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

Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR

Ethnic edit war brewing after disruptive edits by User:Figaro at article Graeme Garden:

• For nationality, he replaces United Kingdom (sovereign nation, U.N. member, passport) with Scotland (neither of them) every day [1][2]. To me that's not content dispute, but unencyclopedic.
• Conceals all his changes under abuse of WP:MINOR tag.

Since those ethnic conflicts degenerate so quick, an external opinion is wished from someone who can enforces Wikipedia's rules about encyclopedic (i.e. sovereign nations, not provinces or sub-states). — Komusou ^talk @ 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it is acceptable to use Scottish as a nationality; I also feel that that is preferable. Therefore it's more of a content dispute than unencyclopedic, IMO. I don't feel the abuse of the minor edit checkbox is deliberate, perhaps just contact him saying 1) instead of waring, it could be taken to the talk page, and 2) since the content is disputed, it is no longer apropriate to use the minor edit checkbox when changing it, with a guiding link to WP:MINOR would be more apropriate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My opinion is that the above commentator should have either self-disclosed that he is from Scotland and a member of Wikiproject Scotland (cf. his user page), or abstained from a conflict of interest. And as far as I remember Wikipedia doesn't recognize or endorse non-sovereign nations, an encyclopedia is descriptive. Is there a new policy that says we now should use "Scot" or "Quebécois" or "Flemish" or "Texan" or "Basque" or "Breton" as nationalities? I would like to see the references or archive of the debate that legifered that. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Possible POV pushing should not be labeled COI. Please don't use COI allegations to intimidate another editor. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

* WP:COI defines it as contributing "in order to promote [...] the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" -- Scots are an ethnic group, and this user has identified as a Scot on his user page.

* WP:COI also defines it as "[editing] articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area", and he's a member of WikiProject Scotland.

So IMO both are conflict of interest, yet he didn't self-disclose it. Especially since he's advocating something that's never done in any dictionary or encyclopedia I've ever seen, that is replacing "British" with "Scottish" for the nationality field. How am I trying "to intimidate another editor" when I'm adding this information he concealed? And how come he gets a free pass on not disclosing this in the first place? — Komusou ^talk @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple POV pushing should not be labeled COI. POV pushing is also wrong and can be dealt with by referring to WP:NPOV. COI requires some sort of duty that is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. The goals of Wikipedia WikiProjects are always compatible with the goals of Wikipedia because WikiProjects are part of Wikipedia. Overstating your case may hurt the effectiveness of your arguments. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Scotland as country of birth, etc., but the nationality of anyone born in the UK is British, and should be stated as such. ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. I think most people would describe Sean Connery as Scottish (and he self-identifies as such as well), for example, so that's why we have him described as such in the lead. Badagnani 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the fact that I am a member of the project makes any difference when I have disclsed the more important point, that I am biased because I belive that it should state he is Scottish (as apposed to the fact that my nationality/project affinity merely suggests this to be the case). Anyway, the fact that we have disagreement between us still points to a content dispute. My stance remains that this is mainly an unfortunate misunderstanding of good-faith edits, and that it can be sorted out on the talk page of the article in question. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sean Connery would give his nationality as Scottish, I'm sure. I don't believe Graeme Garden does. He is not prominently identified with nationalist causes, and is not strongly identified with Scottishness. I'd wager that a decent proportion of his fan base are not really aware he's a Scot, since his accent is not at all strong. Apart from the Hamish and Dougal bit, of course, but then Barry Cryer is from Yorkshire... Guy (Help!) 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Important additional note: I forgot to mention that in that sort of cases, I'm always careful to have both the infobox say "Nationality: British (Scottish)" and the lead section say "John Doe is a British something from Scotland", thus there is both the encyclopedic sovereign nation, and the accurate sub-nation. But this is never enough for ethnic warriors, that simply delete all instances of "British" or "UK", such as the case above -- to me this is unencyclopedic and not a content dispute. And it seems to be the same everywhere. Our article about Charlie Chaplin is a laughingstock because "British" and "United Kingdom" are systematically erased from it. Surely we have a policy about that in 2007? — Komusou ^talk @ 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this at Talk:Graeme Garden. Scotland says it is a nation and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. RJFJR 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Scotland isn't a sovereign nation. Readers of an encyclopedia expect "Nationality" to give them the sovereign nation, the U.N. member, the passport -- which is UK/British. There is no Scotland at the U.N., and no Scot passport. This is unencyclopedic, and playing on words, the UK's internal affairs and diplomatic choice of words isn't Wikipedia's concern. And the original "Nationality: British (Scottish)" had it covered anyway for full information, so the reader is even free to decide. Doing otherwise would be as unencyclopedic as writing "Nationality: Texan". Not all readers are from the UK or the U.S.
• There is nothing on the talk page because the incriminated user first changed it without edit summary and concealed as a minor edit [3], then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale[4], thus displaying contempt for the point made and showing that he's not in for discussion but for ethnic warring. For centuries people have been ready to die for a piece of fabric, today they're ready to be banned for a word on Wikipedia, nihil nove sub sole.
• And sorry for asking another, but I would really like to know what are our policies or guidelines or arbitration cases about this topic? When I posted this, I only expected an admin to brandish a WP:SOMETHING that would lay down the law on the matter -- not a POV discussion about whether someone's fans would considerer him this or that. Is this an encyclopedia or a fanzine?

— Komusou ^talk @ 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• We should go with their self-description. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Scotland is a nation (especially as far as international sports bodies are concerned) and a historical kingdom - the United Kingdom originally being those of England and Scotland. Also, there are sufficient cultural, legal and educational differences to establish separate identities. However, forget individuals and consider (for instance) cities. Are Coventry and Brechin simply cities in the United Kingdom, or are they areas of England and Scotland (and more to the point, does Scotland help fix the area in the readers mind)? LessHeard vanU 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly straightforward to me as there is clearly a British identify, all be it there are Scottish and Welsh etc. subcultural identies. But many Scottish/Irish/Welsh/English people identify primarily as British - in fact most probably do, and culture is largely shared.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland maintains a distinct national identity. That it's part of a bigger thing doesn't negate that it's a nation. It's article says it's a nation. It calls itself a nation, and maintains a national archives distinct from that of the UK archives and distinct of English Archives. Demanding such changes would mean a massive overhaul of all Irish, Welsh and Scottish articles about people living in the last 300 years, and woud eliminate a lot of clear information by obscuring it behind the broad term 'United Kingdom'. The history of scotland is clear at its' article, and the ssame goes for UK. Readers want to know Connery's Scottish, not 'A citizen of the United Kingdom, being born in the subservient nation-state of Scotland' "Sean Connery is a scottish actor'. bam, done. Be CLEAR. Wikipedia is not censored for political correctness like that. Observing self-description in the text, and the British(Scottish) in the infobox is enough. ThuranX 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but not truly relevant. British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly, but I've never heard Garden identify himself as Scottish and the only time I met him his accent was barely discernible. (aside: TBT is much shorter than he looks on the radio). Guy (Help!) 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unimpressed that I have been specifically named here as causing an 'Ethnic war abuse incident' because I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!).

Scotland is still a country within its own right (Mary, Queen of Scots' son, James I of England was also James VI of Scotland). It was when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England that England and Scotland were united under a single monarchy (i.e. under the one crown). The other three countries which make up the United Kingdom are England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

To be honest, I can't really see what the problem is. After all, Ronnie Corbett and Billy Connolly both have their country listed as Scotland. In the same way, Terry Jones and Griff Rhys Jones have their country listed in their infoboxes as Wales — while Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Bill Oddie all have their country listed in their infoboxes as England. Figaro 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people's primary identification is with the UK, not with a constituent nation. You are wrong to presume that someone who was born in Scotland is Scottish. Billy Connolly is known as a Scottish comedian, Ronnie Corbett is not, nor is Graeme Garden. Putting people into an ethnic box is POV. Many editors could tell you this - I was born in England but I'm not English (but I am British). I know of others who were born in England but are strongly Welsh. Unless you know how people self-identify you cannot say. Secretlondon 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said - there are real issues over how to treat nationality in articles, but Wikipedia is riddled with "ethnic labelling" of very divisive kinds. It attracts race-haters and gives them far more of a platform than they have outside of the encyclopedia. We should not be providing any such platform, even in those cases where we think we're reflecting genuine differences. This is a problem that will get worse as en-WP attracts more and more members of minorities - some of their grievances will undoubtedly be genuine - but others will simply be malicious. Articles don't need it - objecting to "Lough Neagh is the biggest lake in the British Isles" is idiotic. Pandering to it in the encyclopedia encourages bitterness and violence. (On this last example I've had another look - consensus in Talk is for use of "British Isles" but nobody is prepared to confront the angry and stop them damaging articles). PalestineRemembered 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the following comment by Figaro, "I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!)." well, when someone accused Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington of being Irish because he was born in Ireland, he famously replied "Jesus was born in a stable, but it doesn't mean he was a horse!" Where someone is born does not identify their nationality. Scotland does definitely have a national identity within the UK, but many English people identify with Scottish national/cultural symbols like tartans, kilts and bagpipes etc, without themselves actually being Scottish, and vice versa many Scottish people identify with English cultural symbols. Its like calling George Bush a Connecticutur rather than an American. While its true he is both, the latter is more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. While Scotland is a nation, it is not a sovereign nation, there is a significant difference. Bottom line is someone born in the UK is British. Consider as well that many people born in Scotland/Ireland/Wales and England will at one time or another live part of their life in another constituent country of the UK, so what sub-nationality one identifies with is really down to their own personal choice. You could argue its not their choice and its determined by the location of their birth, but i'm sure General Wellington would have disagreed, ;) WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How the country of birth should be represented in an infobox should have been taken to the Wikipedia:Village pump for discussion there in a civilized manner, instead of being taken to this incidents section of the noticeboard on this page.

Also, it is supposed to be against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks on another editor. Komusou has personally attacked me by his public discussion of me in both this forum and in his edit summary of his reversal of my edit on Graeme Garden's article.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a venue for nitpicking and slurs. Figaro 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, surely it is therefore a venue for nitpicking? Its being discussed here as this is where it has arisen for various reasons, there is no need to take it to the village pump because its really quite an open and shut case. Scotland is not a sovereign nation. While it may have its own national identity saying someone is scottish is ethnic not national. Scots are a race like aryans or kurds are a race. Likwise the english are a race, does living in england make someone english? of course not. Likewise for scotland. The nationality of the english, welsh, scots and n.irish is British, as it is for any other UK citizen. By all means add to the article he was born in scotland but its not his nationality. His nationality is british like every UK citizen.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. I see some contentious editong during a content dispute, and an editor who brought the issue up for wider discussion, but at the wrong place. Not everything you don't like on here is a PA. ThuranX 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this has been brought up in the right place. The user who brought it to our attention skipped the usual process of actually getting an edit war underway by bringing the matter up before it got that far, but it would have ended up as an edit war without some kind of intervention (and consequently would have ended up here) eventually, one way or another. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret to tell you that the earlier quotation from Wellington ("born in a stable doesn't make me a horse") is a favorite of race-haters - and appears to be false. It underlines what I commented earlier - race-hatred is a real problem, and Wikipedia will incite still more of it, unless we are ruthless about keeping it out. We'd never accept "The Jews are viewed with suspicion by XXXXX because of accusations of XXXXX" except in an article that makes clear how very nasty this stuff is. We should similarly steer well clear of allowing accusatory/discriminatory statements about other "groups" to appear. In fact, we should avoid labeling anyone as belonging a group. Or not belonging to a group, as we do when we allow the race-haters to imply that being Scottish is an alternative to being British. In this example, the "problem" is tiny - but it's still important to deny these race-haters a platform. And the principle of not labeling people (unless it is really, really necessary) holds good always. (Sorry if the above really belongs at some policy-discussing page, but reminding people is necessary at pages like this as well). PalestineRemembered 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Various comments and answers:

• First, I need to apologize for how this turned into a long debate: as explained above, I honestly believed that in 2007 we had a WP:SOMETHING policy or guideline or arbitration precedent about such a simple encyclopedic topic as nationality fields, and I thus believed that WP:ANI was a good place for asking quick enforcement of such a policy. So it looks like we have no actual policy or guideline after all... I'll try to propose one in RFC or Pump/Policy, Wikipedia is becoming a total mess and a laughingstock with respect to nationalities, apparently everybody is too scared of ethnic terrorists to move, but we need something on that topic. It's not just the British thing, have a look from the Categories to articles about Canadian people (lots of "Canadian" deleted in favor of just "Quebec" or "Quebecois"), or Belgian people (most of them have erased "Belgian" and replaced it with "Flemish" or "Walloon", the two subnations that hate each other). I haven't even looked into Basque, Breton, Corsican, and the like...
• To ThuranX: I think that having a lead section say that "Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland" is hardly the pejorative apocalypse you're writing about; the "clear information" you ask is precisely both terms, not a single one; the objective facts of British passport, U.N. representation, or UK embassies aren't addressed; and if you invoke Readers, the NPOV is to give them both "British" and "Scotland" and let them decide which piece or pieces of information is useful to them, since both are true.
• To JzG/Guy: about "British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly", I believe that no peace will come if we just try to impose the sovereign citizenship only, and also that it's often accurate and useful to mention subnationalities or local ethnies that have their own identity or a history of separatism. As long as it's sourced, I wouldn't be bothered by some infoboxes telling "British (Scottish)", "Canadian (Quebec)", "Belgian (Flemish)", or even "Spanish (Basque)". We just need to keep it to actual territories and forbid racial/ancestry things such as "German (Turkish)" or "French (Jewish)".
• To Figaro: you can't rewrite the article's edit history, you didn't "commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland", you deleted thrice the word British in "Nationality: British (Scottish)". And the fact that most Wikipedia articles are currently owned by ethnic warriors (such as our international laughingstock "Charlie Chaplin is an English actor" where they delete the word "British" on sight everytime it's inserted) doesn't make it right nor a point; for instance, if all our articles about Muslim subjects were dated using the Muslim calendar, that still wouldn't make it right or encyclopedic, just massively needed to be changed (and how far is it before such madness happens, if we let it slip?). It just means we need a policy so as to be able to clean the nationality fields of those unencyclopedic articles, and ban the ethnic warriors who'd revert again. Also, the difference between "Nationality: British" and "Nationality: Scottish" isn't what you call "nitpicking". No dictionary or encyclopedia use your "Nationality: Scottish"; this point, too, is never addressed.
• For the record, the edit war has continued after this discussion: Figaro reverted again so as to delete "British" (and also delete the infobox and replace it with a made-up table)[5] – so I have restored the article[6], then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox[7], then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)"[8] (assuming that the UK flag was a needless additional divisiveness with an ethnic warrior). I am however afraid that such compromises may be seen as weaknesses, as warriors are wont to do, so maybe it'll get worse...

— Komusou ^talk @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind your view on this Komusou, I feel that the nationality is clearly British - certianly not scottish, I wouldn't even mention scottish in brackets myself but if it keeps people happy its an acceptable compromise I think. The problem is the scottish are (like the english, welsh and irish) an ethnic group not essentially a nationality. So its like saying Barrack Obama is American (African) and George W Bush is American (Northern European). Its true sort of, but not really appropriate for nationality, as being black/white doesn't affect their nationality. Saying British (Scottish) almost implies there is a multi-layered system within the UK where not all british people are the same, wbich isn't the case. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Indian or Klingon, it doesn't matter, - if you have a UK passport your British end of! WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP, your describing Scottish, Welsh or Irish as "an ethnic group and not a nationality" is both insulting and wrong. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are countries, making up one sovereign kingdom. Ireland is not even in the UK, which shows how poorly informed you are (the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation). It is entirely acceptable to describe nationality as "Scottish", "Northern Irish", etc. Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish people are all, also, British. Neil ム 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem could be resolved and clarified by changing the template for the info box to include separate lines for Citizenship, which is a legal relationship to a state, and one for Nationality which might include ethnic/cultural descent/preference. The latter is a little harder to define or label, and to do without causing offense, and should be based on how the individual thinks of themself. Derek Andrews 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel we should compromise on this as its very straight forward. Someones nationality is that of the sovereign nation which issues their passport. In this case British as scotland a region/constituant country of the UK. This is essentially an ethno-nationalist POV arguement with little ground. To put scottish becomes confussing to, say someone is born to two scottish parents in the USA and has a a US passport... are the scottish, or are they american? It becomes tough to decide because what your suggesting we do is make their ethnicity (scottish) into their nationality (american). Realistically they are an American of scottish descent. Lets keep it simple, nationality is the UK. I really don't see how one can come up with a solid argument otherwise. I think that for us to compromise on this is sacraficing ground to capitulate something just to avoid discussing it? Why change the template when its perfectly clear what nationality is. Its simple, someone from the UK is British regardless of their parents ancestory or their locale of birth. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So your passport determines it? What about people without passports? They Have no nation, they have no home!!! Oh Crap!... come on. How about what nation issued their birth certificate? What about immigrants? Are they the nationality of birth, or of current Citizenship? And for holders of multiple citizenship, entitled to multiple passports? Passports is a lousy, unstable and 20th century-limited means of solving this. ThuranX 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

• To WikipedianProlific: but the problem, and one good reason to keep the "British (Scottish)" thing, is that Scotland and the others HAVE been nations, before being assimilated/merged into the UK. As for undesirable ethnicization, the examples I gave are based on territory and *local* sub-groups or sub-nations, such as Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada. Having "Barrack Obama is American (African)" was excluded from the start in my counter-examples because Africa isn't a subterritory of the U.S. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a big problem if editors of an article got a consensus for listing Obama as "U.S. (Hawaii)", or Bush as "U.S. (Connecticut)", even though is those cases it really looks silly or redundant with the Birth field.
• To Neil: It is not "entirely acceptable to describe nationality as 'Scottish'", at least not esxclusively, which is why no dictionary or encyclopedia does it. Wikipedia would actually be rather progressive in having "British (Scottish)" and "British from Scotland" instead of just "British" like every other reference.
• To Derek Andrews: I don't think that adding another field is useful or desirable, especially since the optional parenthesed addition fulfills the same goal with less effort or changes. And it wouldn't solve anything because ethnic warriors do not accept even "British (Scottish)" and want just "Scottish" so they would delete the field "citizenship=" and use only the field "nationality=", back to square one.
• To ThuranX: a few possible freak cases don't change the rule of thumb for 99.9% of biography subject, else it would be like removing stairs from every building because there exists a few people in wheelchair. All people have a citizenship (even when unaware of it, such as some tribes in the Amazon Forest who are "citizens" of the country their territory belongs to), it's an objective and sourceable fact. Whether they have a passport or not, people are citizen of the sovereign nation they were born in (and/or the sovereign nation of their parents for expat births), nationality laws define all this clearly -- whether actual or virtual, the passport is one good criterion to look at, because even if he doesn't have a passport, a UK citizen could get a British passport, but not a Scottish one which doesn't exist. Same for embassies, there are no Scottish embassies. Immigrants retain of course their original nationality, unless they get naturalized, then they get dual citizenship and two lines in the infobox, such as P. G. Wodehouse. That's basic and obvious stuff, the system is clear and written in laws, most dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world use it. On such basic things, Wikipedia isn't there for "solving this" but for using the same standards than regular encyclopedias and scholar papers do. The rest seems to me like trying to abuse Wikipedia's open nature for pushing an ethnic-POV/COI. IMO, the eventual backlash down the road will be the official banning of even "British (Scottish)" in favor of a mandatory "British", and you'll have had it coming.

— Komusou ^talk @ 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat User:Real77

Contentious and difficult user is making legal threats.[9] It's not clear from WP:Legal what I do now, tag it, what? KP Botany 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the template to tag the user, but other than that, what, if anything. Is there a notice board for this? "If Wikpedia is not going to play ball with 3rd aprty verifable issues then this shall be referred to lawyers as an individual has the right to control his or her reptutation and,name and likeness through themselves or third parties." KP Botany 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This be the place. There's no NLT noticeboard, thankfully! Keep us posted on his response. El_C 06:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely (or until they agree to not make any more legal threats). Someone should probably go over Anna Wilding and cleanup any unsourced statements, as this is the article the user appears to have a problem with (though from what I can tell, they want to add content, not remove). --- RockMFR 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes on the article could not hurt, however there are a group of excellent Wikipedia editors who are already attempting to clean up the article. Real77 claims to be working for Anna Wilding but is doing nothing but trashing the article's talk page and making the article as ugly as possible. My concern at this point is that because he claims to be working for Ms. Wilding, he is making her look awful with his edits, particularly his talk page ranting which is largely incomprehensible. This sounds reasonable, though, blocking until a user agrees to not make any more legal threats. Thanks. KP Botany 07:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no response from the user. However, another editor quit editing because of nasty and potentially threatening (legal) comments to him. Without Real77 around a small handful of those who have weathered the nastiness have removed the poofunery, the bad grammar, the horrid punctuation, the fluff, and the poor English, so the article looks halfway decent. In light of what has happened, most of the article has been tagged for fact checking and all sources will be individually verified. Thanks. KP Botany 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by Anna Wilding's representatives

It appears that Ms. Wilding has attempted to pressure others into publishing her resume and self-publicity.[10] She filed some complaint against the New Zealand Press Council for failing to publish her photos and press release. At this point I ask that administrators consider reblocking both User:Real77 and User:Tonyx123 who are both working for Ms. Wilding, from editing Wikipedia. Real77 issued a legal threat, was blocked, agreed not to issue any more, so his block was removed--as seemed appropriate. However, in light of the fact that it appears Ms. Wilding filed a formal complaint against another entity for failing to do what she is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia into doing, namely publish her publicity materials and resume, I think blocking these users might be appropriate. Deleting the article about her might be appropriate also. KP Botany 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, In spite of saying he would not issue any more legal threats Real77 calls an editor's edits to the Anna Wilding article defamatory.[11] I don't think that his behaviour is something ordinary Wikipedia editors should be dealing with. KP Botany 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, he wasn't unblocked, I forget he can edit his own user page while blocked. Sorry! I suggest he not be unblocked, then. KP Botany 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The legal threats have really gotten out of hand. I have also received numerous harassing e-mails and phone calls from Anna Wilding herself. I originally suggested to her that to shore up some of the lack of credible sources I do an interview with her for Wikinews; this offer to help her has suddenly become, in her mind that I am trying to "blackmail" (her words) an interview out of her. I have barely edited the article. I only came across it because I photographed her at the Spiderman 3 premiere. I have sent her my own "cease and desist" letter and copied her attorney on it. They are completely in the wrong here, both Wikipedia-wise and legally; I'm not sure how to proceed from here, but days ago I removed myself from assisting Anna Wilding and the article in any way. --David Shankbone 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do they realize they are more likely to get her article deleted as a not notable actress then to get her preferred version out there? --Rocksanddirt 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this sock puppet of Real77 blocked? User:66.65.119.19[12] I don't feel threatened, but it's boring. KP Botany 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Alvestrand 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And this one, please. 121.72.12.98[13] KP Botany 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That one isn't a sockpuppet, that IP is from New Zealand. Given the single edit, I don't think it needs blocking unless and until it becomes a problem. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Islands around Ireland dispute

Hy, I, Flamarande, hereby wish to report Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) who engaged himself in disruptive behaviour and now proceeded to insult me personally. The mentioned user sees himself as a kind of "national champion/avenger of the Irish" and unilaterally deleted several links leading to the British Isles article. After I sent him a post explaining my reasons for reverting his edits he took upon insulting me. Please take a good look at his edits and especially at his talkpage. I also believe that this user operated previously under an anonymous IP namely 81.99.82.237 although I'm currently unable to prove this. I hope for a quick resolution as the facts are quite evident. Thanks Flamarande 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved this here from AN. ornis (t) 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for two hours and directed him to the relevant policies. There weren't any really explicit warnings about it, and I'll unblock if he promises to behave. If anyone thinks I'm over the line, they can unblock if they like. WilyD 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, given this [14] I would have made it longer. ELIMINATORJR 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How ever one feels about the term "british isles" Saoirsegodeohf (whose name translates from Irish as something like "freedom forever") is povpushing and being incivil. I concur with Eliminator - they deserve a longer block--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, but he hasn't been given any warnings so I was a little reluctant to block at all. Two hours should give him enough time to read NPA. If he doesn't shape up after the first block, longer ones can always be applied. WilyD 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that wikipedia proclaims itself to be neutral, well this certainly is not neutral, I see that other Irish people seem to feel the ssame way I do on this issue and the term British isles is not neutrel hence the British isles naming dispute. If it were neutrel the Irish government would accept it and the British government would use it in media but the fact of the matter is this doesn't happen. And as for the majority of people using it I doubt this is true, even if it was you can call a sheep as cow all you want but it doesn't make it so. I will ask you to do something about this situation as you can see i feel very strongly on the issue as do many of my countrymen and it is highly unjust for a so called neurel encyclopedia to give people the wrong information to contribute to them myth the Ireland it part of the British isles. The uncivil behaviour i deemed necessary by what I can only describe as a tremendous insult towards me on the part of flamengo who not living in Britain or Ireland and cannot really comment on what we call the isles around us.

Go raibh maith agat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Ireland happens to be the second largest of the British Isles. That is a simple fact that you can find in nearly any general reference book or geography text that covers the topic, or at our own article British Isles. This is just a geographic name, not a claim of ownership, and its use is certainly not a reason for going ballistic. --Stephan Schulz 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AM I ABUSED OR JUST RECTIFIED?

”Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks
Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content”

I am New. I have made no direct contributions to Wikipedia articles. But I am interested in the general welfare of humanity, all categories, as also many other humans are. And I, as everybody else, have questions, ideas, and opinions. We all know this part.

On the talk page No Original Research, I have recently made a submission to the ongoing debate, illuminating details with referring examples. It ends with a question. ”What say you?”. Following this, a Wikipedian takes no notice of the quest at hand in my submission, but instead begins like this:

”I say this: BellMJ, in the month or two you have been here you have not contributed to any articles. I suggest you get some actual expeience researching and making contributions to articles that stand the test of time, and have more experience collaborating with editors working on aticles, before you try to comment on our core policies. SLrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)”

I find no connection in this contribution to my submission, nor any part or detail in it, in concern of the factual content.

It, hence, just seems to me, that this Wikipedian SLrubenstein either
1. DO HAVE A MOTIF in rejecting my presence on the talk page JUST, exactly as he/she claims, BECAUSE ”you have not contributed to any articles”, or
2. that the Wikipedian SLrubenstein points to my person as an INTRUDER, type ”Get out of here!”, ”We don’t want you here!”.
I do not accept a provocation, if that is the intention.

I have never before had any interference with this SLrubenstein or any other Wikipedian, it just popped up recently as described. And I have neither made any approach to talk to this Wikipedian SLrubenstein as he/she already has made his point clear. Besides that, I don’t know more than you.

So. How is it?
FIRST contribute, THEN you can join Wikipedia talk page No Original Research?
Is that so? Or is the Wikipedian SLrubenstein prominently talking for Wikipedia?

I very much would like Wikipedia administration to have a clear answer to the question.
Show me. Please. BMJ 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

some people are here for months and still don't Get It. Some people arrive here and become outstanding editors from day one. I suppose this is a matter of differences in intelligence, of experience, and of common sense. Hence, there are no fixed rules of "first do this for n days, then that". SLrubenstein gave you well-meant advice, and you should consider it, that's all. For your questions, ideas, and opinions, be aware of WP:VP and WP:RD, where they will receive due attention. --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence: rectified. Not abused. I thank you for taking your time in giving me an honest answer.

wkg/BMJ 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, but not "in the name of the Establishment". We all speak in our own names, and the policy pages condense out of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's complicated, because it doesn't work in theory, just in practice :) --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

dab. Thank you for still showing patience. All right then. You mention ”differences in intelligence” and ”Wikipedia consensus”. IF in Wikipedia consensus also is included an active, practical, recognition of the Declaration from 1948 (WIKIPEDIA HAS NO PRONOUNCED SUCH RECOGNITION, as far as here known), the type ”differences in intelligence” should have no representation in Wikipedia, in accord with the Declaration (Article 1) ”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights …”. Equal. Consensus. With respect to THIS, hence: There is no ”differences in intelligence” in humanity, except as stated from profound everyday Nazi ideology quarters. One human being is not ”better” or ”higher” or ”more intelligent” than any other, even if it SEEMS so. We all have EQUAL basic properties of mind, but see the landscape from different views, and no one of us is more valuable than the other, even if it SEEMS so. I don’t mean to be rude on reminding on that, but the type ”differences in intelligence” definitely does not belong to Wikipedia, on the recently made provisions. Compare THEN ”the guidelines” to ANY talk page in concern of ”consensus” (Meaning: in practice Wikipedia is a MESS). However, dab, feel free to object!

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Equal in dignity and rights" does not mean equal in ability. And, while the 'Nazi ideology' that one race or ethnicity is as a group less intelligent than another is manifestly false, that does not mean two individual people cannot be of different intelligence, that is to say, I can be smarter (or less smart) than my brother or sister, or my neighbor, without any reference to what race, gender, ethnicity, either are. --Random832 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Random. I think I know what you mean. We are getting out of the main focus here, but OK then if that is OK with you to. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is YOUR point, right?: IN COMPARISON between all the mathematical aces on planet Earth, that is all the professors and doctors of academia, with those in the classes who did NOT pass the examination, the latter are LESS intelligible, LESS smart, because the former make the gauges to the IQ portals and tests. Right? --85.89.80.140 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I see time lingers, so I will try to finish this thread and return focus to Wikipedia policy in the end, which was how this started:

My point is this: 1. ”intelligence” is (mostly) associated with Mathematical Merits (MM) and which I assume dab and Random agree with, 2. these smart aces (MM) are in minority in humanity. Not in majority. Meaning: IF the Math Aces REALLY would be (so) smart, they also would be able to EXPLAIN to the rest of humanity, their class mates, the fancy Idea of Intelligence they merited on, and so even out the difference between the two camps. But as we know, this is NOT the case. SO, there is a proof here, sort of: The majority of humanity is the proof that the minority of so called mathematical aces NOT are profoundly intelligible, not any more than any other. Meaning: The idea of ”intelligence” and ”smart” is only relative to opinion, not to ability. Please object if you can. (former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Wait - when did I say I agreed with whatever wacky definition of "intelligence" you are accusing others of using? --Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The ABILITY of APPREHENSION — to conclude a stream of concepts leading to a denser form, such as one which is normally occurring in mathematics, because that is, as I know, the simplest example to show — IS EQUAL FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS (we omit, of course, medical defects and assume a biologically normally developed being). This apprehensibility, THE ability OF being INTELLIGIBLE as such, has no differentiation, no scale from higher to lower. It is equal for all human beings, but it seems you do not agree. I can, and will, continue on this, but first: Am I reading this correct, or do you have objections? Please feel free to object.

Then, my friend, the idea of being ”SMART” is just relative to OPINION, not ability. That is, whether you are tuned to ACCEPT and ACCOMMODATE one philosophy or another, one idea or another. It is NOT, as I mean, a matter of INTELLIGENCE. Because, NATURE, not us, IS the intelligible part. We only have to open our eyes to see it. Original Research. Primary sources. Wikipedia policy debate. Consensus.

The conclusion is hence, Random, in contradiction to your statement: Equal in dignity and rights DO MEAN equal in ability — your contribution, Random and dab. Of course not ability to surrender to different ideologies, or show loyalty to a particularly declared policy, but ability to apprehend what nature presents to the human in all its dimensions and variations. There is no difference. We only see that landscape from different point of views. (But this is all elementary and we SHOULD be familiar with it BEFORE we enter a discussion on the editorial level of cosensus: human rights).

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If "equal in dignity and rights" really did mean "equal in ability", then you would say it's impossible to say one person can jump higher than another, or lift more weight, or run faster, or write a better novel, or paint a better picture. How is intelligence [not whatever wacky "MM" definition of 'intelligence' you accuse everyone else of having, but a common sense definition] any different? To take your idea about the meaning of equality to its full conclusion, why not say everyone is of equal height, equal weight, equal age?--Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you?

If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here.

BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAN CAN HAVE SEX THE WAY A WOMAN CAN.

It neither means that a small child can jump as high as a full trained sportsman can. These are both examples of different CAPABILITIES. A one legged man is not capable of running. But nothing of this makes distinction to INTELLIGENCE. Do you, really, have a problem with that?

Please repeat again then, to make sure you are observed.

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you: this is not a discussion for the admin noticeboard (I even doubt it belongs on Wikipedia at all...) so please either drop it or continue it on user talk pages, if necessary. If there is something here that does require admin attention, please let us know in a concise and clear way. Fram 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. I will end this here and try to contact Random on his talk page.

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake admin???

The user AlanJohns has been causing vandalism on the following article, firstly he used a source that didn`t actually say what he wrote in the article, when I reverted his edit, he put it back the way he wanted saying he was an adminisrator so dont delete, (I have my suspicions this is a lie), when I reverted it again he vandalised the article by deleting a page worth of sourced material with no explanation. I also checked out his user page and he seems to be causing trouble elsewhere. [[15]]. Realist2 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

diff. blanking diff. user might need a warning. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by User:Ryanpostlethwaite. (He's lucky Ryan got to him before me...) Raymond Arritt 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked longer for trying to impersonate an admin? JACO, Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't accept users claiming to be admins to win content disputes [16] - next time he disrupts the block will be for much longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside: His userpage looks like a personal record store. — Edokter • Talk • 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, it put me in an bad position because even though I felt his edit was wrong I was scared to revert it. Realist2 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that administrators have no special authority in content disputes, so pretending to be an admin to win a content dispute is doubly incorrect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, I was always under the impression at what ever an admin says simply goes, ill keep this in mind, as for his user page, hello he`s clearly lying through his teeth like he did about being an admin. Realist2 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish. :) See also Wikipedia:Administrators. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CHECK OUT THIS USERS PAGE AGAIN, HE`S JUST RECIEVED ANOTHER WARNING FOR HIS EDITS. I THINK A LONGER BLOCK IS REQUIRED ITS CLEAR HE IS INTENT ON BEING A TROUBLESOME EDITOR. Realist2 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's (obviously) made no edits since the block. The warning that he received was for something he did prior to the block. No further action is in order at this time, but trust that I'll keep an eye on him when his block expires. - Philippe | Talk 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AlanJohns has at least one Fair Use image on his User page which someone should remove. I don't want to do it for fear of starting an edit war, but somebody needs to do it. The other images have suspicious copyrights, as well. Corvus cornix 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the one with no copyright status, but someone with more image experience should investigate whether or not the copyrights on the other images are legit, as you pointed out Corvus. The Hybrid 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

His userpage is fake, as far as I can tell. He is not associated with any of the albums on that page, the sales records are false, and I doubt he played a main character in a GTA film that has no information on IMDB. I'd say speedy as vanity nonsense while one is at it. MSJapan 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why don't we just like... treat someone who claims to be an admin as if they are one? O:-) --Kim Bruning 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) If an Admin were to actually threaten to use their tools in a content dispute in which they themselves were involved.... hoooooo boooooooy...

Blocked troll

I blocked Hexadecimale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am sure this is an alternate account being used for trolling - if not a banned user then an inappropriate sock. I don't think it's a coincidence that his edits consist largely of asking what the problem could possibly be with antisocialmedia.net Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Alarm bells, quacking, etc as Guy suggests. Not Good. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto Concerniokw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More eyes on that arbitration case, please, it's clearly always going to be a troll magnet. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um. Placing indefinite blocks prior to either account doing anything significantly wrong doesn't seem quite kosher to me. Do they look vaguely 'sockish'? Sure. And? We don't block all alternate accounts indefinitely. Only those of users who are banned or which are being used in disruptive ways. Asking questions you don't like is not disruptive. The Concerniokw account, quite frankly, made a good point about the fact that we have an article on Wikipedia Watch which links to that site despite it clearly falling under any of the definitions of unlinkable 'attack site' being pushed. Your removal of that point from the ArbCom case and indefinite blocking of him hardly seems equitable given your obvious partisanship on the subject. As an involved party you should have gotten someone else to place the blocks - if any justification for such could be found in the WP:BLOCK policy. --CBD 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with CBD. Removing comments and blocking users for "trolling" when they simply raise valid points in a debate seems like an improper thing to do, particularly when the admin who does it is one involved in the same debate in a partisan manner. However, those accounts do look suspicious, given that they came out of nowhere to comment in a contentious RFAr case; this, however, is not automatically wrongdoing. Given that at least one person has already suggested that I be banned for my comments in that debate, I could easily understand why an active, non-banned editor might want to contribute to that discussion using a hard-to-trace sockpuppet account rather than his/her main Wikipedia identity. *Dan T.* 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So can I. And if I were to do so I would either email the arbs or make a note that it's an alternate account on the user page. Which neither of these did. As it happens they turn out to be parts of a sock farm - which is hardly a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Checks out to be the same person as several other previous sockpuppets, probably by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not surprised, thanks for checking, though. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, under these circumstances I think the block was clearly appropriate. We don't need these particular waters muddied further by obvious socks with axes to grind. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Concur with Matthew Brown on this one. User is definitely sockpuppeteer. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Agree with sockpuppeteer finding. I have replied to CBD's comments on user_talk:Concerniokw to say that no admin should unblock this account without consulting with a CU first (preferably Morven, Cary, or myself since we investigated). CBD, I'd suggest you consider removing your comments completely at this point, unless you already have. It would help the situation and I'd greatly appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll add a comment based on the new information, but I'm not sure why you ask me to remove the previous statements. I said it, I'll stand by it rather than hide it away... nor do I think I was wrong. As I said above, it always seemed plausible that these were sockpuppets... but in the absence of any actual wrongdoing or checkuser to confirm past disruption the blocks were (at that time) inappropriate. We should never be indefinitely blocking people on suspicion alone. Also, I note that all of the above refer to 'the user' (singular) and 'Concerniokw'. Has the 'Hexadecimale' account also been found to have engaged in past disruption by checkuser? He claims to be an innocent new user who is willing to just leave the discussion - and you haven't posted the same warning to admins on his page as you did the Concerniokw page. This may just be an oversight and there is certainly reason to suspect sockpuppetry there as well, but again... without checkuser confirmation it is just suspicion and no reason to block. --CBD 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Genuinely new users do not make their first edits to contentious arbitration casdesm, and certainly not in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"...in support of assertions which are made only by those attempting to create mischief." See... that's what sets my bias meter going. Other than Concerniokw that 'assertion', that Wikipedia Watch contains a link to the site, has been made in the arbitration case by AnonEMouse, Alecmconroy, and Dtobias. I see no reason to believe that any of them did so "to create mischief". They did so because it is a highly significant point. We link to a relevant web page, despite it clearly being an 'attack site', because we're an encyclopedia... not the morality police. There has been an over-abundance of assumption of bad faith, as in your statement above, against those who oppose the BADSITES philosophy... which further illustrates why blocks based on suspicion are bad practice. Wait for the evidence and then block with that as the stated grounds. --CBD 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern about potential ageism

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) removed the word "feelings" on the Child sexuality article, stating that "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I reverted it, asking how he knows this (as he is not a child himself). He then reverted me and while I don't have a problem with someone reverting an edit I made that for example violated Wikipedia policy, I don't think it is right when he says "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept" [sic! notice the spelling]. The word "feelings" does not need a reference, and I said so, and to say that children cannot feel sexual feelings is ageistic. I don't want to add my own POV to this, but I should say that as a person, I know this, because it has not even been so much as three years since I have been legally a child. I don't want to pit my POV against his; all I want is a solution that makes as many people happy as possible. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a content issue that can be addressed in the ordinary editing process. Detail your views and concerns on the talkpage and look for input from other editors to achieve consensus on agreeable NPOV language. I don't see anything requiring admin action at this time (although you've certainly drawn attention to the issue), and I don't think a question of ageism really is involved. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the talk page sounds good enough, except that he used it in the only way I don't like to see it used, that is, as a substitute for talking to me on my page. Also, I would agree with you about ageism being or not being involved, but it seems that by persisting SqueakBox has come across as that way. I'm not saying he is, but he has seemed to be. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The tips in WP:DR might be helpful as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you'd like an admin to do, specifically? El_C 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that SqueakBox can be a difficult editor to work with. He is convinced that he is fighting the good fight on Wikipedia by carefully monitoring pedophilia-related articles. Undoubtedly, that monitoring has to be done and it certainly isn't an easy task. SB is very passionate about it. That being said, he frequently fails to assume good faith, escalates conflict into edit wars, routinely reverts with unnecessary "rv trolling" edit summaries, is prone, as in the present case, to impose his point of view on an article. More troubling, he's very quick to label people disagreeing with him as supporters of pro-pedophile activists (see [17] or User_talk:SqueakBox/history for an extensive list of examples). He has been warned (and blocked) repeatedly for personal attacks and revert warring without much change in his behavior. Of course, he's been here for a while and has done a lot of good work but there's an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed and probably would have been addressed a long time ago were admins less wary of getting the "oh so you are against protecting the wiki from pedophiles?". Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually to claim children are capable of sexual maturity is simply (a) not true and (b) has nothing to do with ageism, not quite sure what Pascal's outbusrt is about but there si nothing wrong with this eduit summary whereas it was Springer's insistence on re-adding unosurced material that was the problem here, and anyway alleged ageism isnt like rascism etc esp with young people as they just have to be patient. And assuming good faith in articles plagued by months of proven sock-pupopetry actually is not required by our policies ansd perhaps admins would do better to attend to that rathert han the god faith activities of myself. What needs addressing is a pro-pedophile clique,. not my behaviour in battling them though that has nothing to do with this case either. I gave a reasonable edit summary, Sproiinger didnt like being told he had to source so came here and Pascal, for reasons that are baffling, decided to attack me here. Nothing for admins to see here, SqueakBox 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in fact demonstrating what I'm concerned about. First of all, you should stay cool and assume good faith even when dealing with articles that are plagued by problems. Yes, there are many socks on these articles but Springeragh is not one of them as far as I know and he deserves respect. Secondly, your edit summary was "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings" which, ironically, indicates classical POV editing. Clearly, child sexuality as a scholarly subject tries to understand sexuality in children in the widest possible sense and the study of sexual feelings in children is part of that subject though I am sure there's debate as to what should be considered sexual feeling in children. But here you are saying: "children are capable of sexual maturity is simply not true". This is a) your point of view and b) has nothing to do whatsoever with the inclusion of the word "feelings". You are once again rewriting the article so that it fits your views on child sexuality and, in the face of criticism, deflecting the discussion to a purported pro-pedophile clique. Your fight against that clique does not give you special rights here. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Squeakbox overreacted but this is a simple editing dispute. WilyD 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When I made the comment Springer wasnt involved and what I did was to remove unsourced material which is clearly allowed by policy and then expressed my opinion as to why, which is exactly what I should have done. Springer then created a spurious ageism complaint. I never made any statements about Springer being a sock nor implied them. You may disagree with me, Pascal, but do not criticise me for removing disputed, unsourced material, your implication that that is wrong shows a poor understanding of policy and policy implementation for an admin, SqueakBox 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Pascal.Tesson, I appreciate it. SqueakBox—I know that you never said I was a sock; why do you bring that up? Also it is not exactly, um, good faith (sorry) to say that Pascal.Tesson has or shows a poor understanding of policy. It could border on a personal attack depending on who reads it although I do not consider it one myself. J.smith, I'm sorry I worded it so as to sound like a request for dispute resolution; I did not intend for it to not fit here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt me who brought up the sock issue. I wasnt commenting on Pascal but on his comments re our policies and his apparent thinking you cant remove unsourced material (a belief of his I have come up against before when he opposed my removal of unourced living people from the now deleted rape category). We are duty bounmd to remove unsourced material wherever we find it in the main psace and policy backs that so its odd to see an admin here saying exactly the opposite. If there is dispute resolution needed I would guess it would be between Pascal and I, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do you even believe what you're writing? You know full well what I told you about that category and it has nothing to do with the removal of unsourced material. Stop dragging me through the mud and maybe just maybe consider that you may be wrong to claim that the lead sentence of the article Child sexuality which was "Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children" has to be sourced. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I believe what I am writing, and I take RS very seriously, it says when a fact is in doubt it needs sourcing. I am not trying to drag you throught he mud, indeed was under the impression you were doing so with me. The conflict between Springer and I re this is now resoved, SqueakBox 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the flare-ups to a minimum. SqueakBox may be a difficult editor to work with, but so am I, and as we know like forces repel and opposite forces attract. I proposed on SqueakBox's talk page that we put a reference (not a source, as you will see) after the word "feelings", &c. &c. but you can read it there and I'm not going to copy+paste the whole thing here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Need intervention for User:Skatewalk's disruption of RFCU

I need administrative intervention again with User:Skatewalk. He just came back from a block and started disrupting a CheckUser report I filed. In this link [18], he is deleting critical information which shows that he is very likely the same person as User:Serenesoulnyc. Please keep en eye on the page. — Zerida 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock, blocked. Neil ム 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it was obvious enough with or without an RFCU. Now let's see how long it takes before he creates his next sock. — Zerida 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mithraist

Would someone please take a look at the edits of Mithraist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Purportedly new user, no article edits, just trolling.

Is he WP:GAMEing and/or attempting to foment discord?

Thanks for the assistance. -- Fullstop 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... although it is too early to make that assessment. If you have doubts, you can ask him directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out his user page. :) -- Fullstop 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather clear that this user is (1) not new, and (2) has only signed on to try reviving a minor conflict between Fullstop and Warlordjohncarter that occurred months ago.

I suspect that this is a reincarnation of User:ParthianShot, who not only had many conflicts with Fullstop but even once created an "investigative" account such as Mithraist to act against Fullstop. The account I refer to is MedianLady (talk · contribs). Both Mithraist and MedianLady seem alike in this devotion to investigative trolling over non-issues to harass Fullstop. ParthianShot was also known to use a now-blacklisted website to launder copyvios onto Wikipedia and to source fringe claims that often exaggerated the supposed role of Mithra in Zoroastrianism. All this is probably not coincidental.

While we could file a checkuser (but the available data may be too old), it shouldn't be necessary anyway since this Mithraist account merits a block for behavior reasons alone. Can an admin help us out with this? Thanks, The Behnam 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is Ashkani (talk · contribs), who is probably Artaxiad (talk · contribs). Ashkani advocated for ParthianShot/MedianLady in that dispute awhile back.

Despite these possibilities, it is quite clearly someone who dug up one of Fullstop's past disputes to harass him about it. Troll SPAs should be blocked, no doubt about that. The Behnam 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 is exhibiting troll like behaviour

user:Hoponpop69 has vandalized the glam punk page claiming that it doesn't have correct citations. Meaning that because he thinks that the citations are not right that the article should be deleted. He has deleted the majority of the article several times without any discussion on the glam punk talk page.

Also, user:Hoponpop69 has put over SIXTY citation notices in the deathrock page, claiming that he can delete the article if he wants if people don't cite everything he wants cited. This has also been done without discussion on his part in the talk section of that page. If he had discussed why he put the citation notices on the page then I wouldn't have a problem, however he has not. He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited. I edited the citations because he put the requests up to SIX times in one sentence, which was over-kill to say the least. Now he tells me that if I don't like the way that he has done things that I should report him, which is why I am posting all of this here.

He has been suspended several times in the past for the same behaviour, and he should not be allowed to behave in such a manner. I thought that Wiki was all about discussing changes in articles, not about wholesale deletion of them.Crescentia 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, he's not an admin so has no power to delete articles altogether — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• "He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited."

I never said I could delete articles that don't conform to what I think. I said that I can delete content that is unsourced. Which I have the right to do per [Wikipedia:Citing sources]. Hoponpop69 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You said QUOTE:'I could just remove all this content if I wanted to, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and giving a chance for people to find sources.' . You are basically stating that you could remove the entire article if you wish, which you do not have the right to do.Crescentia 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, but he actually can delete any unsourced information per WP:CS, as mentioned above. All users have the right to remove unsourced comment and nominate poorly-sourced articles for deletion. There's no violation here on that part. Now, looking at the page, it is apparent that he was excessive. Hoponpop69, just because you have the right to doesn't mean that you should agonize everyone about it. True, the article needs sourcing, but putting a citation needed message after every other phrase is disruptive at the very least. Are you perhaps trying to make a point about something? You Can't Review Me!!! 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any point, I'm doing this because a.) I don't want false information or original research on wikipedia, and b.) I have seen other articles get cleaned up this way. This is the post-hardcore article before I deleted what became unsourced content.[19] Compare that to the current state of the article in which every single fact is sourced.

Hoponpop69 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That article has a factual dispute tag so that is not a very good example.Crescentia 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I still think that your citation messages were a bit excessive on Deathrock, however. They don't need to go after every word if nearby facts lacking citations are related in some way. For example:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

...can probably be simplified to:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Perhaps that amount of citation tags can be reduced further; to be honest, I've never seen more than two citation tags in a single sentence before. This becomes especially noteworthy when you come to sentences such as:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

...which can be simplified to:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

That one flag should make it obvious to editors that the entire list of things need citations and also makes it possible for an editor to cite all of them with a single reference if necessary. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant exactly what I said, that I could remove all the uncited content if I wanted to (which is backed up by a wikipolicy). You are making huge inferences by stating that I said I could delete the article. Hoponpop69 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally people discuss the removal of unsourced material. Why are you refusing to do this, and why are you being hostile towards compromising? Before you started this deathrock page 'cite' war you had even edited the article, so I don't understand why you are so wrapped up in it.Crescentia 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never seen a discusion over the removal of unsourced material, as far as I know it's fair game ot remove (again I'm basing this on wikipolicy). I'm wrapped up in this because I like articles that don't have original research or false information. Hoponpop69 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha has now made THREE of the same edits to the deathrock page in a 24 hour period. One more time and he should be suspended.Crescentia 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to convert the citation tags to the end of the sentence. Hoponpop, please feel free to list areas on the talk page you wish to have cited. 3+ citation tags for each sentence is a bit much, however I see why you felt the need to do it. I cleaned up alot of the tagging. Someone please point Hoponpop to how to use sectional requests for citations. I know there is a tempalte that requests tags for entire sections, that would prevent the over tagging.--SevenOfDiamonds 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated below, Hoponpop69 is trolling several articles in this manner; before he blanked 9/10ths of articles (including ones which 7+ sources as shown below) without instead adding citation tags, now hes overkilling citation tags for non contentious material on the deathrock article (such as putting around ten tags in each sentence) because he is bored and can't think of anything useful to contribute. He just seems to be antagonising Crescentia without any reason at all. - The Daddy 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I previously cleaned up the tagging but he reverted all of it back again. Hopefully he will listen to you.Crescentia 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crescentia refuses to follow policies, continues to delete citation requests, and restore uncited information

User:Crescentia is refusing to follow wikipedia policies. When I remove uncited information, this user just adds it back up.[20][21] I point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." But he ignores this. When I add citation requests this user removes them. He then states an unwritten law that I can't have more than one request per sentence, but when asked to prove such a thing can not.[22] I tell him that according to Wikipedia:When to cite, any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it, and he ignores this. All I have been doing is following wikipedia policies, while he is blatantly ignoring them. Hoponpop69 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also based on the section he filled out above this, you can add false accusation of vandalism to the charges.Hoponpop69 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you find yourself adding literally dozens of tags to a given section, it's time to consider a {{sources}} tag instead. --Haemo 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources tag says "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." so that would just bring it back to square one of challenging the material. Hoponpop69 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when you remove content, and, someone else puts it back, that's a STRONG hint, that you need to discuss it. WP:CS is not a license to edit war. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So he's not even getting a slap on the wrist for restoring uncited content? Give me a break. Hoponpop69 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I could complain about you not getting in trouble also, but I am more adult than that. Hopefully you have learned something after all of this.Crescentia 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 has been on a trolling spree, blanking 9/10ths of numerous articles, including parts which have sources. Look at this article for example, (he removed most of the article and 7 sources) its not the only one either. He seems to think Wikipedia is a toy or something. - The Daddy 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• What credence do you have? You've been blocked 26 times. I'm getting sick and tired of you calling me a troll when based on Wikipedia:What is a troll? that is not a case. In fact if anyone is at fault here is is you for stalking me.Hoponpop69 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is he stalking you? He has run into the same problem with you as I have so he feels the need to speak up about it.Crescentia 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, I'm pretty angry about you taking edits out of content to make it look like I am a vandal. If you look at the glam punk articles history page, you can see in my edit summaries that any sources that are removed are because they did not relate to what was in the article.[23] Hoponpop69 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed sections that had citations, and you didn't explain on the talk page why you did so. That is vandalism. If you would actually take the time to talk to people on talk pages then most of the problems that you are having at the moment wouldn't be occuring.Crescentia 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I just said, I explained the edit in the edit summary, you can find the reasoning there. In the future I will use both the talk page and edit summary since it seems most people just read one or the other. Hoponpop69 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll man up and apologize for the give me a break comment. Hoponpop69 02:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some words of wisdom:

"In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone."
        -- Jimmy Wales ^x

Or just source it. Seems like trivial info which can be easily sourced.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Saoirsegodeohf

Hy, I hereby wish to report again (see above) Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) for POVPUSHING, 3RR and disruptive editing and pushing against consensus (?). Basically this User sees himself as a champion/avenger of the Irish and objects to the use of British Isles in several articles. A compromise offered by a neutral party was simply ignored by Saoirsegodeohf. Genuine edits by this user are non-existing. This user is a repeat offender who has been has been blocked yesterday, and was recently warned of the consequences of his behavior. I also want to add that he changed this very same page into implying that I have Anti-Irish feelings; a notion that is beyond my ability to understand and completely false. I think that this case is crystal-clear as one only needs to look at his edits Thanks Flamarande 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR in the last 24 hours on Western Europe, in addition to being patently incivil. As he's clearly aware of how things work on Wikipedia and has already been blocked, I'm going to give him a 48-hour block. Walton^One 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of incivility: "yes you are a ballbag". Walton^One 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact that diff is the one that got Saoirsegodeohf blocked yesterday. I've advised Flamarande to RFC the dispute to establish consensus. Saoirsegodeohf hasn't actually pushed against consensus yet. I'm now going to recommend that Flamarande follow the next step in dispute resolution - disengage for a while - give it a day or two (in this case maybe a week since Saoirsegodeohf is 48 hour blocked) and look at the situation afresh. If the problem continues follow WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IP-user 168.103.242.198 blanking that IP's talkpage, etc.

The anonymous-IP user of 168.103.242.198 has been causing trouble, and has been warned about this many times at User talk:168.103.242.198. The user of that IP has now begun blanking said talkpage, eliminating the warnings from its face, and has even given a "vandalism" warning" to one user who has restored the page.
It seems to me that IP pages must be "public", not "private" space in WP, so that there is no right to delete warnings and other material from IP-user pages, as there ordinarily is for registered users within their own user-space. It would follow that the talkpage blankings are vandalism.
In any case, the edit-history of this IP shows that it has generally been a source of no more than silly vandalism. Perhaps this report belongs on the vandal-reports page, then, but I am not sure whether the talkpage blankings, which are the foremost concern at present, exactly qualify as vandalism, so I'm putting the here.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped yesterday. I'll keep an eye on it, but, once an IP has stopped, there's not usually very much that can be done. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors can blank their own user talk space. This also indicates that the warnings have been seen. Durova^Charge! 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have always interpreted WP:USER, IP talk pages are different because there is no automatic acknowledgment of the message upon removal, as the IP can be used by many, many editors. -- Avi 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a common area of misunderstanding, and I think some clarification is in order. The question is, though, where and how can it be done? Many editors don't know where to look for guidelines and information on this sort of thing, which implies that somewhere on the Edit page might be best. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Borderline BLP question at Talk:Mousepad

• 68.164.150.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.234.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.237.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.3.133.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a long-running dispute on who invented the Mousepad. An IP editor (who may be Fernandez) claims credit for it, citing a document dated years after the fact. He accuses the currently-credited inventor Kelley (three sources, not very reliable) of plagiarising his invention, and provides no sources to back that claim.

The article itself is semi-protected after a recent ANI incident (edit-warring over this same issue) so the only problem is what's on the Talk page.

I don't know if this is strong enough to be a BLP issue but having raised the issue I thought it was better to play it safe and remove the material. With this revert, the anon editor restores multiple accusations of plagiarism. I have reverted once, but don't want to edit war. Admin advice or assistance would be appreciated.

Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a borderline WP:BLP violation, it is a definate WP:BLP violation. The anonymous 'contributor' was given more than enough time and chances to come up with reliable sources for the accusations in question, and the only results amounted to abuse and further (or rehashed) unfounded accusations. I closed the RFC as soon as I had full confirmation that the editor wasn't attempting to address the issue - either he had trouble understanding what was asked or he was trolling, and the unacceptable material doesn't belong in either case. --Sigma 7 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not trolling; but he really does believe that the proof he has provided (the link to the Xerox Disclosure Journal) is all the proof that we could possibly need to know that he invented the mousepad (and yes, that is Armando 'Manny' Fernandez; he has said as much in the last year of IP edits, has had a username with Manny in it, and almost any place on the web that states Kelley invented it soon gets a visit from someone with the username Manny telling them they are incorrect). I've been watching the page for 6 months now - I found it on RC patrol, and Dicklyon, who has been watching it for a year at this point, was getting so visibly burnt out that I stayed. From time to time editors pop up on the page and think this is a temporary issue, or just an IP problem, but this is an ongoing problem with a tireless and obsessed editor on a ADSL line with an IP that changes daily. I'm not even going to address the ongoing personal attacks; the ones against me, at least, don't bother me much, because anyone who sees the context will realize that in fact, I'm doing a good job.

I have said it repeatedly; the only way this perisistent issue will be ended is with a long-term semi-protect on that page. 3 to 6 months would not be out of line when you consider this IP editor has spent over a year trying to push his POV into this article, more than daily, with almost no other IP edits happening (some, I know, but very, very few. I won't argue that this is the ideal solution; the ideal solution would be the IP editor in question getting a clue or a cite). --Thespian 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the suggestion to report him to his ISP, here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Mousepad_vandalism. I don't know how to go about that. GDallimore (Talk) 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sunnyvale Patent Library used to have paper copies of the Xerox Disclosure Journal and the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, but that library closed in 2006, since nobody looks up patents on paper and microfiche any more. No idea if they still have those documents. The USPTO library in Alexandria, Virginia should have a full set. Those publications are hard to find; I think only ten copies of IBM's bulletin were published. The Software Patent Institute has many of them on line, but full-text retrieval isn't free. But that information is findable, and a proper citation should be provided. --John Nagle 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages

Can someone look into this? User:Gnanapiti is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX

here and here in Sethusamudram page and

here and here in M. Karunanidhi page

here and here and here in Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham page Anwar 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, everything I have seen looks legit. This is clearly a removal of POV. This definitely looks like removal of soapboxing/POV. I did not further investigate the allegations of "fake references" mentioned in some edit summaries, but nothing I have seen would make me assume they are anything but good faith constructive editing. Sometimes the best and fastest way to fix an article is just wholesale removal of policy violating content. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Z-man. This appears to be a case of a user stringently following/enforcing the rules. I really don't see a problem with that. If proper sources can be found for some of the claims, the removed material is easily found in the edit history of the page for reference. Vassyana 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first appears to be fairly legit; putting in a giant disclaimer that says "your religion is wrong" seems a bit wrongheaded. The second, I'm not so sure - unless it really was a faux reference. The third is too long for me to care about - that's your issue. I would say this is no more than an edit war, though, at the moment. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also Anwar saadat/TMMK section on this page. — Athaenara ✉ 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hack job?

WikiSpaceboy was recently idnef. blocked for page move vandalism. However, looking back into his contribs, he made good edits before today. He was apparently inactive for quite a bit. I suspect a hacker in the works. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could contact them at this Eragon wiki? Appears to be the same user, check the history of User:WikiSpaceboy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, this could be a wiki-suicide. Not terribly uncommon, these days, I am afraid.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Something odd"

A couple of days ago, I was contacted by Acalamari regarding some questionable edits by AntiFairyBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), starting with the likely username violation and ending with the creation of a vandalism-only account, The Disco Times (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this charming note. Both were quickly indefblocked, but Acalamari called my attention to some peculiar behavior from Squilliam Fancyson (talk · contribs), the creator of AntiFairyBot. Shortly before creating the account, Squilliam added an empty self-nom to WP:RFA, which was followed by a malformed flag request. AntiFairyBot then created and RfA for itself, which was subsequently deleted by Acalamari. Squilliam then made some seemingly normal edits (although bordering 3RR) and hasn't been active since.

If anyone's still following me, my gut says Squilliam Fancyson's account has been compromised or, worse, is simply being used for vandalism; I cannot but find this an odd first edit. Anyway, I've left them a note and have foregone a block at the moment. I'd appreciate further opinions, or a firm readjustment if necessary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone start handing out blocks...

Resolved

The edit warring is starting to get to me: within about 2 minutes after The eXile was unprotected, these two started right back up. To be honest, the IP's claim that there is a BLP violation is pretty flimsy IMHO (it is well sourced), but I'm not going to get in the muck with these guys anymore, at least at this level. This has been going on for almost a month. The Evil Spartan 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the issue but at least for now I've protected the article for another 48 hours. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and warned the other editor. Marking the thread as resolved though I fear the issue will come up again... Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul has violated his revert parole

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker User: Daddy Kindsoul was limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. In the past week (September 10-17) he has reverted the NOFX page three times.[24][25][26] Hoponpop69 02:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The three reverts above are just over one week. However, it appears that if you look at the 8th to the 11th, there's three clear reverts. That he is still reverting on the 17th shows that this is an ongoing problem. He's well past his fifth block so I am blocking for one year. --Yamla 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not 100% sure about this. The user certainly has a very troubling record, but some of these reverts seem to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced information, so I can understand why the user might have thought they were acceptable (see also the discussion of Hoponpop's editing higher on this page). I'd also be interested in whether this user's edits in areas other than rock music have been problematic; if not, a topic ban might be better for the encyclopedia than a full-fledged one-year block (although I recognize the arbitration enforcement provision is not formulated that way). Newyorkbrad 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The reverts that appear to be replacing removals of allegedly sourced content, was either reverts to what had already been sourced, or were sources that had nothing to do with what they were supposed to compliment. Here's an example[27]:

"The band is known as one of the most popular in the skate punk genre and has influenced much of the Warped Tour Californian pop punk scene of the 1990s and early 2000s."

If you follow that source it links to a page which makes no mention of the Warped Tour or the Californian pop punk scene. Hoponpop69 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) claims that his revert patrol was for one year only. I can find no reference to any such limit and he has previously been informed of that. He also repeatedly violated his restrictions during the year and has received numerous prior blocks under his earlier account name. However, if ARBCOM did intend for this to be one year and if that has now expired, my one year block would clearly be excessive and should be lifted. I can find no evidence that this is true. Apart from that, I have nothing really to add to what Hoponpop69 wrote above. --Yamla 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker has previously used the "it was only for one year" argument, which is without foundation. He gets into these disputes over subjective characterization of bands; is one band "mallcore" or "heavy metal", is another band "punk" or "skate punk." He seems incapable of using even rudimentary forms of content dispute resolution such as RFC or third opinion, and reverts to his own opinion of the band's subgenre, sometimes replacing someone else's sources with his own, sometimes replacing sources with assertions. There are additional reports about him in the archives of WP:AE. He can sometimes go for a long time without breaking parole and he does not seem to be rude or uncivil about it, so I'm not sure he should be driven off entirely. Thatcher131 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a persistent habit of calling content disputes "vandalism." Thatcher131 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And his persistant habit of labeling anyone in a dispute with him as trolls. Hoponpop69 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested clarification on whether the arbcom sanction has already expired in this case. See here. Additionally, I listed the specific violation of revert parole on the user's talk page. --Yamla 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted some comments on User talk:Daddy Kindsoul. Thatcher's input is helpful and confirms my supposition that a topic ban might be as useful as an all-out block in this case. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

user:ElinorD reverting on SlimVirgin's talk page

I'm done with this before I get into trouble. Can someone take a look at this? user:ElinorD reverted, I restored, three times each, with not the nicest edit summaries. Seem's to me user:ElinorD is out of bounds, but I'll leave it to you. Jd2718 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ElinorD is removing a comment because she thinks SV would want it that way. I ask - why not just let SV do it? It doesn't appear to be blatant trolling, so maybe we should just let it be and SV can take care of it herself. The Behnam 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let it be. There's no need to keep that sort of aggressive talk page edit. It's clearly meant to be hurtful and it's not like Nathan has ever made a big secret of what he thought of SV. No good can come out of that message or revert wars about it. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be blunt, I believe you are the one out of line, in this instance. You are enabling harassment (that is, unwanted contact), in my opinion. SlimVirgin specifically and clearly indicated she did not want that user to post on her talk page.[28] At the least, it would be simply polite to respect her wishes, and those enforcing them, in this regard. Vassyana 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deus ex machina :-) Tintin 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I personally thought your message was quite trollish given the circumstances and I think it would be best if you simply left Slim Virgin alone. Your edit warring over restoring the message only adds to the appearance of trolling. Please just leave Slim Virgin alone. I'm sure if she's interested in your (or Nathan's) opinions about her, she will contact you herself. Sarah 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, by restoring someone's message 3 times, you're effectively engaging in 3RR by proxy. Slim Virgin has made is clear that she doesn't want that person posting on her talk page, please accept that. Your edit warring is really inappropriate behaviour and unnecessary disruption. Sarah 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she removed it herself, but for more general trends, should it be possible to 'ban' a user from a talk page like that? As talk pages are important to communication between users, and oftentimes communication such as concerns and constructive criticism is the most important type of communication (since it seeks to address a perceived problem), I don't think that there should be any semi-formal 'ban' such as the type ElinorD was acting upon. Sure, SV can plug her ears and scream so as to not hear criticism, but let's not make talk page censorship a legitimate and justified duty of other editors. The Behnam 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD is not out of bounds. Sometimes people need to separate their Wikipedia lives from their real ones--SV is not a currently active editor, provoking her to force her to have to edit unappreciated trolls on her talk page is not necessary. If ElinorD thinks she is being forced to do this out of duty, I'm sure she can complain for herself. In fact, I know she can. KP Botany 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If a person is posting trollish, taunting and unnecessary messages, I have no problems with an editor asking that person not to post on their talk page unless it is relating to article content. I myself have asked an editor not to post on my talk page under similar circumstances and I know of someone else who has as well. I have no problems whatsoever with what Elinor has been doing given the circumstances. Further, I know Elinor very well and I am certain she would not be doing that if she were not certain that she was abiding by Slim's wishes. Sarah 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about this 'banning' becoming a legitimate practice. I know that recently I was attempting to contact an editor constructively about problems I was seeing with his conduct, and every message (all different ones, mind you) were removed. Of course, he is free to do that, but he had also declared that I 'no longer contact him', but I could see no other way of attempting to address the issues without attempting to discuss with him. There are higher DR processes, but they aren't designed to be the 'next step up' when a user just doesn't want to address his misconduct. Yet, if I am not 'allowed' to contact at the talk page (meaning that I am treated like a wrong-doer for trying after he declares a 'ban'), it becomes impossible for me to address the misconduct further, effectively killing any path of action that would resolve the conduct issues (as I don't consider ignoring the problem to be a solution when it comes to misconduct). The Behnam 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We cannot "force" users to listen to you. If they're intent on removing talk page messages, as is their due, without any response and tell you to desist, then you should respect their wishes. Edit warring over someone's talk page is pointless, especially since they've made it clear they don't want your comments, and will remove them when they see it. Continuing to edit pages under such circumstances accomplishes nothing, and it simply provocative. --Haemo 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'edit warring', as in restoring the same message or warning over again. Rather, different messages. The other guy should be free to remove whatever, but the declaration of a 'ban' should not be made to affect the poster. The Behnam 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user reacts badly to you and you see genuine problems with their behaviour, perhaps you should ask someone else to intervene? Perhaps an admin? Sometimes people just react badly to someone for no obviously apparent reason and it is more constructive to leave the intervention to someone otherwise uninvolved. Sarah 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but what I am trying to address is whether declared user page 'bans' can be treated as legitimate (as in 'actionable') such that any further attempt to communicate is actually seen as misconduct on the poster's part. Note that I don't refer to edit warring the same message - that's well-established obnoxiousness. What I don't see is why an editor should be made immune from communication because he doesn't like it, so he declares a 'ban' and whines if the other user doesn't consider the 'ban' legitimate or reasonable at all. Should it be required that such a 'ban' be respected? If so, then there should be a more accessible DR process to move to if the problem is indeed legitimate, so as to prevent such a 'ban' from effectively silencing any attempt to address the misconduct. The Behnam 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would generally say use some sense and address it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's a controversial notion that if someone asks you to leave them alone, you should. What good is going to be achieved by continuing to post to a user who has expressed the desire to be left alone by you? Regardless of whether your posts on their talk page have merit or not, continuing to post will only serve to rile them up and inflame the situation. If a user is behaving in a problematic fashion, it's not very difficult to ask another editor or a sysop to have a word with them. I think you're blowing the possibilities way out of proportion here. Vassyana 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Benham, I don't think the self-declared "bans" are legitimate in terms of policy, I just think that if a person gets upset and asks a specific editor to stop posting on their talk page, we should simply be nice people and respect that. I cannot think of any circumstances where one particular editor is the only editor on this project who can address an issue with an editor and surely if the editor reacts unfavorably to someone they've had bad interaction with, someone else, possibly an administrator, should be asked to take over. I don't think this should be a big deal. Obviously, if the person begins declaring every person who posts on their talk page is unwelcome, we shouldn't have to abide by it but that's where common sense comes in. In terms of the original message, Slim has asked that person not to comment on her talk page, he ignores this and continues, his messages are repeatedly restored while Slim is busy off-project and ElinorD, who is in regular contact with Slim and fully aware of her wishes, steps in and removes them. I don't a see a problem with this. The OP refused to accept this and revert warred to the point of 3RR, forcing Slim to return to remove the messages herself. This I see a problem with. There's nothing wrong with being nice to each other and showing some basic respect for people's wishes. Sarah 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...sure would be nice if people who have a beef with someone wouldn't post snide commentary on talkpages, especially after they have been asked to not do so.--MONGO 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I often throw temper tantrums and request users to stay the fuck away from my talk page. It's the one thing no administrator has yet had a beef with me about. SlimVirgin should be accorded at least the same courtesy as I have been accorded. KP Botany 05:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Elinor's reverts of the provocative and taunting comments. It is deplorable that my good-natured edit on Slim's talk page precipitated the crapfest. If I had been able to foresee these developments, I would have probably expressed my sympathy with Slim's predicament by e-mail rather than drawing unwelcome attention to her talk page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it can be against policy, if you keep it up; if someone asks you to stop bothering them, and you continue to do so, you are harassing them - and that is against policy, as is edit warring. Find something to do besides bother SV. Category:All pages needing cleanup could probably keep you busy and get your mind off of whatever you want to pester Slim with. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In these sorts of situations, many people repeat statement like "No one owns their talk page" or "No one has a right to prevent a certain person from commenting on their talk page". And that's true, so far as it goes -- but it's beside the point. If someone asks me not to comment on their talk page, I don't do it, simply because I don't want to violate WP:DICK. Nobody owns Slim's talk page -- not Elinor, not Jd, not Nathan, and not even Slim -- but Elinor was being kind, Nathan was being trollish, and Jd was, well, mistaken. Think: if you're going to revert someone, do you really want it to be to reinsert rudeness? Lets use our edits to make this a more friendly and welcoming place. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Quadell. I thought I was right, but saw it was going in a bad direction. Your comments are helpful. Jd2718 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• JD2718: Thank you for bringing NathanLee's trolling to our attention, we will review his other comments and see if there is a pattern that needs addressing. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help undoing the move Niall -> This page needs to be deleted.

A new user moved the disambig page Niall to This page needs to be deleted. and then redirected Niall somewhere else. I think the disambig page should be reinstated. This requires an Admin to look into and undo the move to preserve the edit history. Thanks, --CapitalR 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Page up for speedy. User warned. Problem fixed. M.^(er) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I've repasted the contents of This page... onto Niall. It's effectively the same; the only difference is now the page history. You Can't Review Me!!! 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was the version of the page he wanted deleted. Someguy1221 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the tmmk website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of tmmk ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen tmmk ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

White Cat (talk · contribs)

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

---

I appologise in advance because this is petty, but White Cat's been having a few issues with his signature again. His signature links to User:White Cat/07, which is a redirect to his userpage so is completely pointless. He's refused to do anything about it, and from previous experience with White Cat and his sigs, I am positive that he is doing it make a point and see what reaction he can get. I'd like to see the redirect deleted outright, or White Cat blocked until he agrees to change it, thought it best I put it to the jury. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So she's basically link her sig to the userpage, through a redirection? Weird... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he's doing it to be disruptive in my opinion, there's no need whatsoever to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think it's a "she" according to IRC conversation.... Well, I've asked for an explanation so there isn't much that can be done till then... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From your description, it seems that you are having issues with White Cat's perfectly acceptable signature. It appears that he wants Whatlinkshere's to his userpage to be sorted in a per-year fashion, a completely understandable and useful practice. There is no issue to be resolved here unless somebody starts doing something disruptive (like deleting the redirect or blocking White Cat). Kusma (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, White Cat's doing this to make a point, not so he can sort out his contributions. White Cat likes people kicking up a fuss over his signatures. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you think, you should ignore him. That he has a redirect in his signature is essentially harmless. The issue seems to be more "White Cat has a long history of being annoying", but that is a poor reason to block him over an acceptable signature. Kusma (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm afraid that WhiteCat is seeking attention (as usual). The less discussion of his harmless antics on this noticeboard, the better for him and the community in general. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Regardless of whether WhiteCat is engaging in a "completely understandable and useful practice" for link sorting or hoping to see "people kicking up a fuss" over a harmless triviality... the proper response is to say, 'oh, ok... that's different' and move on. --CBD 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Cute, really cute... I have been signing with a "redirect" for months now. It didn't bother you until now, why did it start bothering you suddenly? Talk about lag...
Many other people sign in a same way, but when I do it bothers people (as I am doing it). <sarcasm>There should be no rest for me, people should always complain about the most trivial thing I do and seek all avenues just to bother me. I should not be given 10 seconds of peace and quiet because I must always be plotting something with each edit.</sarcasm>
On the contrary my dear people, I find this whole thing disruptive, unproductive, and annoying. I neither enjoy nor like attention. It is indeed a very interesting misconception that I like/enjoy/want seeking attention as I have been complaining against "special attention" from some users all along. One such user was blocked indefinitely by the community sanction board after undergoing two arbitration hearings. The amount of time this had taken (nearly 2 freaking years) was simply jawdropping. No one else was given a fraction of that courtesy on wikipedia to date. So please... At the very least get your grasp over facts a bit more carefully.
Even when I am doing nothing (aside from signing?) I am not given most basic courtesies and thats all there is to it. Please stop blaming me for things that are neither disruptive nor controversial. I am not making a point, you are. What the heck is the point I am trying to illustrate? Oh and where is the actual disruption?
...Next thing you know people would complain that I am signing with UTC time rather than local time!
-- Cat ^chi? 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UTC time? You evil bastard! UTC time is also known as Zulu time. This is all some afro-centric conspiracy! Admit it! :] --CBD 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Itabise! Itabise! (only zulu word I recall meaning celebrate :P) -- Cat ^chi? 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A user has every right to have any internal link in the signature. (The only obljectionable link, off the top of my head, would be a deceptive link to another user's page.) A link to own user page, even via redirect, is perfectly acceptable. Conscious 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that the signature needs to be changed, as it's throwing SineBot off, and we don't need all of White Cat's edits double-signed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would not fixing the bot be a better alternative? You can't expect people to change their behaviour just so it suits a bots code. And I want to be very careful with this statement. I like SineBot. I really do. It is doing wikipedia a great service and it's code merely needs some minor adjustments as this is a minor bug.
Seriously why is it that people do not want to give me the basic courtesy they are even willing to give bots?
-- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SineBot already has an opt-out feature that should work to prevent further confusion. White Cat, could you please follow instructions at User:SineBot#Opting_out to prevent SineBot from annoying the hell out of people whenever it double-signs your edits? Kusma (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done as you asked. -- Cat ^chi? 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The signature is fine. It is the bots problem if it does not know how to handle it, and DarkFalls is not truly effected by this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

GFDL Revocation

Something to keep an eye on. Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. Navou ^banter 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained to Navou - I'm happy to have the article userfied if he prefers - the article is overlong, verbose, still missing various sections and diagrams, contains errors and I won't be around to maintain it for the forseable future. I don't want to revoke GFDL, but I don't want to leave it in mainspace in its current condition. --Joopercoopers 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't revoke the GFDL, by editing here, you agree that all your contributions will be released under the GFDL, so once you release something, then that is that I am affraid. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is notable, verifiable, and does not merit deletion in the CSD criteria. If you are worried about the article, remember other editors can help and no article is perfect. GFDL makes the article free to everyone. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Joopercoopers for a 3RR violation on the page for continuously readding the speedy tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopercoopers promised to cease revert warring and engage in productive discussion. I'm all for giving him a chance to explain his position. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot revert a user and then block him for 3RR violation. Please do not use your administrative powers in a manner that drives people away from the project. From what I see on the article, Joopercoopers did a great job. Please unblock him immediately. Trying to reason with him would have been a better course of action. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted his edit that broke the 3RR!!! He was acting disruptively so I blocked, he's promised not to revert again, so I unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(editconf) Calm down. Administrators are not supposed to use admin tools while being involve in disputes. Reverting another user amounts to getting oneself "involved". Joopers seemed easy to convince, didn't he? This is exactly how new and established users get disenchanted with the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I commented above, for that I appologise. Still, the revert was based on the 3RR being broken, nothing to do with the substance of Joopers edit. As DF says below, it's all sorted now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done, so let's not fret over past actions please? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks Ryan, I'd lost count, hands up, no hard feelings, a warning might have been nice though I'm no troll etc. I was in the middle of trying to get an explanation here, I just wanted a few questions answering. I'm not trying to revoke GFDL or anything of the sort

1. If I can't have the page deleted because, as ryan contends, this means I'm not the sole author, why can't I move it to userspace?
2. What is the purpose of CSD7, if not to empower me to make this kind of decision?
3. I had a number of pages deleted yesterday, in userspace and also in the userspace of my legit sock mcginnly, with no problems; they were all in various states of completion, but nobody batted an eyelid - this article is admittedly a little more complete, but where's the line, is there a line, isn't GFDL applicable to articles in all states of completion and namespaces?--Joopercoopers 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Joopers appealed to me to delete the article under criterion G7, so I did. WP:SPEEDY is official policy, and I just reread it. Check. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please read the policy. G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. Nowhere does it say he has to be the "sole author" of the article. We must respect the author's wish here. I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read it again. The speedy criterion G7 does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references. Once author posts content on a page, he releases his text into GFDL, which is irrevocable. Please undo your deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's always been my impression that G7 allowed deletion on user request, not that it made it mandatory. If other editors find a page useful, it will typically be kept. Following a user's request on G7, unless in cases where a page is obvious crap anyway, is entirely a matter on courtesy. Whenever editors who wanted to leave the project have tried to get their work deleted, we've always told them they can't, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have undeleted the page. Glory to GFDL! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY and G7 says nothing about encyclopedic content or extensive references. Please quote where exactly the page says that. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck when the inaccuracies break out like a rash in the "Times of India", I was thinking about the credibility of the project. I'll leave it in admin hands for a decision. --Joopercoopers 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Retaining good editors seems to be an increasing problem. I know that Joopercoopers is annoyed with the bickering that goes on here. Sorry to say, but this incident exemplifies that. WP:COMMON should apply here and being courteous to each other. G7 is a courtesy, which we should respect. --Aude (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wheel warring me, are you, Nick? :-( Criterion G7 for speedy deletion reads in full: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." What is it you're asking me to read besides that? Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read the policy. This is not an author leaving the project in dudgeon and trying to take back his contribution. His request is in good faith because he's aware of inaccuracies and other problems in the article. Sure it looks good; but he's in a position to know it's not (or not yet). Nick, you shouldn't have done that without discussing it with me first (just how urgent was it?) in the sense of giving me a realistic chance to respond and explain before you threw an inappropriate application of GFDL in my face and ignored the speedy policy. Undo your undeletion, please. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

• Nick - please quote where exactly on WP:SPEEDY it says G7 "does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references." Bishonen is correct here. The page needs to be deleted. G7 is official policy and must be respected here. --Aude (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I believe that we have a serious precedent here, and two apparently conflicting policies. I do acknowledge that CSD G7, as stated, does give Bishonen the mandate to delete the page, but it's quite arguable whether an admin is obliged to obey G7, and further arguable that it was the intended spirit of the rule. I don't recall that we had an encyclopedic and valuable contents deleted under G7. As a compromise, can we have this discussion moved elsewhere, possibly to Wikipedia:Deletion review (in which case, {{drv}} can be placed on the page to preserve the underlying history, at least temporarily), and/or further to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Duja► 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And, to wikilawyer a bit, WP:CSD states that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'd certainly count good-faith concerns of Nick, Fut. Perf, Ryan and myself under "reasonable doubt". Duja► 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was out of line when I deleted the page History of Banff National Park, which I had worked on. It was a subarticle of a topic/article I was working on, had references. But, I felt it no longer fit, wouldn't take care of it, didn't want to work on it further at the time, etc. I stuck a prod tag on it, no one objected, and then it was deleted. Nonetheless, it was encyclopedic and had references. I suppose, I could have just speedied it or put a speedy tag on it. It's important to be able to delete stuff like that. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's his article, not mine. If the author is unsatisfied and wishes to later repost the article after having improved it in userspace, there is no problem with this. Joopercoopers is fine editor, and I'm a great fan of editorial discretion. Moreschi ^Talk 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the issue to deletion review. Regards, Navou ^banter 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Except that he stated that he's leaving, and probably will not work on it anymore. We normaly userfy substandard articles to let them reach the the minimum, not generally good articles which have flaws. If it becomes userfied in that manner, no one will ever improve it. There is an ethical and political question indeed, but so far we did not allow anyone who left to revoke and undo his contributions; this case is different only because it conflicts with G7. Duja► 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen was following G7 to the letter. The policy does not draw a line between userspace and mainspace deletions. If people are unhappy about this, they are welcome to suggest changes to the policy, but, until there is consensus to adjust the wording, the page needs to be deleted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy may not be able to draw these lines, but folks coupled with ignore all rules can most definitely draw the line where policy fails to make the distinction. Regards, Navou ^banter 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR is there to improve the encyclopedia. Will it really harm us to have the improved version after a (hopefully brief) wait, as Joopercoopers has promised? On the contrary, I view this as a benefit. Moreschi ^Talk 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR allows use to be flexible with rules, so as to be courteous to our fellow editors. In this case, WP:SPEEDY is clear, and IAR is not needed. --Aude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article under G7 when the text is good is somewhat futile, because any other person can use the same text (with attribution) to start the article again. The text is GFDL whether or not the article is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The wording of G7 used to state, "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author."

This is likely the reason for the beliefs stated by some that it was meant to apply only to things with a "single author" and only to things which were "mistakenly created". That said... way too much focus on the letter of the 'rules'. In terms of general principles it would seem courteous to accept Joopercoopers' desire that his incomplete work not be displayed... but equally it would seem that anyone who wished to continue that work should be allowed to do so. GFDL does apply... even to the deleted content. If Joopercoopers returns and wants to continue his work or if anyone else wishes to do so it should be undeleted and go on its merry way. G7 exists as an easy way of getting rid of material which no one wants to keep. If that isn't the case then undeletion and further edits are perfectly appropriate. --CBD 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Future Perfect that just because we can speedily delete a page does not mean that we should delete it. As near as I can tell, the encyclopedia has a lot worse articles than this one; while it's incomplete, it will be fixed eventually. I'd say it's a loss for wikipedia to remove it, and I'd suggest that if the article in question were taken to AFD, it would result in a strong consensus to "keep". >Radiant< 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good luck on your FAC thing at the mo Radiant, I fully endorse any attempt to improve content over 'style'. Similarly, I'd appreciate a decision in favour of 'editor' over 'content'. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day etc......--Joopercoopers 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed, valid CSD G7. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a bad move, ^demon, because there is an ongoing discussion and it is far from clear that policy requires deletion as opposed to merely allowing it. I hope we can avoid a wheel war on this page. Sam Blacketer 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not extend wheel wars by cutting discussion short. The DRV had been started after several rounds of deletions and undeletions, and clearly was the appropriate venue for the discussion. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pitythafoo - allegedly disruptive and insulting

I am not sure if I am reporting this to the right place - please tell me if I am. A most unforunate incident has occurred between User:Pitythafoo and myself. Pity began their editing career at The Age of Reason by removing some material on Michael Moore. As I spend most of my time at this article reverting removals of this material by vandals, I assumed Pitythafoo was a vandal as well. I may have been in error. Pitythafoo kept on editing. When I realized they might not be a vandal, I left a message on their talk page, asking them to cease making substantial edits to the page so that we could agree on the changes needed. When this did not deter them and I saw some very questionable edits being made - edits that dramatically changed the meaning of sentences to their opposites and edits that would render the citations meaningless - I started posting warnings on Pitythafoo's user page. I also posted a message on the article's talk page. I also requested semi-protection for the page until the problem could be resolved (it has been granted). Pitythafoo has finally started engaging in conversation (after the final block warning was left on their talk page - it was inexplicably deleted by a later editor). However, they do not seem interested in editing the article productively and keep attacking myself (the primary editor of the article) and accusing the article of being POV. They have not provided any specifics on this front, however. Moreover, they have changed editors' comments on the talk page, even the GA review, even after being told that we don't do that at wikipedia. Please temporarily ban Pitythafoo - I think that is what is appropriate, right? (Pitythafoo also seems to have started contributing under the IP address ). I am not faultless in this mess, but I do feel that Pitythafoo is not attempting to learn the ways of wikipedia or consensus-building. (I have never done anything like this before. Please inform me of any beaucratic lapses.) Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's a simple content dispute. The article is protected, and conversation is ongoing on the talk page. A block now would seem punitive. --Onorem♠Dil 11:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no real content dispute going on. Pitythafoo is not providing any constructive criticism or examples of problems with the article. Awadewit | talk 11:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute as Onorem describes it. Awadewit monitors the page extremely closely and refuses to allow any edits to it. This is evident in Awadewits strongly worded threats to me that took place over the 30 minutes I spent making small edits to the page. The page is not neutral and has an undertone (that is obvious to anyone who has read The Age of Reason) that is subversive and underhanded in its attempt to overlook very important major facets of the book and associate it with completely unrelated extremely controversial figures.

Awadewit has been completely dishonest and misleading about this situation. Awadewit has has made harsh threats then deleted them. Awadewit has very inappropriately and vengefully publicly listed my IP address (on this page, which i have deleted)despite the fact that I started signed all my postings afters it was explained to my that I should do so and how to do it. Please ban Awadewit for inappropriately listing my IP address. Awadewit has lied about me changing comments/GA edits after being asked no to do so--I simply changed a neutrality rating to "nay", because of my naivety in this process. I simply was under the impression that the neutrality rating was an open forum for anyone to adjust. After it was brought to my attention that this was not appropriate I apologized and have not done it since. Awadewit is clearly slandering me in an attempt to protect his/her article and prevent me from ever making any edits to it. This is extremely inappropriate, and unethical. Please ban Awadewit from making further slanderous and dishonest postings about me.Pitythafoo 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As it is clear that Awadewit calls any and all edits that he/she deems unfavorable, "vandalism", please block Awadewit from editing this article and reinstate my editing ability on the article.Pitythafoo 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article on the The Age of Reason is based on the work of major Paine scholars, such as historian Eric Foner. As I have repeatedly told Pitythafoo, I am willing to listen to criticisms regarding the failings of the article in terms of WP:V, WP:ATT, etc. Where does this article not represent the main lines of Paine scholarship?

Pitythafoo did not make innocuous changes to the page (there is a list on Talk:The Age of Reason of their changes linked to the diffs - they deleted entire sections and changed the meaning of sentences so as to make the citations meaningless and the intended meanings completely different. Also, they deleted Paine's own words.

Pitythafoo simply keeps reiterating that this article is "subversive" and "underhanded" but they have not demonstrated how - that is why this is not a content dispute.

The focus of the article is not to associate the AR with Michael Moore as Pitythefoo seems to be asserting - there is one sentence regarding him at the end of of the lead and the end of the article. Another editor who became involved yesterday asked for more sources - I provided them. I also removed Moore's picture. That issue has been resolved.

I began leaving calm messages and only escalated when Pitythafoo did not respond and kept making substantial changes. I have never lied and never deleted anything. Pitythafoo does not quite understand how wikipedia works - which is fine - but they do not seem interested in learning. Also, anyone can see their IP address when it is added by the program (I saw it on the talk page to the article and the editing history). I was simply trying to identify them to administrators. Pitythafoo - anyone can see your IP address in the page history - despite your attempts to erase it.

• Exactly--Awdewit saw my IP in the editing history because I edited my comments while, unknowingly, logged out. I IMMEDIATELY logged in within minutes and added my signature. Awadewit had to go into the history to find my IP address which Awadewit then posted here. It is obvoius that Awadewit has malicious intentions. Please ban Awadewit from deleting other user's edits of the "The Age of Reason" article and from attempting to slander and/or publicly post my IP address.Pitythafoo 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pitythafoo, you don't seem to quite understand. When you were logged off and signed your post on the talk page or the bot signed for you, it signed with your IP address. Anyone can see that. Also, anyone can read the history page. I was not slandering you - I was pointing out to the administrators that that IP address was the same person as User:Pitythafoo. Identifying posters is not malicious - it is informational. Awadewit | talk 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitythafoo did indeed change the GA review of another editor - see this diff. I did not realize they thought it was an "open forum" and I am not trying to slander them. To me, it looked like they were changing the review of another editor. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Reason consists of two parts--the first, written without access to a bible for reference and the second, which is a revision of the first edition. Paine rewrote The Age of Reason specifically for the purpose of citing specific passages in the bible which contain verifiable fallacies and extreme incongruence. 93% of the second version is spent outlining such problems with the bible. 93% ! This can be verified by merely looking at a copy of the book. I tried to add information pertaining to this to the Wiki article and Awadewit repeatedly deleted it, calling it, "the minutiae of Paine's Biblical analysis" and claiming that it is irrelevant! Shouldn't a Wiki article include a neutral description of what accounts for 93% of Paine's own writings?!Pitythafoo 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on The Age of Reason (a work composed of three parts, not two) is written in accordance with WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. It is based on the work of major Paine scholars. Any major scholarship that is missing should obviously be included and any inaccurate representations of that scholarship should obviously be fixed. I would gladly work with Pitythafoo to fix those. However, they have not provided any sources for their claims. All of this is explained in detail at the article's talk page. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig Cheffins

Negative rumors from facebook are being repeatedly input into the Craig Cheffins article by single-purpose-editor User:Policepowers. He has been warned that he will be blocked, but has ignored those warnings to do it again. --Rob 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violations. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr Ankur Sinha

Not sure where to put this but here we go.

On New Page patrol, this one came across the wire. A quick google showed this to be a cut and paste job from [here]. User:Dr Ankur sinha has tried to pass this off as his own. I can't even find a reference to him at all anywehre. I am pretty stunned that someone would cut and paste someone elses resume/cv and try to pass it off as their own. I am not sure if it is actionable or not but it definitely is copyvio. I guess I should not be stunned as I am seeing what people try to put on Wikipedia but this one moved me enough to post here. Spryde 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on Philip Bradbourn

Ground Potato (talk · contribs), a SPA continues to violate the 3RR rule on Philip Bradbourn after he has been advised and warned accordingly. [29] --Tikiwont 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ray gillespie (talk · contribs) has right now also reached the fence, and I've warned him. --Tikiwont 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Ground Potato (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. My impression is that his edit can be reverted without incurring any three revert rule problems under WP:BLP. Sam Blacketer 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!'s editing behaviour

Over the course of the last two weeks a great deal of sound and fury (most of it signifying nothing) has occurred at the WP:MOS. The proximate issue has been the inclusion of a gender-neutral advisement and the ultimate discussion is over the relative weight accorded the MoS itself.

OK, that's only meant for background; I'm here to talk about neither gender neutral language nor the MoS. Rather, there are serious issues with User:Radiant!'s behaviour that I think deserve scrutiny. So let's just imagine we're talking about Spoo, and not get lost in em dash diversions:

1. The reverting. Over the course of a week Radiant! has been repeatedly removing the GNL section, over the heads of multiple editors, including at least two other admins. After ringing up three in 24 over 17th/18th, he appears to have backed off.[30] "...wherein indeed various people including me could be viewed as disruptive" is a touch misleading because it was basically lone gun reverting on his part.
2. Moving the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to Wikipedia:Style [31] without discussion on the corresponding talk page. Truly weird. Having been told by people that it was rude and poor form, [32] [33] Radiant is still insisting: "Sam - I fail to see how renaming a single page can be considered disruptive by any stretch of the word."[34] This is an editor into his third year and a long time admin—I find the attitude frankly worrisome. (I thought we had move protect for a reason) When I pointed out that the page has had the title for approximately six years he called my response "shrubbery."
3. Lastly (and this is the one that ultimately prompts my posting here) Radiant has taken to a) placing archive tags around comments he doesn't like[35][36] and b) refactoring talk pages to suit his weight in a dispute.[37] After I reverted the refactoring in last link, he did it again.[38] The archive tags are just childish but refactoring a talk page to alter meaning is just not on. More importantly, Radiant ought to know that. Now, he might say "well, I wanted to compartmentalize that response" but it's still deceptive.

As a last point, practically every criticism presented to Radiant is greeted with a mention of WP:KETTLE or WP:NPA. Real show-stoppers. Taken individually, perhaps these behaviours could be ignored. Taken in sum, I see a very troublesome pattern. Marskell 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always a healthy level of sparring at the WP:MOS, but since Radiant! has arrived the quality of discussion has really deteriorated. I'm not saying that was his intent, but that's definitely been the result. I actually agree with Radiant! on most of the issues in question, but his attitude and behavior have made compromise nearly impossible. I've tried to appeal to Radiant!'s calmer side, as have many other editors. But edits like this are incredibly unhelpful, and only exacerbate the situation, and nobody on the other side is doing anything comparable to this. Everyone seems willing to work on these issues, but Radiant!'s disruptive and unilateral behavior is making the compromise I'd like to see slip further and further away. When moving the MOS (which seemed like a deliberate provocation to me, going behind people's backs to "get a clueful response," implying the participants at MOS lacked "clue") Radiant! also reformatted Template:Style-guideline to remove language referencing the MOS. This was never mentioned at the MOS talk page and caused all sorts of templature errors. Even though the errors were mentioned, and objections to the move raised, Radiant! reverted to the broken version of the template. --JayHenry 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! has been discussing issues outside of the fora where they should be discussed rather consistently now. [39] The latest example is this page move of WP:MOS with no discussion at the talk page of MOS, rather at WP:AN, and in spite of no consensus at AN. [40] These are not admin noticeboard issues. On the one hand, Radiant! has expressed that the "clueful" responses are from admins [41] (discounting the need to discuss with other editors on relevant talk pages), but reviewing User talk:Radiant!, it doesn't appear that Radiant! is heeding other admins or engaging in talk with them either. With Radiant! spreading the fire around and refactoring talk pages, it's hard to get to the bottom of Radiant!'s concern about something as trivial as dashes or resolve these issues on talk. It's strange that Radiant! asked other admins to watch the page move, while never mentioning or discussing the move on the relevant talk page. [42] [43] [44] The appearance is that Radiant! believes non-admins have no input of relevance. On a personal level, I'm worried: Radiant! has always been regarded as a good editor. It's painful to watch this sort of conduct unfold since my first response to what I thought was an innocent query on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I let User:Radiant! know about this thread. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I could charaterise Radiant!'s actions as having any sort of bad intent, but they are highly confusing, and in many cases (such as lone-wolf edit warring over the GNL section, or the refactoring of talk pages) impolite. I'm just thrown by the whole series of unfortunate events. SamBC(talk) 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this being here on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Is this a Request for Comment? What administrative action do you wish to see performed? If you are raising general behavioral problems, then a Request for Comment might suit you better, and lessen the amount of grousing needed in this section. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I had thought of that. As the above indicates, there's clearly behaviour worth talking about but user conduct RfCs are cumbersome and can be awfully drawn out. I consider AN/I a step you might take before an RfC. Advice to user: consider your behaviour. If that can be achieved amicably and quickly, this is the better forum. Marskell 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the Manual of Style violates the Manual of Style; it also encourages the deplorable tendency to treat that insufficiently thought-out mass of whims as though it descended from heaven. Radiant! was bold, after significant discussion at WP:AN; she was reverted; the thing to do now is to discuss, not waste ANI's time on this groundless complaint. (Mass of whims? Yes. One major stylistic decision is now being defended on the grounds that "my liberal arts electives insisted on one method at college; so I'll get back at them by insisting that Wikipedians use the other one." (This is a paraphrase of a much longer rant; but it's all in the diff.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the previous discussion was indeed largely favorable to Radiant's suggestions; the opposition consisting largely of somewhat heated complaints by Marskell himself. I last saw this tone in those who claimed that Esperanza was indispensible to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Diversion. (An expected one.) We're not talking about Manual of Style v. Style (perhaps it's good, perhaps bad—not the point). We're talking about: disruptive reverts; refactoring talk pages; the really weird decision to insert archive tags into active discussions; flaming header insertions; and moving long-established titles without discussion on the talk page in question. In short, we're talking about admin Radiant's editing behaviour—the page in question isn't the fundamental issue. Marskell 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Responding to your first complaint is now a diversion? Then please strike it. As for the rest of this:

• Radiant reverted an addition which she profoundly disagrees, denying it has consensus; this resulted in altering the language to remove a sentence which she reads as a mandate for GNL. That's how consensus-building is supposed to work.
• Radiant put a divbox about personal attacks by Tony, and comments on editor's actions by Sandy (and called them, arguably, a flame-war). So what? Some editors would have removed them.
• And your last complaint is the move, again. Radiant was bold, and was reverted. Your complaint is an appeal to a non-existent, bureaucratic, proceedural issue; there is no requirement to go to WP:RM if there appears to be consensus for a move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is, there is no consensus for this move anywhere. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Whoah, where did the mention of WP:RM come from? I think the talk page in question was WT:MOS, the talk page for the actual page that was moved. Elsewhise, your first point is fine, apart from the fact that she kept removing the version that no-one seemed to actually raise objection to on talk, whilst relabelling a supplementary document a proposal when no-one was suggesting that it should become a policy or guideline. This appears to have been resolved, but took more time and effort than it should have done to do so. No explanation was given as to the reason for the archive-boxes, and there does not appear to be any general agreement that they were personal attacks. I think that covers your points. SamBC(talk) 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do about DominvsVobiscvm?

DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) seems to be an inveterate revert-warrior. Last month it was at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, but since that page has been protected, he's moved to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. I tried protecting the page for three days, but in that time he never discussed the situation on the talk page; he merely pointed out an unrelated mistake an editor on the other side of the revert war had made in a comment. The other people involved (there are about three or four editors of the page who agree that Dom's additions to the article are inappropriate) have explained in great detail on the talk page why they consider his additions inappropriate, and why they're removing them, but he just reverts. Since keeping the page protected wasn't achieving any discussion, I unprotected it again, and the revert warring started back up. I blocked him for 24 hours for 3RR, but he was silent during his block, and when it expired he just came back and starting reverting again. I'm tempted to block him again, but I'm starting to think the only thing that will stop him revert-warring is to block him permanently. Ideas/suggestions? —Angr 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you explain to me why it's okay for everyone else to revert my edits, but I can't do likewise. Either you block everyone from editing, or you let me do it as much as anyone.DominvsVobiscvm 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Because when there are four or five people active on an article, and all but one of them agree on what belongs there, that's CONSENSUS. When the one person who disagrees stubbornly reverts to his preferred version, and refuses to even discuss it on the talk page, it's unacceptable and disruptive. —Angr 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<Morbo>WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo> If you're being told by four editors that your edits are unwelcome and they are backed by a sound reasoning, drop the shovel and get out of the hole you've already dug. Continuing like this usually ends in a block. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He is stuck in his POV and unable to reliquish it. What gets me is I'm pretty sure that not only is the meterial he is trying to insert unverifiable, I am now pretty sure that what the detractors are saying is not correct either, which is different. That is, even if unverifiable, they could still be accurate. I doubt that their claims are. They are just too ridiculous. Ironically, the material is perhaps an embarrassment to the writers of the RC sex abuse cases who may actually have a POV (hate Catholics), but are relatively careful about getting documentation. It spoils their article, I think because the claims are preposterous on their face. Dominvs is unable to perceive this. I do understand why Wikipedia is reluctant to block anyone permanently, but unless Dominvs can be physically/software restricted to non-Catholic articles he will need to be permanently blocked. I had hoped to avoid this, but I see no alternative. He is not a child that is going to "grow/mature" out of the rut that he is in.

Another idea: how about a "bot" to track him and revert his edits automatically to certain, or maybe all, Catholic articles. And, no, I don't know how to write a bot!  :) Anyway, this would allow him to continue editing, should he care to, other Wikipedia articles. It would avoid having to block him completely. Student7 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Reneeholle

user has removed the tag requested for opinion of other user's also has removed a request for citation for Hindi meaning of a word,[45] citation is not as per WP:RS Sahaj without useing talk page Rushmi 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rushmi posted an RFC tag in the wrong place (second time he's done this -- here's the diff of the first, which an admin fixed).

One other editor corrected Rushmi's editing here and I added a reference here per WP:SPS. I noted both on the talk page, here and here.

--Renee 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot shutdown required

SmackBot is inserting references sections in the portal namespace. In most cases, this is undesirable, and SmackBot does not respect reversions of its actions, but persists in making the change, see [46]. Maintainer Rich Farmborough has put a msg at the top of his talk page to say that he will be away for weeks or months, and the shutoff button can only be operated by admins. Separa 17:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See log here. Separa 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's undesirable? Without the bot's edits, there are footnote links that don't link anywhere; the footnotes should probably be removed. --ais523 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - why add references, if you don't want them displaying? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The note doesn't say that at all. It says I will be away over the coming weeks and months - I will not be running the bot when I am away. The shut-off can be operated by anyone apart from IP's and new users. Ais523 is correct the footnote should be removed, along with the new insertion, if required, there should not be footnote links that go nowhere.Rich Farmbrough, 17:30 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I've re-added the reflist. Having references / footnotes without any way to display them can be very confusing, especially to new users. I'm not sure why, but, I've seen this in a couple cases, for some reason, a few people out there, like having articles with no way to display the references... (BTW: There were almost 17,000 such articles earlier this month, before Rich put time into getting SmackBot to work my list...) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

In the article Nazism, the User:EliasAlucard, for example here and the User:Mitsos, for example here repeatedly make an edit which results in a) the insertion of a direct (that is, in the form of a primary source) Hitler-quote b) the insertion of a direct (primary source) Goebbels-quote. In my, and other editors opinion, unmediated direct quotes, in which criminals explain their world-view, should not be used as a primary source. Since EliasAlucard and Mitsos don't respond to this argument on Talk:Nazism#Sentence_about_Sparta_removed, I request either to fully protect Nazism (in a version without the quotes) for a certain time (say some weeks), or to ban EliasAlucard and Mitsos from editing the article. --Schwalker 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have successfully protected The Wrong Version for a period of 1 week, or until you can achieve some kind of consensus on the talk page. I'm a long period of edit warring, by multiple editors. And, no, I'm not getting involved in your content dispute — I'll protect the page in the state its found. --Haemo 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see EliasAlucard replying to you three times on the talkpage you mention. This looks like a simple content dispute to me - IMO, brief quotes from leading members of a political party are perfectly valid in an article about that party's ideology (there are multiple quotes from Dick Cheney et al on Neoconservatism). Whether it belongs in the main article, or the separate Nazi eugenics article, seems to be the matter under debate. Personally, I agree with you as otherwise it's a content fork, but there are at least valid arguments for having it on the main page, and agree with protecting it to stop you all revert-warring over this.

I don't think there's any merit at all in the "Please don't give nazis a stage by quoting them" argument, incidentally; Wikipedia is not censored, and primary sources are perfectly legitimate when they're a simple statement of fact along the lines of "X believed this; here's a quote of him saying so". — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what Schwalker's problem is, but he seems to have NPOV-issues as far as this topic goes. He removed the quote becase he thought the website was some kind of anonymous blog. I subsequently provided two other websites, one of which is a governmental one, where the quote is listed, which to me, complies with WP:RS. Why Schwalker wants the quote removed, is totally beyond me, but banning me from editing the article when I've done nothing wrong, seems like a very severe approach. Look, it's a Hitler quote, all right? If you can disprove this quote's validity, then it has nothing to do in the article (perhaps it should be in Adolf Hitler's Wikiquote misquoted section). However, so far, you haven't proven jackshit (excuse my French) as far as this quote being false goes. Why are you opposed to include this quote in the article? I just don't get it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:55 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga use of admin tools in a dispute

There is a dispute at Wikipedia:Article message boxes over the redesign of these boxes. I placed a disputed policy tag on the project page. Other users then edit warred over it, so the page was protected by AzaToth.[47] User:Violetriga has been heavily involved in the dispute, but unprotected the project page, in agreement with those on her side of the dispute.[48] I pointed out to Violetriga that this was an inappropriate use of admin tools and asked her to revert. She didn't but responded, "That's a bit silly really."[49] There is still a dispute over the guideline, and there is still a dispute over the disputed tag, which has been removed again and which I have restored. Violetriga has agreed the guideline is disputed.[50] I would be grateful if the week-long protection could be restored. It would be a good thing to have a pause for discussion and wider editor involvement at this point. Also Violetriga should be cautioned not to use admin tools when she is an involved editor. Tyrenius 19:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm marginally involved in this "dispute," it's my opinion that Violetriga acted in good faith and didn't intend to abuse his / her admin tools, s/he simply wanted to allow editing to the article with the agreement that the disputed tag would remain. --MZMcBride 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest, man. This really isn't a dispute at all. From what I see, people are getting along and we're discussing even more great ideas on how to format these templates. There's no fire here, not anymore. -- Ned Scott 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute. I see a discussion. --Haemo 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Violet an edit warrior in the dispute? FunPika 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see lots of dispute. But the {{disputed}} tag means there's a dispute over whether or not the page should be a guideline. Disputes over how to change the page don't warrant a disputed tag, or else nearly every guideline and policy in Wikipedia would have one.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:54, 09/18/2007

The dispute is about the content and the recent changes, basically over most of what is on the page. Tyrenius 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in discussion on Wikipedia:Article message boxes, I concur with MZMcBride that Violetriga acted in good faith. What I wonder is, what would she have to gain from the page being unprotected? "Don't use your admin tools in a dispute you're involved with" doesn't mean you can never use your buttons on any page you happen to edit regularly. I think she unprotected because (a) it was a short and silly edit war that (b) was unlikely to repeat itself, and (c) because of the many changes involved in the article message box standardization project, it's more beneficial to open the page to editing than to leave it protected. szyslak 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in trying to make trouble in this way. You seem to ignore the fact that I agreed that the tag should remain and specifically said so when I unprotected the page. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try as I might, I'm really struggling to see anything that be even faintly construed as a potentially dubious use of any sort of buttons. Moreoever "ZOMG Violetriga is evil sysop" threads at ANI are getting just a tad tiresome. Moreschi ^Talk 20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of "ZOMG [insert admin here] is an [evil/abusive/corrupt] sysop" threads in general. In fact, your comment has inspired a new WP:RAUL law: "In any discussion on WP:AN or WP:ANI about how someone is an evil/abusive/corrupt/immoral sysop, the odds that the admin in question is indeed evil, abusive, corrupt or immoral are about 1 in 100,000." szyslak 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid strawman arguments. There is no mention of evil. Then presumably you have no objection if I reprotect the page as an involved editor. Tyrenius 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do, that would be wheel warring! No, not seriously. Actually, I think we should all wheel war a bit more and talk a bit less. Not enough actually gets done on this wiki. Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not a straw man argument. This indeed began as a "Violetriga is a bad sysop" thread, whether one uses the word "evil" or not. szyslak 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My first accusation of being a rouge/evil/abusive admin was six months before I was given the admin bit. For a month or so earlier this year (I was doing image deletions, natch) my day wasn't complete without at least one shrieking mental pointing out how I was rouge/evil/abusive and should be hung/drawn/quartered forthwith. Therefore, when I see thread like this here, I'm sorry, but my first thought is not "OMG!!!!!!! ROUGE ADMIN!! STOP EVERYTHING!". It's "oh, another mentalist, perhaps his/her contribs need to be examined more closely". I doubt I'm alone in this (well, perhaps the language, but not the sentiment) and I think we might need a note somewhere to say to the specials who pitch up here "Administrators will examine the edits of all who are involved and your own edits may therefore be considered". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are heavily involved and not in a position to make an objective judgement. That should be left to an univolved admin. As it happens, as soon as the page was unprotected, the dispute tag was removed again. Tyrenius 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the presence (or lack thereof) of the tag, which is the main thing here. Please go and try and come up with something constructive in our discussions rather than going on about this nothingness. violet/riga (t) 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that the tag wasn't removed again until more than fourteen hours after the page was unprotected, I can no longer assume that you're acting in good faith. —David Levy 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga did not remove the dispute tag. He/she just unprotected the page so we could continue to improve it. So Tyrenius, you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Personally I was very surprised that AzaToth protected the page after the dispute tag had only been removed twice. It wasn't like the page was heavily vandalised or something. The one who have done several strange things as an admin in this case is AzaToth, but that is another story. And previous to that I was also surprised that the box at the top of the page was changed from "how-to guide" to "guideline" this early. Don't we have a box for "suggested guideline" or so? And of course, if some say they dispute the guide then of course it is disputed. Although it seems to be a very small but very vocal group who do the disputing. So though I was/am involved in formulating and implementing this guide I agree that for the time being it should have the dispute box on top but that the page should be unprotected. (Even thought I was pretty satisfied with that version so the protection was more beneficial to us who is for this guide than the disputers I think.) By the way, the dispute box itself doesn't hinder our work so it really doesn't disturb.

--David Göthberg 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

{{proposed}}, yes. That probably would've been a better way to go.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:51, 09/18/2007

In fact, it was tagged as {{proposed}} until just a few days ago. But the changes have been implemented without mass edit warring on the templates between supporters and opponents of the change, so I don't think it's still "proposed". szyslak 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside Opinion: Well I am not involved in this dispute at all nor have I edited the page. IMHO I do not see gross abuse of the tools here. Though I'm not in favor of undoing protections without some discussion with the protecting admin (especially when a page has been protected so recently)...I still do not see how the unprotection is going to be drastically harmful at this point? The only significant dispute to date is the actual use of the dispute tag on the page. Its not like the entire guideline is being worked around or hacked away by multiple editors. The visual design is just being discussed and tweaked. <humor>Its not like we are having editors warring over whether a circle instead of a box should be used for the tags</humor>. All that there is to this matters is that it might have been more considerate for Violetriga to propose the unprotection first.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, some discussion did take place here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Protection.3F before the unprotection. -Chunky Rice 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, {{ambox}} is not gonna disappear anymore. People will probably fight forever over the designs, but what else is new. I saw proper discussion on the talk page, and no movement in the large to undo all the work. When i removed the disputed tag, i did this with the editsummary: Even Reinis said: "Please note that what's being disputed is the design, not the standardization as such.") Reinis being one of the most vocal anti-AMB people. Really i don't see why this is a disputed guideline. It's a guideline under active discussion at most. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga and I have not always seen eye-to-eye, but I'm utterly disgusted by Tyrenius' absurd accusation of impropriety. At this point, I'm convinced that Tyrenius is not interested in actually discussing the relevant issues in good faith (and instead seeks to wear down opponents by making as much noise and stirring up as much trouble as possible). —David Levy 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet Coffee Phone -- concerted attack

Earlier this afternoon, User:Eskimoscott posted an article called Internet Coffee Phone, which was a call for vandalism -- the article urged users to insert the phrase "Internet Coffee Phone" into random articles. Although I immediately deleted the article, there have been at least 2 users conducting such vandalism since then: User:220.239.145.179 and User:Junaide. All of these users are now blocked, but keep an eye out for this and immediately block any other user who does this. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:152.33.66.64 - I'm not an admin, can someone do the honours? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.99.154.98 was another. Already blocked though. --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also User:Chadrod123 - and someone needs to keep a close eye on the ICP Campaign article, which probably needs to be reverted to the legit version & protected — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Internet Coffee Phone.jpg, too — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Mr.Z-man 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've semiprotected ICP Campaign. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note -- the four anon IPs so far are totally unrelated (they are from Australia, England, New Port Richey FL, and Elon College in North Carolina. NawlinWiki 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A tribute to the global brotherhood Wikipedia brings... — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:24.231.74.76 - 4 times, all reverted — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:152.42.162.112 - this is starting to get tedious... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this was started at 4chan. See this unreliable source. NawlinWiki 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the word to Lupin's bad word list. Can anyone check to make sure I did so correctly?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Groan. More 4chan shit. While we're at it, could you add "So I Herd You Liek Mudkips" [sic] to that list? Mudskipper and List of Pokémon (241-260) have also been under constant 4chan attack because of this meme, and both are semi'd currently (right after a two-week full-prot). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"[Mm]udkip[sz]" in regex speak, I think. Will ^(talk) 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Lupin's tool is case insensitive, I've added "you li(ke|ek) mudkip(s|z)", which should cover it. Confusing Manifestation 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Throw in User:68.40.24.68, though only once. --Calton | Talk 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hours; I'm not taking chances with this meme. --Haemo 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Being as a fair number of the concerted attacks on wikipedia appear to be coming from 4chan, why are they allowed to have an article here? I mean yeah, okay 'Encyclopedia of everything' and all that, but it kind of strikes me as ironic that they can cause chaos like this and we still have an article on them. HalfShadow 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like removing someone's article is a form of punishment. 4chan is a notable website, and so it warrants a virtual encyclopedia page. Keeping 4chan's article would just mean that they are notable/encyclopedic/???, not that they aren't troublesome. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason 4chan is notable is because of all the controversies surrounding it and some of its unruly users (thankfully they still mainly edit Wikipedia with IPs). We have articles on Wikipedia critics, too, IIRC. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely useless sidenote: We're ranked way higher than 4chan on the so-called unreliable source above. You Can't Review Me!!! 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hgielyakk, two edits. I reverted both. —BurnDownBabylon 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Can something please be done about User:SqueakBox? He's deleted sourced information from articles before based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now he's made another edit to Axl Rose (previously he had deleted information from the article as 'unsourced', blithely ignoring text with footnotes and checkable online sources) with a very threatening edit summary, [51] claiming that the editors who work on the page are "abusive," threatening "mediation and RfC" if anyone reverts his edit, etc. Frankly this user's behavior is on the verge of abusive, seems to violate both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and is disruptive, and I don't think he should be allowed to try to strong-arm other editors this way. DanielEng 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• SqueakBox is a reasonable guy, he is pretty hot on WP:BLP but undoubtedly not averse to a civil discussion about things. Bold, revert, discuss - try the third of these now. Especially since it looks to me as if he's right, the category is not for the purpose for which it's apparently being used. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Squeakbox that the cat appeared to be inappropriate to the article, so I don't have a problem with its deletion at all. I do' have a problem with threats and personal attacks against other editors as he made in his edit summary. In my past dealings with him I have found him to be stubborn, unreasonable and capable of disruptive edits...a while back he was trying to tweak admin guidelines to suit his purposes. DanielEng 21:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit over the top, but mediation or an RfC would be a reasonable dispute resolution path for this conflict. -Chunky Rice 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that there was no edit war going on here. If there had been, mediation might be an option. Threatening it when one makes their first edit to specific content is completely out of line. DanielEng 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The child abuse victim category that was disputed is now deleted and thius re-insertion of a wrong category was not acceptable. This is the second time in 2 days I have been reported here for things that dont require admin intervention. Why? I notice Dan making generalisations about me that are basically a PA, and without diffs to back himself up, SqueakBox 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My name is Daniel. Not Dan. As I said on my comment to you on your Talk Page, deleting the cat would have been fine. When the previously debated cat was removed by consensus, that was cool and nobody questioned it. Pointing out the cat was being used out of context would have been fine, since the editors tending to the page (including myself) obviously hadn't caught it. Leaving a threatening edit summary saying "My edit! Revert and I'm RfCing you!" was not. I should point out that there was no edit war happening; this was the first time he came in and deleted that cat, and nobody had objected. As to my "generalizations," exhibit A, Squeakbox deleting stuff from a Wiki-wide admin guideline page based solely on his personal opinion: [52] exhibit B, Squeakbox claiming material is "unsourced and not in text," when in fact it was cited and in the first paragraph, he just couldn't be bothered to read it? [53]DanielEng 21:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Put down the Spider-Man suit and step away from the Reichstag. This does not require admin intervention, and it can probably be solved by stopping the huffing and puffing and actually engaging in discussion. I've blocked SqueakBox before now for other things, but he has consistently impressed me with his self-awareness and philosophical attitude. Try actually being nice about things, and I'm sure it will pay dividends. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there was nothing wrong with being bold on the deletion guide for admin page, that is why we have an edit button, if I had edit warred over that point it would have been different thought he policy clearly is a violation of one of our pillars, do no harm. Axl stating he belioeved he was sexually molested by his father is not enough reason to include him in the cat (now deleted as inappropriate for obvious reasons) and indeed without firm evidence shopuld be removed as outing his father based on hearsay so again your claim that I hadnt read the Rose article is another mistaken allegation on your part. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me which concerns me, and because of my attempting to impose BLP policy and thus do no harm, and that concerns me more. Your claim that admins have specail editing priovileges [54] shows a popor understanding of how things work here, it doesnt work like that. So what exactly do you want tdone about me, Daniel? SqueakBox 21:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that a) the admin guideline page very clearly stated that any changes made should be done with consensus. In addition, if you recall, you told me yourself you had read the Rose article and "couldn't find" the information,[55] so you are changing your story here. Not to mention that if you had read the source given, you would have noticed that Rose's father is DEAD, so there is no BLP vio involved. DanielEng 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And pray what adnmin intervention is needed here? If Rose's father ids dead or alo=ibve makes no difference to our duty to respect thim and not publish gossip allegations about him that are unproven. And indeed I did read the article and could find no relaible source that he had suffered child sexual abuse. Consensus is suggested but an edit button does leave one free to edit and I was using my judgenment based on consdiderable experience of both lif and wikipedia, and no one even reverted for 3 days. it appears you are greasping for straws with which to attack me because you feel angry but please do not use me as a scapegoat for your anger. thanks, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a content dispute. --Haemo 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isnt even that as Daniel agrees the cat should have been removed, SqueakBox 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so SqueakBox's edit is agreeable, but the edit summary is not ... ok. I'm a bit confused. SqueakBox may have had a "threatening" edit summary, but it is a threat of action within Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. That is a perfectly acceptable threat. Then an RfC would come, and we would all comment, and you and SqueakBox would know what the consensus of the community is. Isn't that a good thing? If there were even a content dispute in the first place... --Iamunknown 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think that SqueakBox is not "a reasonable guy [...] undoubtedly not averse to a civil discussion". He was on personal attack parole for a year, got blocked twice in the process, was blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, routinely accuses people standing in his way of having a pedophile agenda [56] [57] [58], of being trolls [59] [60], he routinely uses the "I know Wikipedia better than you so please shut up now" argument [61] [62]. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

205.202.240.144 (shared) vandalizing

IP 205.202.240.144 (shared IP) has been vandalizing pages for almost a year, and has been blocked more than once. The IP vandalized the page on Ernie Chambers three times, even after being warned since January 2006 at User talk:205.202.240.144, and blocked on and off since March 2007. Needless to say, this IP needs to be blocked. --Piroteknix 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly broad range of pages that have been vandalised. Semi-protection won't help. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a middle school computer lab or library or what, but the vandal(s) don't seem very mature, saying Chambers was born to alien parents and Lois and Peter Griffin, and that he was born on 23/23/2323. --Piroteknix 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User Calton

Why does [63] this behavior continue to be allowed? I was blocked for harassing Calton a few days ago, and I freely admit that I was, but I am just so frustrated at the way he is continually allowed to abuse editors, and administrators, on occasion. Why isn't he at least reprimanded, or told to be civil? 66.35.127.0 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't abuse you, he told you what Wikipedia's policies are. He wasn't overly nice to you, but as you freely admit you don't deserve the kindness of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors, who are actually spending their free time writing an encyclopedia rather than harassing others and filing bogus complaints. If you can't handle frank and sometimes rough talk then frankly you should be contributing to the Tellytubbies Wikia. 81.86.235.169 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't take you to any type of abuse that Calton gave to me. It takes you to an example (one of many) of Calton abusing someone who has been a long-time, productive editor at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad. It's barely even incivil. If you have a problem with his behavior, then I suggest you discuss it with him, or file a request for comment. This oblique "look at this edit" nonsense is totally unproductive. --Haemo 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I've never made a link before, I didn't give you as much information as I intended. How about this [64] So if he only breaks the rules a "little" bit, that is ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on anyone's conduct, I second Haemo's recommendation that concerned editors engage Calton in discussion or file a request for comment. The messages regularly left here pointing administrators to a single edit by Calton are, at best unhelpful, as nothing has ever come of them and, at worst, disruptive, whether intentionally or not. ("Disruptive" is not a characterisation of any individual editors, but a general comment on the effect these types of messages have to this noticeboard.) --Iamunknown 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here, move along now. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not my intention to be disruptive, so I will make one more comment in this particular discussion then quiet down for the moment. It would seem to me that if messages are being regularly left here about Calton's behavior, that should be a red flag. But if your point is that people are reporting them only one at a time, then I will solve that problem. Here...[65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. That's only going back to September 5th. Several of these were to users who were confused about something and were just looking for help and/or clarification.

User evading block

A user recently admitted he was a sockpuppet of an indef. blocked user [74]. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mhgraham77

Would somebody please block Mhgraham77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated BLP violations at Cecil O. Samuelson? Several editors have explained to him/her why their repeated assertions that their college president is a fascist and making comparisons to Hitler are not correct, but he/she keeps re-adding them. I posted this at WP:AIV but it's still sitting there. Corvus cornix 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attack after return from block

Per this ANI complaint, User:Iwazaki was warned by admin Lexicon and subsequently based on this personal attack was blocked for 48 hours. The block was upheld by admin Haemo. After the return from his block he accuses me of being a Sock of Wikrama who is User:Wikramadithya. (see here).

In his edit summary he wrote

(reply to wikrama).

His older accusation that I am user Wikramadithya is here. Hence this is continuation of his Harassment of me. Thanks Taprobanus 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but there is a request for comment currently open on Lexicon for the block outlined in this discussion. --Haemo

It was closed. Thanks Taprobanus 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anyways, as an outside user who knows nothing about the whole underlying editorial issue here, it's clear that User:Iwazaki's problem is that he doesn't appear to understand, or care, that making accusations about another editor is productive, and can be incivil. The above charge of sockpuppetry is one example, but when I reviewed the previous block, it was clear that not only did he see nothing wrong about making claims that another users has "racist" off-Wiki affiliations, but that he was indeed correct to do so. This is not an isolated incident on his part. He perhaps best puts his views in this edit or this exchange, where he explains that since he believes his accusations of bias in other people, both on and off-Wiki, are accurate that he is free to make them. Now, I could really care less about his views of an author, but the same opinion he routinely extends to other editors. It's incivil, and disruptive. He doesn't appear to have learned anything from his block, and will probably continue attacking other users until something serious happens. --Haemo 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

10-year old gives real name

A new user, Mgeller234 (talk · contribs), has just written his autobiography on Wikipedia. I moved it to his userspace, but after doing that, I noticed that he claims to be 10 years old, and gives out what appears to be his real name and his probable city of residence. Please advise on what to do. Should his userpage be deleted? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things, delete the page and the restore all but the diff in which he hadds the personal information. Then email oversight and tell them about it. at WP:OVERSIGHT. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs to be deleted and oversighted ASAP. --Haemo 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but what is the policy basis for this? And where is the line? If a 15 year old puts personal information on their user page, is that allowable? 17? 18? Just curious. -Chunky Rice 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, out of precaution, edited out the personal information, but I will delete and contact oversight. Thanks for the quick response. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)