 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BLANKING, one of the things they are NOT supposed to remove is block notices and declined unblock requests while the block is still active. Once the block expires or is lifted, they are free to do what they want with them. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what WP:BLANKING says (emphasis mine): "Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests". But y'know, since policies and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not proscriptive, I'm going to go ahead and change that. → ROUX ₪ 07:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

BorgQueen tried to give Radiokid a second chance, and he immediately went back to removing interwiki links, so BorgQueen blocked him again for 72 hours, he's now requesting an unblock. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Boyz

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted by RxS. – Plastikspork (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please delete and salt Jackie Boyz? This article has now been created three times, by three different users, all copying material from another site. The three "different" users keep just copying and pasting the information, and never discuss their edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The information is repeatedly being copied from http://winwab.com/2009/02/jackie-boyz-lyrics-bio-music/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks...RxS (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's salted, it's just going to come back again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that was done as well. Plastikspork (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the salting show up in the history log? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. Plastikspork (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah. It doesn't show here. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rhysdavy

This user appears to work for PETA. He vandalized two beef-related sites - Slaughterhouse and McDonald's logo. Both have been reverted, but the user should be sent a warning of some kind, which I don't know how to do. Groink (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle is useful for issuing warnings to users. I've done so now. (addendum, looks like a PETA supporter rather than employee) weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like just a drive-by, but if he keeps it up, report him to WP:AIV and they'll put him in the meat locker. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

He might have a beef with that line of action. He might feel that calling in the pigs is a bit extreme. Perhaps he's just chicken of being labelled as the goat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)