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

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.[1] "...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 [2] without discussion on the corresponding talk page. Truly weird. Having been told by people that it was rude and poor form, [3] [4] Radiant is still insisting: "Sam - I fail to see how renaming a single page can be considered disruptive by any stretch of the word."[5] 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[6][7] and b) refactoring talk pages to suit his weight in a dispute.[8] After I reverted the refactoring in last link, he did it again.[9] 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. [10] 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. [11] These are not admin noticeboard issues. On the one hand, Radiant! has expressed that the "clueful" responses are from admins [12] (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. [13] [14] [15] 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)

• • Actually she did object to the version she removed, quite strongly; so did I, until some concessions were made. As for the divboxed comments, look at the diffs. All of them contain personal comments (a couple with a small amount of other material); some are personal attacks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD: "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces. Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can have far reaching consequences. This is because category changes – and even more so template changes – can affect a large number of pages with a single edit." This has changed since I last read it, but the general point has been there for some time. Sorry, we're not passing this off with a nod to BOLD.

And placing the archive tag around postings that were minutes old is childish and insulting. I mean really Pma, it's fine to defend your friend, but you look silly arguing in favour of silly practices. There were no personal attacks from Tony to speak of, incidentally.

But this isn't accomplishing much. I'd just like some indication from Radiant that these editing behaviours won't continue. Marskell 09:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some comments to make, but not here. This should be an RFC. Carcharoth 09:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this were an RFC, I might comment, but I see no point in doing so here. A Musing 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! hasn't edited since the thread started, so we can wait. Marskell 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From a sysop, such as Radiant, editors expect an ability and willingness to calm tempers, settle disputes, ensure that normal procedures are observed, and be a good citizen as a model to all. But she has displayed the very opposite of these behaviours in the past several weeks; as a result, WP has become a struggle and a drain on time and energy. I'm sorry if I've not handled her with greater diplomacy during this time; however, I do note that when I offered an olive branch, it was rebuffed as ingenuous. I'm willing to believe that she's a respected WPian, and hope that things will settle so that we can all contribute in the relatively calm environment that pertained before things came off the rails. Tony (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant is waging a good-faith campaign to roll back instruction creep, generally to good effect. The result is a lot of disgruntled process wonks and a few genuinely confused people (because the disputes seem to spread everywhere). I'd suggest a WikiProject:Processcruft, but that would be processcruft... Guy (Help!) 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Process wonk? Moi? Surprised—at the accusation, and that you would sanction such poor editing behaviour. Marskell 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was including you in confused people because the arguments have spread everywhere. Point is, what Radiant! needs is more support, not more crap. Rolling back instruction creep is a noble goal. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To quickly respond to the above,

(1) there is substantial discussion about that section on the talk page, and various incarnations of it have included weasel words, incorrectly summarized the page it referred to, and/or been inserted through badgering. Calling this "lone gun reverting" is a blatant misrepresentation of what's going on.

(2) it was discussed here, where several people expressed strong support and several others said it wouldn't help. Renaming a single page after discussing it is truly not disruptive by any stretch of the word, and saying that a page can't be moved simply because it hasn't been moved for a long time is really not an argument.

(3) certain people respond to content discussion by attacking the person initiating the discussion, thus having the former drowned out by the latter. I am trying to keep the thread about content separate from the thread about conduct. If you want to complain to or about me, that's all fine and dandy, but do not do that in a thread about the MOS content; there's plenty of other sections, and I have a talk page for a reason. This has nothing to do with "suiting my weight", and calling it deception is, once more, a blatant misrepresentation.

(4) and I'm mentioning NPA because several people, in particular Marskell and Tony, have used many ad hominems in their responses lately. I suppose it is human nature to not see attacks as problematic as long as they're made by someone on your side of the debate. That does not, however, make them acceptable.

So in summary, the report above is highly biased and lopsided; it strongly exaggerates and assumes bad faith of one side of the dispute, and entirely ignores misbehavior on the other side of the dispute. We're having a simple content dispute here, and we would have resolved it by now if there weren't so many unproductive personal remarks around. See next thread for a suggestion on how to tackle this. >Radiant< 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! you never mentioned or discussed the move of the page at the page, while you did ask other admins to tend to your move. Do you consider that good editing practice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it was discussed. It is easy to demand that it should have been discussed some place else, but this is not productive and merely bureaucratic. Had the debate been on the talk page, people could have asked for WP:RM; had it been at RM, people could have asked for debate at the village pump, and so forth. That's pretty circular. >Radiant< 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty well (and widely) accepted that the first place to discuss a move is on the talk page for the page in question. If it had, it would likely have been referred off to the village pump, or at least linked there. It's a major, core guideline page, and a short (physically and temporally) discussion that most of the regular contributors to the page didn't know about simply isn't sufficient. No-one has claimed that it was sufficient except you, as far as I can see. SamBC(talk) 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Talking about a page rename on WP:AN is like talking about deleting a category at WP:ANI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• And the people who claimed it was insufficient have undone the change and continued discussing it. That is called WP:BRD. For the issue that "Radiant did something that some others disagreed with, this has now been reverted and is being discussed", it strikes me as a severe overreaction to create an ANI thread to claim that "Radiant is a disruptive lone gun revert warrior who is rude, worrisome, childish, ignorant, deceptive and troublesome".
• In other words, like I said already, the report above is highly biased and lopsided; it strongly exaggerates and assumes bad faith of one side of the dispute, and entirely ignores misbehavior on the other side of the dispute; and the simple content dispute we're having here would have been resolved by now if there weren't so many unproductive personal remarks around. >Radiant< 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your "Radiant is..." summary there of what those irritated with you have to say about your actions latelt, I personally would remove some of those words. But I think a few of them tend to stick, too. It's not like this is "Tony1, alone, picking on Radiant just to be a jackass"; this is a substantial number of editors with criticisms for you. It might be constructive to listen to them and think about what they are saying and do a little self-analysis. And yes, of course, the views they express are biased; they are people, not computers, and are irritated people, and are not psychic empaths who know precisely what it is you feel about the situations under discussion, and ergo cannot be expected represent your side of the coin. So calling this "biased and lopsided" is about like opening a letter to your Senator (or MP, or whatever), "I'm a voter and a taxpayer, and I'm writing because..." It's assumed and understood already by everyone present. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thread Moderator

What this needs, simply, is a thread moderator. I and several others are trying to hold a discussion about the content of the MOS. Other people are trying, in the same threads, to talk about user conduct, which has run the full gamut from asking whether process was followed, to calling me a motherfucking nazi (and no, that's not in the least exaggerated). Whether this is the result of passion for a hot-button issue, or of clever rhetoric, is not the issue; the point is that this second type of discussion is making the first impossible.

This is an encyclopedia. It is ALWAYS about content. The best way to proceed here is to archive the MOS/FAC talk pages and start a fresh discussion about the content issue, and have a volunteer who is neutral on the issue who will swiftly move any and all comments that are off-topic or not about the content to a different page. >Radiant< 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But will you swear off the behaviours outlined above? I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who refactors and arbitrarily archives posts. That you have just reverted JayHenry on the template does not bode well. Marskell 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about a solution to people interrupting a content debate with conduct debate. It strikes me as ironic that you interrupt the debate on that solution with conduct debate. Aside from that, Marskell, will you swear to stop beating your wife? >Radiant< 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If user conduct is seriously disrupting a debate over content, then an interruption is in order. Suggesting that we can't pause over your reverting and bizarre talk edits because It is ALWAYS about content is dissembling. Having been told as much by eight or so good faith editors, I was expecting you might finally see a little sunlight. I take the last as a no. Marskell 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be continual attempts to deflect the discussion away from the actions by Radiant that numerous people, including me, regard as having been highly disruptive to normal process. I'm sure that we're all willing to have a content debate, but I for one want an end to the tactics that have been outlined above by Marskell and others; they've been destructive to the whole fabric of congenial debate that is central to WP's culture and product. I think we all want to return to an environment of trust; that is hard at the moment. I just glaze over when I read the deflections. Tony (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you complain about the sawdust in another's eye, remove the log from your own. >Radiant< 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he who is without sin and all that, in other words... better desysop... well... everyone. SamBC(talk) 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you continue without fail to do exactly what I described: deflect criticism or requests for a change in behaviour. You do it either by steering the issues onto a superficially related topic, by using this KETTLE thing (which you've done here in effect WRT to my posting), or by accusing people of personal attack. It's all too easy to predict by now. I understand the impulse for these reactions: you believe the criticism is unjustified and the result of a cabal that is out to get you, and you attack; I wish you would see it otherwise. This has been getting nowhere, and is stopping the emergence of a calmer environment in which trust can be rebuilt. It looks as though you've built a solid wall around yourself, impervious to attempts to resolve the matter. The project needs you to re-enter the collaborative, collegial environment. Please? Tony (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a moderator might be a good idea. It is not appropriate for Radiant! to continue as both primary disputant and self-appointed moderator and arbiter. --JayHenry 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We're all admins and/or long term contributors here; we should be able to work this out. Outside voices would be good but this particular thread has gone nowhere. Marskell 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have not been involved in this thread, nor in the cited issues relating to WP:MOS, I would like to volunteer to serve as moderator. Walton^One 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good. And let's hope that everybody can agree to put down the sticks and step away from the horse carcass. Incidentally, I like the new infobox designs, in case anyone's interested. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 21 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)

Hallo iridescent,

Dick Cheney is not a racist as far as I know. There seems to be only one quote of him in the arcticle Neoconservatism#1990s, which isn't sourced at all. Thus, since it stems from neither a primary nor a secondary nor a tertiary source, in my opinion the Cheney quote it is no good precedent for the Nazism article.

No, whether to put the H.quote on Nazism or Nazi eugenics is not the main matter of debate I had tried to discuss on Talk:Nazism#Sentence_about_Sparta_removed.

The process by which the now blocked version of Nazism has been created seems to be as follows: Hitler writes a book in 1928, which is kept secret, and first (incidentially illegaly) published in 1961 in an obscure translation, which in turn is cited by some anonymous blogger on wikipedia (to support an anachronist interpretation of Sparta, as user:Tazmaniacs has pointed out). Or, G. writes a booklet, which is published in 1932, which is translated into English by some anonymous, this translation is cited by some anonymous blogger on Wikipedia. As a result, since there is no critical historian or renowned instance with a real world name in between, Wikipedia is written by G. and H without any critical control. On the other hand, the victims of the racist and eugenics policy don't get an equal chance to spread their opinion about nazism. We can't expect that this process will result in a NPOV article.

--Schwalker 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to spread anyone's opinion about anything, merely to report on it. We have an article about Adolph Hitler not because anyone wants to spread his opinion or spread hating Hitler or anything - we have an article on Hitler because he is notable. Similarly, we have articles on many victims of racist and eugencist policies, but again, not because we are intending to spread any kind of message. We have articles on Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank, Carrie Buck, ad inifinitum, because these people are notable. The victims of racism and eugenics don't get to spread their opinion because no one gets to spread their opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not an inspirational tract. Natalie 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart of the problems arising from the indiscriminate use of primary sources (see WP:PSTS), User:Elias has not respected the standard way of citing sources: "Say where you got it" and please do not modify it. The "source" advanced by Elias was not "Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book (1961)", as he claimed, but Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006; on-line on March 14, 2006), who cites Hitler. Mathúna's citation does not say that Hitler said that Sparta was the first National-Socialist State, but: "Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state." Finally, there is an undue weight problem arising from the insertion of this quote in this small subsection. Tazmaniacs 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing this out but of all the things you could fight about on that talk page this is the best you could do? Seriously, this is not a major issue. The Sparta thing is not at all an important part of Nazism as an ideology (which I presume we can agree is the actual topic of the article). To fight about this to the point where protection is needed is just way out of proportion with the actual dispute here. EconomicsGuy 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EconomicsGuy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:48 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Mitsos 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, I do accept that Wikipedia does not exist to spread anyone's opinion. To make the point clear, I repeat that the problem is that the article in the current form does spread Hitler's and Goebbels' (and their followers) opinions.

EconomicsGuy, I suggest that you read carefully for example the Nazism article, or the diff-links I've posted above, before commenting. Than you will see that two editors try to push into the article a quote by Hitler demanding the destruction of "weak, sick or deformed" children, and a quote by Goebbels spouting antisemitic libels. So no, this not just about a "Sparta thing".

I don't reply directly to EliasAlucard here, who on Talk:Nazism, when politely asked to "review WP:CITE#HOW" answers with phrases like "This is getting lame.", "Do you have something else to pester me about this?". So please excuse me when I try to avoid to annoy others by addressing them.

--Schwalker 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did read them. I also noticed how you try to make a federal case out of nothing. When quoting dead people you don't need obsessive sourcing. This is guideline/policy wonking. If the majority of editors on the talk page want the quotes in the article then leave the quotes in the article and stop making all this noise. This is like people who edit war over a detail in the MoS such as date linking etc. It's disruptive more than anything else. It's a quote or rather a set of quotes. There is not reason to believe they aren't genuine. Move on. EconomicsGuy 05:53, 21 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, [16] 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: [17] 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? [18]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)

I'm generally very nice, but I've dealt with Squeakbox before, and he tends to tune out whatever is said to him if he doesn't agree with it. I'm going to take your advice here on leaving the Reichstag behind (LOL) and stay as far away from this editor as I can, but really...I'm not the first editor who has brought Squeakbox up to ANI. IMHO ignoring this sort of behavior just lets him think it's acceptable to continue to carry on this way.DanielEng 04:00, 19 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 [19] 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,[20] 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)

You don't know me, and I'm not angry, I'm annoyed. So now we don't believe survivors of abuse when they say they've been abused? It's not gossip, it's from the man's mouth, and it's clearly said in the article "Rose stated..." ie, it's presented as his belief and not fact. Seeing as he's gone public in the interviews, in songs, onstage and elsewhere, and other abuse Rose suffered has been corroborated by outside sources (again, if you read the RS article you WOULD have seen that), it's obviously something true to him. In addition, you never brought any of this up when you deleted the cat, did you? No, you just said "unsourced" (which wasn't true, since there were citations there) and "not in text" (which it was, and I notice you've conveniently ignored the diff where you said you couldn't find it and had to be handheld to find the lines in the text). In addition, in regards to the Admin Guidelines, you know as well as I do that it was not a regular Wiki article. When a page explicitly says that you are to have to have consensus to make changes, but you don't have consensus and you edit on your own opinion, you're out of line. You're not an expert "on life and experience" any more than anyone else on Wiki.DanielEng 03:59, 19 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)

Yes, that is what I am saying. The edit summary was not even a threat against me, because I didn't add the cat. It was a blanket strong-arm tactic and threat leveled against anyone who would be editing the page, and it was added, again, on his first edit of that cat, not after an edit war. I don't think Squeakbox or any other editor has the right to come onto a page and say "if you don't do it my way, you're being abusive and I'm RfCing you," especially when nobody had disagreed with him, nobody'd said anything on the Talk Page for the article, nothing.

RfC and mediation are wonderful tools, but shouldn't they be the last resort step in an edit conflict, not a preliminary measure taken by an editor who just wants to make sure things go his way? DanielEng 03:59, 19 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 [21] [22] [23], of being trolls [24] [25], he routinely uses the "I know Wikipedia better than you so please shut up now" argument [26] [27]. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming I am not reasonable is a PA, and from you who has launched so many PA's against me this is becoming totally unacceptable. You should strikle your statement as you have no evidence to back it. people who have been subject to arbcom rulings are not exempt from our NPA policy and your following me arounfd harrassing me is utterly unaceptable, and based on your obvious anger that your beloeved rape victims category got deleted. please either modify your behaviour or seek dispute resultion, ie mediation because IMO your own behaviour re me has been appalling for some time now. Just because you are an admin does not give you the right to claim that I am not a good faith user, especailly when nobody agrees with you, SqueakBox 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it strikes me that having seen your complaint rejected here you that are raking any old mud to besmirch my character because you have taken a personal dislike to me and this is not acceptable, SqueakBox 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My beloved rape victims category? I got a chuckle out of that one... I stand by the statement I made above and as you may have noticed it is full of very recent diffs showing that you're prone to wild accusations and there are many more in your talk history. I can't say I'm really surprised that you would try and write me off as some kind of rape-loving pervert or whatever it is you had in mind when you wrote the above. Please, look at the diffs I provided. They are mine, not yours. Ask yourself: "would I consider this acceptable editing if it was someone else's work?" Ask yourself, why are editors constantly bringing me to the 3RR noticeboard and to ANI? Why did a number of admins warn be about unacceptable behavior? Why did Morven ask me once again to tone it down and stop labeling everyone a crypto-pedophile? Why did he ask me to stop insinuating I have the ArbCom's support? Go back in your archives and look at what I told you about the rape victims category. I said "send it to AfD, don't depopulate it out of process" and added "I understand (though I probably don't quite share) your concerns about how appropriate this category is but in any case, this is something that should be properly debated". In other words, I said respect your fellow editors or don't expect respect from them. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. DanielEng 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pascal, SqueakBox has strong feelings and can be provoked. Same here. But as I say, it has been my invariable experience with him that reason is met with reason. He's open about his biases and views, at least. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am criticized twice in this page for giving honest edit summaries. Would you rather I didn't give edit summaries at all? I was under the impression that honest edit summaries are good. And, of course, removing unsourced rape victims claims is absolutely necessary under outr BLP policies, nothing ot do withe whether the cat should have been deleted (I didnt cfd it). I should not be criticised for enforcing our policies just because someone else doesn't like our policies, and thinks that not removing the work of other editors is more important. Enforcing our BLP policies will always create enemies but BLP is more important because it is about the way we treat living beings, and we must treat their right to accuracy and privacy as much higher than we do the work here of our editors. Generally being involved in conflicts can be a good sign of putting wikipedia first and of getting the job done, all the ebst editors have similar histories, and all get a hard time from others too but that is the wikipedia way. I have asked Pascal for mediation and he has iognorede the request but his continuous attacks against me does need dispute resolition and if he wont let me edit wikipedia in peace then dipute resxolution will habvve to happen. This is the admin who blocks people while his email is disabled and who expected me to know he was an admin when he was not in the admin list and has no email availabaility, then gave me a hard time for not knowing he was an admin so Ithis is clearly not a situation where I am at fault and he isnt, SqueakBox 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problem with the edit summary as noted was probably misinterpretation. It wasn't your most eloquent, and was open to some misinterpretation I think, but no I don't think it was anything like bad enough to justify dragging up here. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm engaged in a (separate) BLP discussion with SqueakBox that is going quite well and quite civilly. I agree with Guy's statement above at 17:43, 19 Sept. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User Calton

Why does [28] 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 [29] 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...[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with any of those, as far as I can see. Carcharoth 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing there that requires admin action. --Fredrick day 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given Calton a warning for his frequent and extreme violations of Wikipedia's behavioural policies. --CBD 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. From what I've seen in the past, he does have issues with civility, but he's also a decent editor who's trying to enforce policy. No sanctions need be taken against him at this time, but a warning is entirely appropriate IMO. Walton^One 10:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JJJ999

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 18#World Public Speaking Championship

This user has referred to a comment I made with the response, "Stronger delete recommended for lying". I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that he might be intimating that the article was a hoax. His reponse was ""The Author"? No, we're talking about you. Did you or did you not post the misleading/false number of 148,000 hits for this page? And if so, why should your vote be taken seriously, it appears to be blatantly false..." When I admonished him against that type of attack, his response was "I stand by my question. And you may refer it to the mods. Your response also indicates you are attempting the "shout loudly" variety or rebuttal. If you don't answer it'll be me asking the Mods about conduct for lying anyway, so feel free to draw it to their attention. Now, you claim here the following: "Notable in the world of college and high school debating. It's found more often under "Toastmasters", where the championship returns 148,000+ ghits Mandsford 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) " I observe, upon 3 google searches of the relevant terms that it produces 278, 1 and 200 hits accordingly, and ask you where you got the 148,000 from, and if you either made it up, or lied. Unless my google is broken these seem to be the 2 possibilities. If either is true, it seems like we shouldn't take your vote seriously, and I will put that to the mods too.JJJ999 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

Now, I recognize that we sometimes get carried away in a debate, but I've never seen anyone get called a liar. I don't appreciate that type of attack. Mandsford 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• what a comical complaint. You flat out posted a number which you have not, despite several requests from me, ever explained how you came up with this number (I'd take a link to the google search if you're wondering), and you refused to back down from it. Your latest claim, that you used different terms, still only comes up with 2170 hits. [39] So, what to we have? A guy who initially posted false numbers, was asked were he got them, and told he was wrong or lying, spent a while dodging and refusing to admit the numbers were wrong, and who has once again posted clearly inaccurate information in his subsequent "explanation" of his conduct. Have fun with that. JJJ999 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While you're actually overstating the number of hits (you need to go to the last page to get the number of Ghits), IMO you need to assume good faith - everyone makes mistakes. A search without the quote marks brings up what at first glance looks like 132,000 hits (albeit actually 772), which is much closer to the number claimed — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) ***Querying without any quotes[40] gives me 133,000 results which is relatively close to his stated results. It seems more logical that he queried without quotes (and perhaps some slight variation on wording) which is a common mistake. You need to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your initial post failed in both regards. It is fine to question someone's comments, but immediately calling them a liar is not. -- JLaTondre 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be something very odd going on here and a possible COI - User:JJJ999's first edit was to create an article on a debating society, and virtually all the rest of their edit history has been to prod/AfD articles on other debating societies & their members, sometimes in a way bordering on a personal attack - see this for example — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and posting to AfD debates under a false name yesterday. Something is definitely going on here — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, he changed his name from Jembot99 to JJJ999[41]. However, he has engaged in canvassing with multiple requests to people who had recommended deletion on a previous nomination (just a couple of the many examples: [42] & [43]). -- JLaTondre 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Someone may also want to look through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Erskine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh (2nd nomination) for potentially escalating heated discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• (4 Edit conflicts...)Canvassing also appears to be going on a lot SQL^{(Query Me!)} 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • The irony of being accused of bad faith while warning someone about AGF. Gold. The accusation of "canvassing" in a forum designed for it is also amusing. I have no claim on those people, asking them to give their opinion on my recent deletion noms sounds fine, some even went against me on one (Erskine) but for (Eastaugh). I invited everyone on the former to the latter too, and vice versa. It is also silly to assume other people don't ask others their opinions. You can call it bad faith, but I have yet to hear one satisfactory explanation of why his conduct was not deceptive, and I don't believe a poster with his record of edits would have made such a mistake innocently, certainly not the 2nd or 3rd time down the road. I can't prove his intention, but then one could never call anyone a liar... also dispute my edits are all debating, but even if they were it'd make sense to focus on something I knew a bit about.JJJ999 02:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It may "sound fine", but it is against Wikipedia's guidelines, for many reasons. You can read more at the appropriate page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• And what "canvassing" it was... it included exhortations like "I have renominated this for deletion. I notice you voted against last time. If you have any views one way or another, please post them. It appears like it will be a clear deletion anyway. Cheers." and "Notice you voted for deletion last time, I have renominated it. If you have any comments of this deletion, or any of the other debating ones I have made, please feel free to give input on them. JJJ999 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)" and "so if you could ask objective people to look this over and give their thoughts, this page can be decided on sooner rather than later". Man, can you feel the push voting? On the other hand I'm certain some of the people voting keep to some of the gratuitous articles I have mentioned are undoubtably friends, but hey, as long as it's done by e-mail, rather than an open request for objective assessment from someone...JJJ999 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Google

Slightly off-topic, but we need some good instruction somewhere on how to use and interpret a Google search, including

• use quotes in your search
• don't be deceived by a low number of Ghits at the end of the search: it gives the number of distinct pages from the first 1,000 hits only,[44][45] not the actual number of distinct pages, and so can only be used with searches which have only less than (or slightly more than) 1,000 results to begin with
• do not look at what national version of Google someone uses (google.com, google.be, google.de, ...), since they all give basically the same results (excluding China perhaps). Almost everytime Google hits are discussed, people make errors in interpretation (including myself, probably).
• Do not quiblle about slight changes in numbers returned, Google searches are rarely identical on different tries (althouygh the numbers should obviously be close to one another). Fram 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As to point 3, looking at national versions of Google and checking off "pages from country" can skew the results greatly. Try and search for NRL in Google Canada and Google Australia and the results are similiar. But check off "pages from country" gives (Google Canada and Google Australia) very different results. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I thought that was obvious. All my comments were about a standard Google search. Google news can also give completely different results depending on your country. Fram 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could follow WP:GHITS and step away from using the Google test altogether, instead focusing on the contents of search results. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if Google returned 3 results, all of them reliable sources that's more important than a million GHits. --Haemo 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but if we deal with curent popular culture topics (which are a major portion of AfD debates anyway), like an American band or a British webcomic, a low number of Google hits is a pretty good indicator of a lack of notability. "There are only 50 google hits" is a bad deletion reason, but "there are only 50 google hits, and none of them from reliable sources", is quite good. "There are 1,000,000 google hits, and none of them from reliable sources" may be correct, but it is hard to believe that anyone checked all the hits :-). IF the google test is used (which will continue to happen fairly often), it should at least be interpreted in a correct way. Fram 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think this already exists: WP:SET. Fairly similar, at least. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

ILike2BAnonymous called me Idiotic here, I request that an admin give this user an appropriate blocking for violating WP:NPA.Cholga^talK! 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a "that?" It seems that he was referring to your comment, and while I'd suggest that he be a tad more civil about it from now on, a block is not needed here. The Behnam 03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am indeed a that, this user cleverly objectifies me and others to avoid directly refering to individuals as idiots amoung other perjorative terms.Cholga^talK! 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He called me ignorant too, and said i was obsessed with feces, and he also called me idiotic on another page, how about that?Cholga^talK! 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• May sound funny to you, but was fine; and why the obsession with "feces"?

N.B.: It should be obvious here that I was pointing out her obsession with the use of the word "feces", not the thing itself (refer to article edit history for that story if interested). +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• You show your ignorance once again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Someone here seems to have an unnatural affection for "feces". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• The park doesn't "employ" the bags, it provides them for others to employ. And please, enough with the graphic dog shit stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, that that is just idiotic: You haven't said what valley the town is in. I mean the specific valley, by name. Do you even know the name? (I don't.) If you can find the exact name of that valley, fine. For now, we know that it's in a valley, and that that valley was formed by the S.A.F. Right? Can we agree on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• What the hell does "73% average annual brightness" even mean?)
• ...And notice I said "slack cut IF you're not a native English speaker" (emphasis in IF in case you missed it). You cannot accept the slightest courtesy without shitting all over it. I give up. Sheesh.
• Just to head off another of Cholga's mini-shit storms...

I am feeling rather harrassed by ILike2BeAnonymous at this point, this is ongoingly very rude and crassCholga^talK! 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no admin but you'll probably need to post diffs for those last couple of claims there too.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:14, 09/19/2007

Yes... diffs please. Don't expect other people to go fishing for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So are those enough diffs? Because I can dig up even more where he refers to me as idiotic or an idiot. Is it okay for this user to claim I "shit all over him" and that I am obsessed with "'Feces'" even if he claims in his or her defence that s/he was only claiming that I was obsessed with the word "feces" which I highly doubt. Is it okay for this user to continually debase my attempts to discuss, to edit...to harrass and attack me? Please have a word with this user and block him/her for a while.Cholga^talK! 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, 1 is pretty innocent and is a remark about the word which is used little outside the medical community, 2 is a statement about the idea you put forward (Ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing). 3 and 4 is tied to 1 and may be part of the lamest edit war I have seen yet "feces versus waste" (For the record, I like his wording a bit better. Less graphical description, commons terms are used, and the message is still conveyed). 5 is attacking the idea, not the person. Why is #6 is even here? 7 is a response to your question. I can see why he would respond that way. And finally #8 is a response to your tendency to be very pedantic about the wording of certain things. To be honest, while you claim to be a native speaker of english, the way you word things does not appear to be the most common way. This is the first time I have seen the term "dog feces" instead of "dog waste" at any dog park/facility. In addition, provides conveys that group A makes available item B for group C to use. Allocates can be construed differently. Employs implies the park itself uses the bags instead of the public. Finally, I have studied geology and in particular, earthquake zones and tectonics. In the locale you are talking about, Fault would be the appropriate term. A fault is a rift but in layman speak, the fault caused the rift valley. The rift is the whole zone we are talking about. Spryde 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's innocent to tell someone they have an obsession with feces when they disagree with you!? I find it hard to believe this users intentions were to use the word ignorance to mean "misinformed" or "unknowing" Thanks for your input but this is not about any disagreements it's about this user's abusive language. The point is, is that this user is personally attacking me repeatedly.#8 is not a response to me being "pedantic" I was trying to avoid an edit war so I tried to discuss the matter and he called my discussing a "mini shit storm" and 7 may be an answer to my question which this user used to accuse me of "shitting all over them" that is just beyond uncivil, instead of even (uncivilly) rudely replying he takes the opportunity to ridicule me by accusing me of "Unaturalness" "Feces Obsession" calls me "idiotic" and says i repeatedly show my "Ignorance" and says i cause "Shit Storms" and that i am "shitting all over him"Cholga^talK! 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are content disputes right under the surface of your complaint and the fact that you more or less failed to mention them means that you are drawing undue attention to the issues of rudeness. There is no doubt that you and ILike2BeAnonymous are antagonizing each other but I don't think a block is in order. If you want to pursue the matter, I suggest opening a request for comment to determine if other members in the community have a problem with the user's behavior. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikerussell and interactions with other users including User:Lar

User:Lar and I agree that there should be an entry on this incident on this Admin Incident board. I will keep it short. I post now, before the article AfD ends so it doesn't seem I am a poor loser. User:Lar wrote on my user page a comment in regards to my manner of approaching the Afd for the above article on Monday [46]. I responded politely, but honestly on his Talk page. I have never had any contact with him before this comment. I responded and explained why I removed the comment from my Talk page here- [47]. Immediatly upon reading my response he threatens with blocking or other type of punitive action here -[48]. I then responded finally here [[49]]. This admin now has additional material on his Talk page that may provide info but I have no idea why he includes sinebot reverts when I date and sign all my posts anyway, and that day my Sign button was sticking for some reason, so reverting these things have nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, he seems to be saying my actions led to User:Loodog quitting wikipedia which is just factually wrong, since he had his User page unchanged prior to the issue. Obviously when a heated AfD is started and the nominator User:Will Beback states in his first paragraph that the contributor and not the content is the reason the article should be deleted, and I am the editor he refers to, heated personalizing of issues is likely to result. But I really find the above named admin is flaming the fires, choosing sides, if you will, taking personal shots by "not naming names" on the AfD itself and in general trying to label me as a problem contributor based solely on this one issue/debate. Personally adminship to me means you are not allowed to use the position to inforce personal policing. --Mikerussell 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Mikerussell (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ... It is my considered view that the behaviour of Mikerussell in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit was disruptive, and continued to be disruptive even after being counseled about it. (I can provide diffs if necessary, but I recommend just reading the AfD, just about every post he made has at least one issue with it) Note that as of yet, Mikerussell has not actually been blocked. Rather, he has been counseled by several users that his approach in this deletion discussion is at best, not effective. The series of diffs on my user talk page demonstrate that he has repeatedly removed that counsel in a dismissive way (characterising a neutral notice of an AfD as "unpleasant" is not collegial in my view). Users are always welcome to do just that, to remove things from their own talk pages, but after some number of warnings that do not result in a change in disruptive behaviour, further action may be justified. Pointing that out, which is what I did, is not a threat. I never threaten, and I don't think my pointing things out is in any way shape or form out of line. I think there are a lot of mischaracterisations by Mikerussell in the above about the sequence of events, about whether his responses are polite, about who did what in this AfD, etc, and in particular about why the AfD is heated... the heat there is coming entirely, or almost entirely, from Mikerussell and Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who seem to be exhibiting some WP:OWN at best. Note that I have changed the title of this section as I think the focus ought to be on Mikerussell's interaction pattern (he introduced nothing about my interaction with any other users) in this matter. I don't necessarily see him as a problem contributor, overall, (although his contribution history suggests past minor dustups), just that he may have lost perspective about this particular thing, and would benefit from some outside voices commenting about it. This is not a major deal, and I don't think any blocks are warranted at this point if Mikerussell gets the point that his approach needs changing and the disruption needs to stop. As always I encourage and welcome review of my actions, which is why I encouraged Mike to bring this here. Sorry for the longwindedness :) ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)I'm not sure I understand fully what is going on but from the diffs I looked at, Lar seemed to be trying to give you some reasonable advice and warnings and you were being repeatedly snarky. In my personal experience, Lar is not a person known for "flaming the fires" or "choosing sides", so perhaps you could provide some evidence supporting those allegations. Sarah 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds to me as if Mike got a bit carried away with advocacy for a pet article. He's been around for over two years, I'm surprised he fell into this trap. Maybe he doesn't go near the cesspit of AfD often, I don't know. Anyway, if Mike is content to live and learn (especially about canvassing) and he and Lar can shake hands and agree to differ I don't see why this would be a lasting problem. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have time now to go into details, but I believe the canvassing in this matter was done by another editor, user:Thomas Paine1776. What I got from Mikerussell were wild accusatians and negative personal remarks (the worst of which he had the good sense to go back and refactor). To the extent that AfD is a cesspit, it is due to reactions like his. In any case, the editor has made valuable contributions and this does seem out of character, so if there's no future repetition then we needn't worry about it further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the canvassing was done by Thomas. There may have been some suggesting and encouragement going back and forth, hard to say. I actually knew it at the time of my initial message, and I may not have been clear about that. But the wild accusations being flung in the AfD well predated any canvassing. I agree with Will, that if a word to the wise is sufficient, that will be that. I certainly bear no animus, and am willing to gloss over the misstatements. I merely want Mike not to disrupt things, and my read of everyone else's comments is that we all want the same thing in that. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the communications, it seems to me that Mikerussell may be suffering from a malaise that strikes all editors here sometimes. I see absolutely nothing wrong in Lar's actions. --John 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's opinions and feedback; its been an interesting exercise.--Mikerussell 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to add anything further; however, this morning as I casually re-read this section, it did occur to me for "the archives" of this debate, it should be mentioned for the record the AfD in question was too Keep; and the closing admin gave an interesting reason. Thank you to everyone, and I have no reason to hold any lasting animosity to any of the above editors.--Mikerussell 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting outcome (and in fact I've asked the closing admin editor about it... not favouring a DRV though), but it may not have much bearing on the issues raised here. As long as you recognise (to yourself, I'm not looking for any public acknowledgement, those are often counterproductive) that consensus seems to be that your actions in this matter were not uniformly helpful and endeavour to do better in future I think all will be well. In fact, I hope the opportunity arises for us to work together in future on other Michigan related projects. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD says it all in my opinion. I cannot waste any more time and energy squabbling so I think we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that for my part. --Mikerussell 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mikerussell, there are several things that need correcting in that response. First, the ends do not justify the means. That the AfD came out a keep (which is a good thing, recall that my final comment was not in favour of deletion) does not in any way justify your behaviour during the course of it, or your behaviour when that was pointed out to you. Second, you need to internalise that others feel that you acted unacceptably, and that others feel that being counseled about it was not a bad thing. Everyone else in this thread is telling you that, yet you still seem to be dismissing it. I agree you should not "waste any more time and energy" but it's not squabbling that you were engaged in, (which has two sides) it's mild disruption (which has just the one side), and the time and energy wasted is that of the other folks that have to deal with it, not your own, which is why it's disruptive and why it's discouraged... I'm fine with dropping it, since my actions and those of the others that counseled you have been endorsed, but you need to stop being snarky is what it comes down to. Don't be surprised if your activities now get a bit more scrutiny than before, though, and I'd highly recommend that if you choose to participate in AfDs going forward that you moderate your tone significantly. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez, guy, give it a rest already. Your nervous chatter is pathetic. I don't take your opinion seriously, never have in the three days I've known of you, and you take your own opinion waaaay too seriously. (This will launch another essay I guess. Tisk, tisk on me.)--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in this thread told you you were out of line. Everyone. Focus on that instead of trying to shoot the messengers, eh? ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think that John254 is an admin. Sarah 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded that remark, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record too. This is the real lesson about this whole ugly affair- it is the commonsense of the silent majority of level headed contributors that make wikipedia worthy of any credibility it has in the swollen sea of Internet information sources. Block all the admins on 'pedia and no harm would come. Take away a few handfuls of the small contributors, non-admins by choice, with their own modest sense of importance, place and perspective and this website would be just Google spam. Thanks to the non-admins wherever you are!--Mikerussell 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by anon editor User talk:72.145.142.139

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Avraham — ERcheck (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin keep an eye on this this contributor and consider a block?

The personal attacks are really pretty over the top, (quoting) "WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS FOR REVEALING YOUR TRUE COLORS (BLUE AND WHITE THROUGH AND THROUGH)...YOU ARE A RACIST SWINE AND YOU DISGRACE YOURSELF HERE; THE WAY YOU DEFAME A GOOD MUSLIM MAN'S NAJME WITH YOUR ZIONIST BIGOOTRY IS DISGUSTING1...GO TO HELL ZIONIST MUNAFIQEEN SWINE1" Bigglove^talk 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. <Barbrady>Move along, people, there's nothing to see here.</Barbrady> -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Danke shein Bigglove^talk 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, an administrator blocked him. I'm not an admin. You want User:Avraham. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Improper name, edit warring and civility-Part 2

Edit war now continues without me. Starting again, just minutes after the page protection expired. User User:KimboSlice is now at around 10 reverts for the day. Erased messages on his talk page about his name impersonation. Quite an edit war if you look at the Kimbo Slice page history. Turtlescrubber 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Press up

This article has had a history of page moves from the original editor's British English name of Press up to the American English form of Push up. A survey about a requested move recently resulted in no consensus for a page move from Press up to Push up (issue was closed on 13 September 2007.) Since then, there has been a sub-3RR edit war involving the proposer of the page move (User:Tyguy92 and mainly User:Matt Crypto, but in the last instance, myself) in which the opening lead sentence is changed to give the American English version priority over the British English term, and, thereafter, every incidence of "press up" being changed to "push up". This gives the impression that the article name is incorrect. A redirect to this page exists which is Push up. As stated, I reverted the last incident which changed "press up" to "push up", as described above, and summarized the reversion as correcting a disruptive edit, which I consider it was. Since the survey was closed with no consensus, User:Tyguy92 has made these changes three times. Can I ask what advice should be done to stop this sub-3rr edit war that is happening after the survey went against what User:Tyguy92 wanted?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There will never be consensus on something like this. Since the article remains at press up that term should be used throughout the article and changing it is inappropriate. Tyguy92 should be warned of this and reminded that he is violating the 3RR in spirit and could still be blocked for disruption, but hopefully it won't come to that. violet/riga (t) 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. I see that I missed some cases of "push up", so the term was not used throughout the article. Another user has now kiindly corrected those. I will give User:Tyguy92 the advised warning.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this be added to WP:LAME? This sounds as bad as the Orange (colour) debate. hbdragon88 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we have to stick with the term or spelling first used in an article implies ownership of the article, like a gold prospector staking a claim or an explorer being the first to land on an island, which is in conflict with the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The rule that the first editor to touch the topic selects for all time the regional variant is from the Manual of Style, which is itself much debated and which is a guideline, not a policy. If discussion on the talk page of an article, after the issue is well publicized at the Village Pump and other relevant sites, shows that there are good reasons for changing from the original usage to a different one, that should be permissible. Such reasons might include the greater frequency of usage worldwide or the historical origin of the term. Edison 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There was discussion about a proposed name change, when a proposal to change the name was made. The consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change. No issue of ownership need arise by means of this process. The problem was that a very vocal editor in favour of the name change, subsequent to the discussion being formally closed, took it upon himself to start to change the names used throughout the article, as described above. It is that problem, described above as "violating the 3RR in spirit" which prompted this message here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a spelling or grammar matter, which WP:ENGVAR addresses, like consistently using "centre" rather than "center" in a given article. Take a look at the article Elevator, where the British term "lift" is frequently used to describe the devices in the UK, including in a photo caption, despite the fact that the initial article in 2002 used "Elevator." Rather than a "winner take all," "I win, you lose" approach, in which every instance of "push up" is replaced with "press up," the illustration of a US Marine recruit doing the exercise should use the U.S. term. No confusion would result, and readers not from the U.S. would not make the mistake of thinking that when they visit the U.S. they should use the other regional term. They would get blank stares or laughter. Similar issues arise if the U.S. term for something is exclusively used in discussing its use in the U.K. The statement that "the consensus was that there was no opinion in favour of a change" is a bit misleading, since a number of editors in fact called for a change.Edison 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would the phrase "no consensus emerged in favour of a name change" be better, then? If so, please interpret my comments above, where appropriate, with this wording. The other points you raise perhaps should be discussed on the talk page, since they are not part of the original problem which prompted my posting here (undiscussed low-level edit warring).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with placing a warning on his page [50] that he could be blocked if he uses "push up" anywhere in the article. It would be highly appropriate to use it when referring to the exercise in countries where that is the term for it, and where the other term is practically unknown. I address here the mistaken (in my view) belief that the absence of a clear consensus to change from one regional term to another (those commenting were about equally divided, and the discussion was not well publicized) makes it a blockable offense to dare to use the other term at all in the article, and that it is then required to remove all the alternate usages. It is not spelling, and it is not grammar. That is inconsistent with other articles about things called different terms in the various linguistic branches of English usage. Edison 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually place a warning: Instead I advised him about the opinion had been given up to that point in this discussion. If the view is that what I posted was a warning, then I apologize and would withdraw it (though it has already been removed) as it was not intended to be one. You do have a point about the need to be flexible in what term to use when describing the exercise in countries where the term for it is not the same as that used in the article name. But this should have been discussed on the page after the first reversion occurred, and not re-edited and then re-reverted (and so on) in a low-level edit war, which was, as I state again, the reason why I initiated this message on WP:AN/I, asking for advice.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about where in the article the term "push-up" might be used continues on the talk page of the article. I note the precedent that in the Elevator article the other term "lift" is used to describe the devices in Britain, so theere is clearly no precedent for restricting articles to one term or the other especially when it seems quaint, like describing a U.S. Marine doing "press ups." U.K. readers would likely feel culturaly disenfranchised if the elevator article had a caption describing "elevators in a British subway station." Using the term appropriate to a country is not jarring like having the spelling jump back and forth would be in a "color-colour" "check-cheque" variation within an article. Edison 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

Reposted report

• 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 ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘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)

Chronology

• 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The report above originally posted here on AIV.
• 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thread among others archived by MiszaBot II.
• 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) User Anwar saadat's next TMMK revert.

(User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara ✉ 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

I've run across something that is a bit unusual and I'm not sure how to handle it. At Communication it appears that a teacher is trying to teach students that not all sources are reliable, that they should verify all information. A useful lesson but the way s/he is teaching it is by temporarily adding false information to the Communication article's References. It's a harmless addition and the edit summary marks it as temporary so I assume that the teacher would remove it - but other editors have caught it first and have removed it.

This "vandalism" does no long-term harm and maybe does some long-term good by teaching students a useful lesson. I take the candid edit summary to indicate that the teacher intends no harm and would remove the info before long. Of course, the bad information hasn't stayed there long enough to find out if the teacher would have removed it and might not have been there long enough to teach students a lesson.

What's the best way to handle this? Is there a better place the teacher could use? Sbowers3 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say treat it as vandalism regardless of the intention; who's to say who else has read the article in the meantime and read the false information, especially on a high-traffic article like this? Wikipedia is a valuable teaching tool, but it's not this teacher's personal tool. Just my opinion. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-serious suggestion: Pick any random article about an "up an coming band" and have them look at the sources. Also point them to WP:RS as a good suggestion on what to consider reliable and such. See if any of the "up and coming band" souces meet those critera. Sorry, been on new page patrol where every future Metallica and Microsoft seems to want an article and whines when CSD get put on it. Spryde 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO: It's clear vandalism, but possibly a helpful comment could be added on the user's talk page to indicate that changes could be made in a sandbox, or for some made up entity, that will not affect others' use of the resource. The same person wouldn't tear pages out of a library encyclopaedia to make some equally valid teaching point.

It is likely this a shared IP and wouldn't be subject to a block - but would certainly waste a lot of people's time fixing it. Kbthompson 13:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have some sort of essay/suggestion page about using Wikipedia in the classroom? Maybe this teacher could be directed to that essay, which might have some better ideas. Natalie 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KBthompson's opinion and suggestion. Talk to the user, hopefully that'll be the end of it. -Agyle 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[This] may or may not be spam and/or vandalism, but it sure as heck doesn't look like the character! --Qit el-Remel 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Natalie's idea. A set of wikipedia resources for the classroom. If there isn't one, it should be developed. It seems to me that many classes are currently using wiki as a 'this is your assignment', 'now look it up in wikipedia', then the kids trot off and spend the rest of the lesson vandalising the page (see below). Ideally, you would set up a page and the educators would add experience, tasks and material appropriate for their age range. There are WikiProjects for things like software development (which I now can't find), which use this as a collaborative environment for teaching. Kbthompson 09:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects? x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Veiled threat & Incivility by User:Wjbean on WQA

Hi. I was answering the proverbial phone banks over at WQA, when this post appeared (diff). It seemed polite, but led to the user construing the posting as an attack (diff), leading to more back and forth arguments (in which it seemed the editor misunderstood the point of WQA (diff). Then this lead to Wjbean making a veiled threat, and suggesting that insults are ok as long as they work (diff). Given the irony of all this happening on a Wikiquette forum (and my doubts that it can be resolved there), I'm forwarding it here where it can hopefully reach some resolution. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bean strikes me as very incivil on the WQA thread. Saying that "X comes across as a troll" is not a personal attack (because X wasn't actually called a troll) is dodgy at best, and wikilawyering at worst. I dropped a note on his talk. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged. Hopefully that will do it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my "incivility" started when I was accused of having an alternate motive for disputing a tag. I have voiced no such motive. I also disagree with placing this entry here in less than a twenty four hour period. My concerns have never been properly addressed. Instead I have been accused of having other motives for disputing the tags. Again, I have never expressed any other reason for disputing that tags except that they were thrown improperly. I have suggested that both a POV tag without a stated reason and a nomination for deletion without that nomination appearing on the proper dated page smack of vandalism. Both of these actions do whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Finally, I feel this is turning into a kangeroo court without my issues being address; at all. William (Bill) Bean 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I have no position on any content editing taking place, just on the civility issues. I placed this issue here after you were repeatedly uncivil (despite receiving admonishments from several editors), and after you made veiled threats on WP:WQA. I believe my actions were relatively justified (veterans of AN/I, please correct me if I'm wrong). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is now resolved, Bean seems to have realized the source of the issues over on WQA. (Basically a mistaken assumption). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I waiting to hear an administrator chime in; that's all. By the way I have screen shots entry (and the date) the AFD was posted. The shot clearly shows September 18th. I just don't know where to post it. William (Bill) Bean 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the 18th where you live, in the United States. However, English Wikipedia is worldwide and the logs are based on Greenwich Mean Time. By the time, the nomination was posted, it was the 19th in London. The tag was placed on the article, the nomination was made, and the nomination was added to the logs, all at 4:06 19 September 2007, GMT. I've explained this to you several times before. In any event, it was one of the most widely commented AfDs in recent memory. I don't understand where you get the idea it was hidden from the community. These baseless accusations about not following procedure are getting tiresome. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was started by an American (Jimbo Wales) in America. That said I consider the English language version of Wikipedia to be American. Your stating that my attitude is "tiresome" is insulting. I'm not here for your pleasure. I'm here to help edit pages, supply references, resolve disputes, and insure that wikipedians follow established guidelines and policies because those guidelines and policies are established to insure neutrality, accuracy, and the free flow of information. Three attributes that apparently take a backseat to civility by certain apparently over-zealous members of this little community. My position is that the three attributes stated above trump all others. Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. It also got everyone's attention. Akin to shouting into a megaphone in a crowded room where everyone is talking at, but not to, each other. I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin, take the criticism as just that, and stop the amazingly insulting tactic you employ whereby you try to assign an attitude to me that I do not, in fact, possess. Once again (for the ninth or tenth time), my only concerns are that proper procedures be followed when applying tags (something, that in my humble opinion, should not happen for three to five days with a new article) so that other wikipedians are granted the right, not opportunity, to respond to those tags appropriately. If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. However, the guidelines and policies here are more important that I am, more important that my ability to post here, and more important that my continuing to be allowed to be here. In short I will risk banishment, if that's what it takes, to ensure that wikipedia remains accurate, neutral, and open for the dissemination of information. Finally, the nomination for deletion struck me as an attempt at censorship. I have never, nor will I ever, nominate any article for deletion. I find the concept repugnant. Thank you. William (Bill) Bean 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for you to review the five pillars of Wikipedia and associated pages. You will find policies that strictly forbid personal attacks. You will find a policy that mandates assuming good faith on the part of other editors. You will NOT find a policy that mandates the rigid following of 'proper' procedures. But you will find a policy that mandates exactly the opposite.

I would also like to point out - again - that, just like your accusation that the AfD was placed improperly, your accusation that it was I who first placed the POV - was absolutely wrong. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007.

Finally, I'd just like to note that although you find the idea of deletion of any article 'repugnant', another of Wikipedia's core policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - therefore articles must sometimes deleted. Dlabtot 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the one you are referring to. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus; avoid edit wars; follow the three-revert rule; and remember that there are 2,018,108 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Note the first sentence. Where have I been treated with respect? Civility is subjective. There are personal attacks and there are comments based on observations. I have stated that there is an obvious pattern of behavior that is easy to see. It's hard to find consensus when not even the slightest bit of acknowledgment is offered. I have not engaged in an edit war. I removed pov tags once and not touched the article since. I am trying to act in good faith; I cannot say the same for the rest of you. I'm not trying to disrupt wikipedia, but I do have a point to prove. The point is that if you hold my head to the floor with your boot I will fight you indefinitely. Finally, you could acknowledge that you attempted to put words in my mouth that I never voiced and admit that wasn't a very civil thing to do. William (Bill) Bean 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If I made a mistake then I made a mistake. It is done, I cannot take it back, nor can I correct it. You can stop pursuing the matter. Please do so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I had previously marked this as closed, but clearly I was being optimistic. Will someone please explain to William (Bill) Bean that everyone is expected to follow WP:CIVIL? This is beginning to get a bit disruptive. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems like a good candidate for the adopt-a-user program. Clearly going on as presently isn't an option. At present he seems unable to apply to himself standards he demands from others. After talking about how I somehow insulted him, he claims Yes, I a brusque. That is my nature. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I were to act in any other way I would not be true to my own nature. ... I will not shove my nature aside for your or anyone elses 'delicate sensibilities.' I suggest you grow a thicker skin ... Incredible. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That might work, but it would require William (Bill) Bean's willing participation. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Not because it would interfere with the cabal, but because its disruptive. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Attributing a motive to me that I have never expressed is also a personal attack. Think about it.

ObiterDicta: You could acknowledge that my concerns have validity rather than dismissing them out of hand. You could also stop pursuing the matter yourself. Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue.

--Bfigura: The disruption continues because I've been called on the carpet for YOUR standard of civility. As I've already stated I'm an American. Apparently some, if not all, of you are British. I do not live by British standards.

Finally you are all editors as I am. None of you are administrators. By what right does that give any of you any power to dictate my behavior or admonish me? I reject your any implication that you have authority over me. Indeed the only difference between yourselves and I is your specific choice of words. Beyond that you are just as "uncivil" as you claim that I am. e.g. But I concur, the willful violation of civility needs to halt if William (Bill) Bean is to continue as a productive editor. Who are you to determine what constitutes civility? And I was, and will continue to be, a productive editor long after you've grown bored with the place and left. William (Bill) Bean 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a test of egos it will likely continue. No, it's you not understanding how the logs work and falsely accusing me of failing to list a nomination for deletion so as to hide it from the community. Anyway, I'm done with this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Real77 Sockpuppetry again

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Sarah — ERcheck (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reported a new sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Real77 (2nd), but the IP in question

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

is continuing to make edits to Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut, in violation of the ban that Real77 received. This is getting rather annoying. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Sarah took care of this. Thanks. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Scentura

A single purpose account, continues to delete several dozen references in Scentura, attempting to whitewash this pyramid scheme.

The article recently went through a WP:AfD in which the same lame reasons this single purpose account uses was voiced, and the community overwhelming decided to keep this article.

My question is what is the fastest way to stop this editor from removing dozens of references?

This is not vandalism per se, and all of the WP:Dispute resolution solutions seem pretty tame and not adequate. Would page protection work?

Thank you in advance. Calendar 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question (User:Evs215) has not yet violated the three-revert rule, so I won't block him/her, but I'll issue a formal warning to the user to stop edit-warring. I think page protection might be overkill at this stage; I suggest the two of you discuss this on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If that doesn't work, dispute resolution might be in order. Walton^One 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks Walton. I started a discussion on the talk page, which two other users have joined. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Calendar 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jolenecassa : trying again with the same OR and POV edits

Jolenecassa has tried again to put the same personal, tendentious analysis into Pierre Trudeau, which material was rightly rejected back in February. That user did the same thing on a less prominent article, Janice Stein, back on July 5; it seemingly went unnoticed till just now. The user has been warned about, and blocked in the past for this sort of editing, and seems to do no other kind. Please review her(?) record, and take action as befits it. -- Lonewolf BC 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest another block. This edit is quite a blatant infusion of personal opinion, and shares many elements with this edit in february, her last before being blocked for POV violations. Someguy1221 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left an admonitory note on the user's talkpage. I don't think we should go straight to blocking without warning, considering February was a long time ago. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

User:Rogue Gremlin edit warring in Burt Reynolds article to prove a point

Resolved

 – A short block and a stern message will hopefully get the point across. User is acting in good faith but being very silly. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Following a dispute over Burt Reynolds's birthplace, User:Rogue Gremlin found over fifty (yes, 50!) sites which support his argument... and added them to the article. Since they all contain virtually identical biographies of Burt Reynolds (his bio is well documented, and most of these sites take their info from the same source anyway), I reduced the excessive directory of links (here) (they were placed in the references section). User:Rogue Gremlin keeps replacing them, which messes up the article and serves no purpose.

I have no interest in Burt Reynolds's birthplace, but any disputed fact could be referenced by citing one or two reliable sources. Citing nearly 60 sources is beyond a joke. I am not part of the previous discussions at Talk:Burt Reynolds, but this user appears to have been in disputes with other editors and is disprupting Reynolds' article to prove a point. I'm just a fan of Burt and I'd like his article to look similar to other film actors' articles. 172.203.172.174 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you, or anyone else, wants to add tags where specific citations are needed then I'll add them as footnotes, although most of the important stuff is already properly cited, or easily verifiable. The article doesn't look that bad, it's no FA, but not the worst BLP I've seen either. Crazysuit 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reverting, calling names, etc.

217.43.78.244/86.134.241.52/ 81.156.68.208 is continuing to revert edits on list of light heavyweight boxing champions/Zsolt Erdei/Roy Jones Jr. and other pages. He is also calling me a "cunt" and posting things like this: "MKil hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Keep trying to edit these pages, because every time they'll be edited right back motherfucker." I figure it's time for you guys to deal with him.MKil 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

I've delivered the most recently active IP a final warning. Any further personal attacks, and you can report it to WP:AIV for fast resolution. Make sure to list the sock IPs if you do, but I'll keep an eye on it myself. Someguy1221 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the person seems to keep changing IPs. He seems to like the page Talk:List of light heavyweight boxing champions. Perhaps that should be semi-protected.MKil 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

Yes, I just noticed. I'm making the reports to WP:RFPP now. Someguy1221 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that a talk page should be semi-protected, as some IP addresses may have some good comments to make. I think maybe a rangeblock is needed on the IPs, if it will temporarily stop him (a bit like a Wiki version of the Stinger used by police forces across the United Kingdom. OK, so admins aren't Wiki-policemen, that's just a bit of humour!. But yes, semi-protecting, or failing that, fully-protecting the article until disputes have been resolved should stop him. Is it better to try and discuss first with the user/s involved in the dispute (if there is one). Sorry if I've been no help, just trying to be helpful here. Only trying to stop a revert war breaking out. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP pool seems to be 81.154.0.0 - 81.157.255.255. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username trying to mimic an Admin

Resolved

User blocked indef. M.^(er) 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cholmes76 (talk · contribs) is a new user account whose name is remarkably close to noble Admin Cholmes75 (talk · contribs). 156.34.208.227 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Username reported to WP:UFA. Someguy1221 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Anthony.bradbury. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ixlikextoxdansex (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – user blocked for 3(+)RR

User is repeatedly and willfully ignoring WP:ALBUM#Leak and engaging in a revert war with other users at Alive 2007. Just64helpin 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:ALBUM is a WikiProject, not a policy page. That is essentially a style guide. Natalie 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now the user has violated 3RR. Help? Just64helpin 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

wtf? Ixlikextoxdansex was blocked, but Just64helpin and Douglasr007 were not? This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and thus NO ONE's actions were exempt from 3RR. Instead of, oh, leaving a completely impersonal and irrelevant templated message, twice, someone could have, oh, I don't know, engaged Ixlikextoxdansex in discussion? This is retarded. --Iamunknown 00:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Ixlikextoxdansex wasn't doing anything wrong... HalfShadow 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More info. This is ridiculous. The editor in question, a newbie who just started editing seven days ago, was blocked for inserting:

==Extra==
As of September 2007, the album has already been leaked to torrent sites.

I am quite astonished. I did not realise that 3RR blocks were handed out to one editor in an edit war over content, but not to others; that newbies were treated like horse shit; and that editors warred over such trivial nonsense. I would really like to see this editor unblocked, and counselled and engaged in discussion. Please? This is not how we should be treating newbies. Ya know, WP:BITE, and all that. --Iamunknown 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He has posted an unblock request, but not formatted it quite right, so it may not have been seen. DuncanHill 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my formatting suggestion didn't help much.  :-\ Well, I guess we will see what happens. --Iamunknown 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it doesn't surprise me at all to see newbies being bitten :( DuncanHill 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I unblocked; I'll warn Ixwhatever on their talk, as well as Just64helpin and Douglasr007. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crazytales. I saw your note on his talk page about civility ... I agree. Hopefully things will improve.  :-) --Iamunknown 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I don't like bitey behaviours, but it's important to familiarise the newbies with WIkipedia's policies. I personally was never bitten as a newbie, so I don't want anyone else to be. —Crazytales talk/desk 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, looking at it again I agree with the unblock; I hold my hands up and say that I didn't get that right. Even us "retarded" admins make mistakes occasionally. ELIMINATORJR 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My liberal (and, in retrospect, unfortunate) use of the word "retarded" was not directed at you. I don't understand how the sentence ("This is retarded.") could be parsed to read like that. --Iamunknown 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it, I wasn't being completely serious. ELIMINATORJR 08:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible death threats?

Resolved

Please see User:SilverBulls back's edits to Chaser's talk page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Even without the threat, he's a block-evading sockpuppet. Indefinitely blocked. --Haemo 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OKay, thanks! Have a great evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral overturn of an AfD by an involved admin

Regrettably, Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to unilaterally overturn the outcome, to which he objects, of an AfD closed by Gnangarra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Quite apart from the impoliteness of this, it's extremely inadvisable for Jossi to take this action, given that he voted to keep the article and is currently involved in an arbitration concerning disruptive conduct on other Middle East-related articles (the "allegations of apartheid case"): he has no chance of being seen as neutral in these circumstances. Gnangarra and I had both previously recommended that Jossi take this up in DRV, which he has declined. I've therefore raised the matter myself at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21. Input from uninvolved editors and admins would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made my arguments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_21#Pallywood. By all means, I am willing to stand to the scrutinity of my fellow admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to admins: ChrisO' assertion that Gnangarra has requested DRV is incorrect. As far as I can see, he is the only one complaining. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra recommended DRV in this edit summary, in which he told you that he was unwilling to overturn his decision. The principle isn't too difficult to understand - to quote WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Which you did, and then you overturned his decision unilaterally anyway when he declined to overturn himself. -- ChrisO 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not. He said this: Jossie I'm suprised by this, I expected more reaction from those that want the article deleted as the afd clearly shows that Pallywood currently fails to meet policy/guidelines. Even though deletion based on policy is justified I wouldnt be willing to overturn based on this discussion. You have totally misread what he said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing for deletion of the article, and he is unwilling to overturn the keep decision. That is what that says, ChrisO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the edit summary: "response, recommend drv". Not much to misunderstand there. -- ChrisO 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I missed that edit summary of a post in his talk page but that changes nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say this was not too much of a problem, but Jossi did delete the old page in order to make way for the new move, which is using an administrator function. That seems to be a misuse of one's tools, with all due respect. At least, to his credit, he didn't fiddle with the redirect, so anyone else could move it back. The Evil Spartan 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the AfD resulted in keep. Overturning an AfD that ended in keep, would mean that I deleted the article, which I certainly did not. The framing of the accusation by ChrisO, is based on his misunderstanding of the AfD process. The AfD concluded on keep, Gangarra renamed the article to a name about which there is no consensus and which was not discussed in the AfD, and it is up to editors to discuss the future of the kept article, i.e. name, merging, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra's decision was to keep and rename the article. You can't just chop off the half of the decision that you don't like. -- ChrisO 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the renaming, ChrisO. You simply cannot AGF, can you? The AfD was keep. If he had wanted he could have closed delete, which he did not. An AFD closer cannot trump consensus of editors if he decides to close with keep. Period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do AGF. I just think your action in this case was wildly inappropriate and a violation of the way that disputed AfD closures are supposed to be dealt with. -- ChrisO 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue to the contrary: that my actions are consistent with established understanding. maintained consensus, and that your intervention to call a DRV when actually there is no need for one, and no one asked for one besides you, is as bogus as this notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section, Unilateral overturn of an AfD by an involved admin, makes it sound like Jossi did something like restore a deleted article unilaterally. I believe that ChrisO is overstating the case here. Bigglove^talk 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, that ChrisO is way more involved than I ever was in the Middle East articles and the resulting fracas, and his actions in that dispute have been challenged in the ArbCom case he mentioned, so his claims of "neutrality" by virtue of this notice, are quite disingenuous, to say the least. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments by xDanielx. The discussion on whether article talk or DRV was the more appropriate venue for naming discussion took place here. ChrisO was told repeatedly that his objection to discussing on article talk was unreasonable, especially since that was the venue which Gnangarra (closing admin) encouraged as a place for editors to discuss his editorial action and reverse it if appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, ChrisO was and still is the only person who has objected to discussing naming issues on Pallywood talk. My own response to his position is here (as well as on Pallywood talk, in lesser form). — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• The AfD has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21, I commented there on the decision. Comment on editors actions, I've read all the discussions including the article page, the two AfDs, the DRV, my talk page and havent been overly impressed with a lot of whats been said. I think that people are too absorbed in the various POV's and recommend that they take a break reconsider whether they are working to build this encyclopedia or furthering political positions, but beyond that there is nothing in the actions of editors that warrants any recriminations. Gnangarra 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Long term vandalism by 201.9.xxx.xxx IP range (yet again)

A rather persistent someone has been vandalizing The Fairly OddParents and related articles for some time now. The vandal will make a few to several dozen edits every week or so under a different IP starting with 201.9. The edit is subtle, almost always changing a date to be one year earlier, such as this recent series of edits. This has been happening at least since March 2007, earliest edit I found was this one.

This is the third time I am reporting this. Most recent IP was 201.9.116.107, making 6 edits, previous one was 201.9.190.232, making 9 edits. Although I do not have the patience to count all the vandal's edits (some of which may still be present), I am fairly certain there may be hundreds.

The vandal has a dynamic IP, so a normal block via AIV is impractical. Semi-protection is unlikely to work, the vandal moved on to Pokemon-related articles after noticing I reverted the OddParents ones [51]. As blocking the entire IP range or semi-protecting all cartoon-related articles containing dates would likely be disruptive to legitimate editors, I think the only solution is to contact the vandal's ISP and let them deal with it. Can someone do this? I'd do it myself, but the ISP's site is in Brazilian, not English. CoJaBo 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on World War II

Heads up... I just full protected World War II for 24 hours due to multiparty edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. The irony... HalfShadow 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all a fight over whose images and how many to use, mostly, though there's an interesting talk pages flamefest between the various "Allies" over whose contributions were more important during the war itself and why. ICANHASCHEEZWARRIOR Georgewilliamherbert 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the war room! --ElKevbo 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.147.110.12

This person keeps vandalizing Nexopia as seen here: [52] I also think they are responsible for this: [53] (scroll down to memberships). Thank you for your time. Lord Spase Peepole 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Best place for this is WP:AIV. Try there for faster responses. ThuranX 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ElinorD: Abuse of Administrator Privileges

Resolved

 – Admin doing their job in line with usual practice. And the pay sucks, too. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this administrator's edit history, she is apparently performing mass speedy deletes of images, citing issues with copyright tagging, and not first following instructions and notifying users, or the talk page of articles, of the image deletions prior to her actions. Most of these image copyright problems are actually minor, and are far more appropriately dealt with by notifying users to tag articles properly, rather than mass deleting. In my opinion, this administrator could be seriously losing the trust of the wikipedia community by these actions, and I think we have grounds for desysopping. Dr. Cash 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask her for the reasons of these deletions? Seems that these images were tagged for months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - deletions are logged here. I'm having a look; will refrain from commenting for now since I don't really understand what's happening. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I checked a few of these and all are candidate for speedy WP:CSD#i4 as these have been tagged as lacking source/licensing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems that ElinorD has just been "sweeping the categories" without inspecting the images. Something like 1,200 images deleted in the past 10 days. I don't think this is an unheard-of practice, but it does seem to go against the policy described here and here, which say that images tagged for 7+ days should be tagged for speedy deletion (and hopefully reviewed by an administrator, instead of being blindly deleted, though understandably that doesn't always happen). — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, how do you know she isn't looking at them? One to four a minute is not a lot in tabbed browsing and is plenty of time to look at the image. Sarah 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I noticed a 17-in-a-minute (1-per-3.5 seconds) at a first glance. Not sure if that's the exception or the norm. Apologies if I was too presumptive, though I can't help being skeptical still. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seventeen is a lot but that was unusual; most seem to be around four a minute. But it is possible if you've got a fast connection and open all the images in tabbed browsing and then just go bang, bang, bang; it still gives you a few seconds to look at each one. I think Elinor is just trying to help clear out the CSD cats and people should be grateful instead of trying to whip up a frenzy calling for her to be desysopped. No need to apologise for your comment, I'm sure Elinor will explain what she's doing when she gets back online. Sarah 06:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(after ec) Please explain where the abuse is. It looks to me like she is deleting images which have been tagged as unlicensed for more than seven days as per WP:CSD#i4. It would be nice if you asked her about it before coming here to dramatically accuse her of "Abuse of Administrator Privileges", or if you at least told her about this conversation. I'm sure she would have explained what she was doing if you'd bothered to ask her...she's not scary or anything. Heh, grounds for desysopping, hey? So if we work too hard at cleaning out the CSD cats, we ought to be desysopped on the spot? Sarah 05:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! No! — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting images without a license is a uncontroversial job; just need to take one look to see whether the image has a tag or not. Although other admins may be a little cautious (check history for vandalism etc.), it's not unusual to see someone deleting at that speed, and it isn't an abuse of administrative tools. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The images weren't deleted for lacking licenses, though. They were deleted because the attribution did not conform to the (somewhat arbitrary) criteria of OsamaKBOT, which was blocked for exceeding its approved trial edits roughly 100-fold. Actually I can't see most of the deleted images' history without sysop tools so this is speculation, but from what I can see it looks like that's gist of what's going on. Please do correct me if I've got it wrong. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at quite a few and some were tagged by BetacommandBot as "Orphaned Non-Free image", some by Orphanbot as "Image has no source information", some by Genisock2 and yeah, some were tagged by OsamaKBOT as "image missing source information," and there were also some that were tagged by editors. Sarah 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All the ones I looked at were deleted correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm... it sounds like ElinorD was probably going through Category:Orphaned fairuse images as well as Category:Images with unknown source, and perhaps others. I wouldn't really object to blind or almost-blind deletion of expired Category:Orphaned fairuse images images (has there been a proposal to have a bot delete them?), but I feel differently about Category:Images with unknown source since many of the source tags are questionable, if not outright mistaken (e.g., source information outside a fair use template not being recognized by a bot). I don't know how User:OrphanBot checks for source information, but OsamaKBOT's unapproved filter was not well-received, to say the least. I think human-tagged images lacking source info should be reviewed as well, since some are controversial (e.g., cases where the copyright holder is named but not the specific publication). I'm still slightly fuzzy on how ElinorD doing things; hopefully she can explain. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure they should be reviewed. But is there any indication she didn't do that? It doesn't take that long to do, you know. Normally it takes not more than a brief look at the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked a half dozen, and all of them appeared correct. Matters like this should be raised with the editor first to clear up issues before raising them here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Just checked a random few, from various times & they all seem fine to me. CSD is such a dirty job at the best of times. Credit to her for getting in and doing it - Alison ^❤ 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariolasoft.jpg was deleted as well. I have uploaded it again, it's a corporate logo with the same (C) info as many other computer game logos. Perhaps a mention on the talk page would have been appropriate rather than a non-peer reviewed speedy delete. MrMarmite 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps we should demand that all administrators bring a shrubbery before deleting an image which does not comply with our licensing policies. And then we can holler "Abusive admin! Desysop! Burn the witch!" whenever the appropriate shrubbery is not provided. On the other hand, we could recognise that the fundamental fault is usually with those users who, either through ignorance or in some cases due to active contempt for policy, fail to correctly attribute and qualify images. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Having checked the history of Ariolasoft.jpg, this was a perfect "speedy" delete some 14 days after the uploader was warned of the problems, and the image was tagged as well (so I fail to see how a mention on the talk page would have helped: if you have the talk page on your watchlist, you have the image on your watchlist as well, and vice versa). It was uploaded as public domain (which is obviously incorrect), and without a source. I don't see the problem with this deletion, and since different other admins have checked other deletions, and all had the same conclusion, I don't see what the problem is. I applaud your uploading of images, but that doesn't mean that the deletion of them earlier was not done correctly.Fram 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll add a few myself. I help out regularly with speedy deletion of images that are not properly sourced, that have an invalid FU rationale, that lack proper copyright notices, etc. When someone tags an image with {{nsd}}, it places a notice on the image page, stating that the iamge may be deleted on a certain date (eight days after the date of tagging), and it automatically puts that image into a category of images with unknown source on that date. There can be hundreds of images, perhaps as many as 600, in that category, and that's not to mention the categories with no fair use rationale on a certain date, or no copyright on a certain date, or fair use disputed on a certain date. After seven days have passed, if the uploader (or another interested party) has not fixed the problem, the images in that category become eligible for speedy deletion. The person or bot who tags the image as missing some essential information is supposed to notify the uploader. As far as I know, the admin who deletes the image is not obliged to check that the uploader was notified. Should the community, at some stage, decide to impose such an obligation on the deleting admin, I shall happily comply, though I must point out that the already enormous backlog is likely to become even greater.

There has been a big backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion recently. The category of images with unknown source had a backlog of six days. The image that led to the calls for my desysopping was Image:Apo-crest.jpg. It was in Category:Images with unknown source as of 7 September 2007, so it had had the full seven days, plus several extra days because the backlog was so huge that admins simply hadn't got round to it earlier. Although non-admins who can't see the history of the deleted image and don't know who the original uploader was are confidently stating (on my talk page) that the uploader was not notified, and the seven days notice was not given, I can state that the image was tagged by OsamaKBOT at 19:51 on 7 September, and the uploader was notified the same minute.[54]

This particular uploader has not edited since 2005, so it is not surprising that nobody was aware of the problem. As far as I know, there is no obligation to leave messages on the talk pages of articles in which the image appears, and while there is the possibility of adding a template to the caption of the image in articles, it's not obligatory either. Though I'm not very technically minded, I'm sure that if the community decided to bring in such an obligation, the bots and Howcheng's tool could cope with that.

I normally open three to six images in separate windows, examine them for a moment, and then delete the three to six in fairly rapid succession with WP:TWINKLE, which automatically removes them from pages where they appear. I am quite sure that I have never deleted seventeen images in one minute. However, if an image that I have deleted with TWINKLE appears on seventeen pages, it is quite possible that there could be seventeen removals from pages in one minute. That would show in my contributions, not in my logs.

Only last night, minutes after I had deleted Image:Aoclogo.gif, the uploader contacted me courteously to say that he had not been notified and to request undeletion. I cheerfully undeleted, changed the date of the no source tag to give him more time to fix the problem, and to prevent some other admin from deleting it without realising that the matter was being taken care of. See the history and logs of that image. It didn't quite end in wikihugs all round, but everything was very pleasant, and there were no calls for my desysopping. I can and do make mistakes in deletion work, and am always happy to undelete anything on request when it's pointed out convincingly that I was in error, or when there seems a good chance that the problem which originally warranted deletion of the image can be fixed. ElinorD (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken harrrassment, vandalism--2nd complaint

I previously made made a report on this user's stalking. etc. here: [55] (This is the incomplete discussion...I can't figure out how to use the archives here.)

At the time, the advice was: 1) just ignore that kind of behavior, and 2) if you really believe he's a sockpupper, file a checkuser. I tried both.

He's lately gone beserk in his stalking and harrassment. He suggested atUser talk:Eusebeus that they "get an admin to look at this user's behavior, hopefully as a prelude to getting rid of him" [56] (I made a WP:WQA about Eusebeus, thus Allgoodnames' hope for a sympathetic audience).

He reverted my edit to an article and summarized my edit as vandalism. [57] My edit had removed some material added by Gtadoc (whom I have accused of being a sockpuppet of Allgoodnames).

He vandalised my Talk page, again making a false accuation of vandalism: [58] (Oddly, nothing in the section he finds objectionable was written by me; it was put there either by Allgoodnames himself, or another user; I saved in case I needed documentation of certain behaviors).

He reverted my edit in a WP:BRD process with another editor, which was being discussed in Talk; a conversation in which he has not participated. [59]

Here is the checkuser case (still opn, for now). Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Allgoodnamesalreadytaken It should probably be closed because the Gtadoc account hasn't been used for a month.

All of these harrassing edits have occurred in the last 24 hours, although there has been continual junk like this in the last few weeks, including what I documented in my previous notice here. He's obviously making it a point to check my User Contributions, and look for any dispute I might be having, and jump into it. Get him off my back. Bsharvy 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bsharvy's complaint is largely merit and the good faith follow-up on his charges of WP:SOCK have all indicated that no policies have been violated and no foundation exists for action. OTOH, his behaviour - edit-warring, wikilawyering, and forum-shopping for his supposed grievances - needs sore redress. An admin should step in here and issue a warning of a block if this behaviour continues. Eusebeus 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, if an admin does read this, Bsharvy is desperately in need of a warning or block. Not only does he go around creating complaints all over the place about anyone who disagrees with him (I think he's up to 6 editers now he's tried to complain about somewhere with his profuse wikilawyering). Its past the point of being ridiculous. A quick scan of his edit history [60] shows that he is exceptionally disruptive on the page Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has recently begun erasing/trying to start edit wars on the related Hiroshima page. If anyone comments on his behavior its to him "harrrassment" (sic), even after he's been warned by admins in the past he's refused to let things drop or to alter his behavior...what will it take???? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He changed a heading name on my Talk page again, again titling the section a "record of my vandalism" (it contains 3 contributions from him, one comment from a neutral editor, and none from me).[61] His comment above is fairly typical: no diffs, no attempt to actually back up what he says, but a whole lot of character maligning. He seems to have Bookmarked my User Contributions, and follows me around writing stuff like this. The more disruptive part is the constant reverts.Bsharvy 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Site plagiarising Criticism of Family Guy

This Geocities page is using Wikipedia content to generate ad revenue, and displays none of the GFDL stuff. http://www.geocities.com/againstfamilyguy/

Is this worth reporting, and if so where? Name given, but no contact info or linkage. All text below the image is copied from Criticism of Family Guy. Image is leeched from en.wikipedia.org.

Geocities copyvio contact: copyright@yahoo-inc.com / edg ☺ ★ 07:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved already? I don't see any Wikipedia content on the page -- must have been removed? — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The three short paragraphs are from Wikipedia, and the image is being leeched from Wikipedia's servers. I realise this isn't the crime of the century. Do we care at all? / edg ☺ ★ 07:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the text is taken from Family_Guy#Criticism, verbatim. / edg ☺ ★ 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Realistically, I think the page passes fairly cleanly as fair use -- it is (sort of) being used for informational purposes, the use of the material is uncompetitive with Wikipedia's use of the same material, neither use involved any profit for the author (the ads were from Geocities), and the material copied is not very substantial. It would probably fail Wikipedia's fair use standards miserably, particularly the image, but other sites are bound by much looser, arguably more real-world standards. If you really want it removed though, Geocities might be willing to go ahead and nuke it anyway, as they're probably covered by a termination clause of some sort. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was thinking it might be fair use, but didn't know. Thanks much. / edg ☺ ★ 07:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me why we need a separate article, unless it's to contain criticism too however minor and insignificant for the main article. In which case, of course... Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden, yet again

ZOMG, what a WP:LAME. Few days ago I innocently closed Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move quoting WP:NC(P) as "no move", and redirected iron maiden to the band. Then the roof fell in, and the iron maiden had some 15 reverts since. Reginmund (talk · contribs), who seems to be the most vocal supporter of redirect to the torture device, broke WP:3RR in the process (not reported, apparently).
Since I'm now semi-involved in the matter (dragged in, actually), I'm reluctant to apply protection, hand out some blocks, and so on; I'm not even positive that my interpretation of policy is correct (or is it subject to multiple interpretations) (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)). Can someone lean a helping hand in settling the matter down? Duja► 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I suggest the appropriate punishment for the revert-warriors should be done in some other suitable form. Either referent of "Iron maiden" (application of the device, or forced listening to the band for 24 hours) springs to mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden was pointed to the apparatus before this RM and I already had a long discussion with a fan of the band whom apparently took offence to me pointing it to its original usage. At least the redirect gives a more specific meaning but we have these grammatical and spelling factors everywhere. Do we really need to disambiguate Apollo Theatre and Apollo Theatre because we're to lazy to spell or in this case, capitalise depending on our destination? Maybe when writing in a message board, not an encyclopaedia. Reginmund 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:196.13.185.253

This anon University of Venda IP is undoing large amounts of info in various Venda related articles and replacing it with his own unreferenced info. They have been left both a message and a warning on their talk page but have not responded and continue to make similar edits. They are editing much too fast for me to follow up and examine and/or revert. Could someone please either temporary block or semi-protect the affected articles and check out this user's edits? Like I said, it is going on too fast to analyse all his changes and revert before he's moved on to more articles. Thanks. Zunaid©® 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've reverted all his edits up to right now. Please continue to monitor and take any further action if deemed necessary. Can someone please also check the IP range contributions (is there an easy way to do this?) just in case they switch to a different computer. Zunaid©® 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material added was copyright violations including on their talk page. Warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

and now blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. User seems to have registered an account User:Mcdonald mdhluli and continues to make similar edits on the articles in question. Please review, thanks. Zunaid©® 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That may not be the only account, look at this created on 21 September and then edited by User:Rudani in only his second edit. Then there's The diverse culture of Venda from User:RAPHALU MP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses requesting my password

I reported an IP address at WP:AIV for requesting my password, however, I was told to come here, so I have done. I've had an email from this IP trying to get my password:

• 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and another IP address:

• 195.188.50.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've ignored their password requests... should we block these IPs (probably anon-only, account creation blocked) for a week or so to stop them abusing the "e-mail new password" facility?? --Solumeiras ^talk 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, IPs that are blocked can still request password changes so blocking them would have no effect. Metros 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think a bugzilla request solved this problem. Can anyone remember the ID of the Bugzilla request?? --Solumeiras ^talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 137.164.234.64 is another IP address which has requested an undesired password change for an admin (me). Is there any recourse other than asking them not to do it, such as blocking edits from the offending IP? Perhaps the block would interfere in some small way with their activities. The only way the IP user could gain anything from the request would be if he could access the email of the victim. If the email password is as strong as the Wikipedia password, they really accomplish nothing other than creating a garbage email message stating that a new password has been created, said message being grist for the delete button in the email system. Edison 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ignore it, it will go away. This happens fairly regularly to some of us. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

J2ru

Resolved

 – deleted, salted

Despite constant, repeated deletes under WP-SPAM/WP-Repost this keeps coming back. Unfortunately no-one has protected it against recreation yet. Could someone do so? (if this isn't the right place to ask, please point me where I should go) --Blowdart 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done ELIMINATORJR 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Halloween jack and User:Crescentia have made repeated personal attacks on me

This started when Jack called me "just another example of the hopelessly Aspergersfied dark side of Wikipedia", because he felt I was adding too many tags.[62] I left him a message on his talk page telling him I found this out of line, and asked him to stop it, but he just added tags to the message I left, as a way to mock me.[63]

Meanwhile Crescentia took my request to not be personally attacked as a joke saying "Dear god. Sensitive much?"[64], and later said about me "It's really sad when you think about it. I wish I had that much time to waste".[65] This is getting to the point where I do not look forward to coming on to wikipedia because these two will keep saying vicious things about me. Hoponpop69 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are looking at other peoples' talk pages looking for info about yourself. Nothing was said on YOUR talk page, or directly to you. My 'sensitive much' comment was made by me because I was amazed that somebody would take the effort to go looking for information about themselves and then threaten a person with admin penalties. What we say on our talk pages is pretty much our business and not yours. You are just looking to get people in trouble at this point. If ANYBODY goes around the internet looking for things said about themselves they would probably find something negative. I bet that I could find something negative about me online right now if I spent the time looking for such information. I don't though, because I woulf find that to be a waste of time.It does take a lot of time and effort to go around looking for negative things, and that is what I meant by that second statement. You are probably angry because people called you out on your over eager citation history. You should just let things go at this point. Crescentia 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 had been having an active discussion with you on your talk page. How hard do you think he had to look to see the section below it? In any case, there is no reason why civil wouldn't apply on your talk page, even if you didn't plan on the person you are talking about seeing it. --Onorem♠Dil 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He kept adding info on my page about a person he helped get banned who happened to help me out earlier. It was like he was tattling on the person to me. How was that an active conversation? He's looking to get people in trouble. Why can't I say what I want to say on MY talk page? I wasn't talking to him, I was talking to somebody else. Why should he be allowed to report a converstaion that didn't even involve him?Crescentia 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a productive conversation, but he had been leaving messages for you, and you had been responding to him. That sounds like an active conversation to me. The talkpage has your name on it. That doesn't make it yours. Please see WP:USER for more. --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, I am not allowed to say whatever I wish on MY talk page because somebody who has a vandetta against me MIGHT look at it and get offended? That is simply ridculous. It is obvious, at least to me, that he is just looking to get me in trouble. He said in an earlier dispute that he was angry that I didn't QUOTE '...at least get a slap on the wrist'. Am I going to have to look over my shoulder every time that I write something on Wiki?Crescentia 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, at this point I am very willing to totally ignore him if he promises to do the same. That means not following me all over Wiki to see what I have posted.Crescentia 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression people pointed you to the template citation request so you would no longer be adding numerous individual citation tags?--SevenOfDiamonds 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just informed Halloween Jack of this thread so they can respond (I'd inform Crescentia too, but that's clearly unnecessary). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO he's just pissed off because we called him out on making source requests to an excessive degree that amounts to trolling. I never insulted him directly and haven't even posted anything on his talk page, but he's happy to scan others' userpages to make sure no one's saying anything that he can claim is offending or attacking him, in order to use it as leverage in a war over how many words in every sentence of every article need to be followed by a citation.

You'll notice that I answered many of his tags with legit citations. I never reverted the page in question (deathrock), and I only removed his tags when he put them in places that linked to other articles with their own citations, or added a tag to a reiteration of a sourced statement earlier in the article. (For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations.) I expressed my frustration over this pedantry to Crescentia, but Hoponpop is the one who's making it personal now that he's been called out on his asinine editing behavior. --Halloween jack 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• "For example, we don't need a source to "prove" that deathrock is not related to death metal when the death metal page explains its own musical origins, and we don't need a source to prove that Theatre of Ice had deathrock influence when that page has its own citations."

I'm pretty sure the fact that that info is cited on a seperate page is not an excuse not to provide a source. Maybe we can get an admin's word on this.

Regardless this issue isn't about me adding citations tags, it's about you personally attacking me. The fact that you're doing it behind my back, not on my talkpage, still does not justify your actions. Hoponpop69 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Your blatant trolling, refusal to discuss edits, skirting the edges of revert violations, and "nyah nyah, look what I did to your buddy" comments on Crescentia's page are completely irrelevant, of course. And now, of course, you're saying that a comment about your ridiculous edits on another user's page is "attacking you behind your back." I can't way to see how you'll twist this comment around to claim that you were seriously hurt. --Halloween jack 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is about you not being able to let things go. Just....let...it...go. I can't believe that you are STILL arguing about the content on the Deathrock page.Crescentia 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll say this once more since you can't seem to accept it, this is about you two attacking me. It has nothing to do with the deathrock page, or anything else.

And as far as me "doing something" to User: Daddy Kindsoul, he "did it to himself" by getting blocked over 25 times and then violating his parole. Hoponpop69 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it has everything to do with it, and your trollish editing behavior. You added an excessive number of tags, and added tags where they're totally unneeded. You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words. Oh, and you didn't bother to make any mention on the talk page before adding all these tags, and refused to discuss your decision to do so until other users got after you about it repeatedly. You've done everything possible to bait other users, and now you're crying foul. It's an extremely transparent tactic and I doubt you're fooling anyone; certainly not myself. Quit the shrill whinging about a comment about your editing behavior that was posted on another user's page and wasn't even directed to you as if it were a physical assault or a death threat or something equally serious and dramatic. I spent a few words mocking you for your foolishness and the rest of the time improving the article; you, meanwhile, would rather just drop tags all over the place and then whine about users who get fed up with your combative behavior as they try to improve articles to your satisfaction. If you really care about adding "much needed" content to Wikipedia, then discuss and justify your edits on the article's talk page.--Halloween jack 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself.Crescentia 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you didn't post about User: Daddy Kindsoul being banned on my talk page to goad me? In fact you actually tried to start an argument about it. Here is the proof. The heading that he created in MY talk page about this is Just To Let You Know:

The Daddy is currently on arbitration for consistently abusing reverts.[2] Between his current and older username, he has been blocked 26 times.[3][4] Hoponpop69 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because he has been reverting edits that don't make sense.Crescentia 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? How about giving me some examples then of him getting banned for reverting things that don't make sense? Hoponpop69 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I don't have to bow down to you. It's obvious that you don't like the guy, so why should I play up to you about him.Crescentia 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As the title of this subsection says, I was just letting you know. Hoponpop69 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI it's now 27, he's just been blocked for a year. Hoponpop69 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're reminding me of a ten year old who tells on people and then brags about it.Crescentia 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Crescentia 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um when did I ever deny posting about him?

Hoponpop69 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you admit to trying to bait me into an argument? Nice.Crescentia 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• No I admit to trying to inform you that you may not want to trust someone who's been banned close to 30 times.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• While your ongoing squabble is all very interesting, what exactly do you want admins to do here? I'm pretty sure all parties are well-aware that saying mean things about other people is not very nice and they should stop. Beyond that, I don't really see what you want here. --Haemo 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a 24 hour ban for incivility.

Hoponpop69 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• "You responded to the addition of sources by scouring the page for more places to add unnecessary tags. You've asked for multiple citations within a single sentence, demanding more citations on a page that already has about 1 per 50 words."

So all of a sudden when an article has a source per every 50 words, any unsourced content on it can fly by? Furthermore I have never put a sourced tag on something that I felt was unnecessary. Hoponpop69 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi here on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]' and here on User talk:Eubulides, [72] and [73].

I feel that this speculation (which is often wildly incorrect, and has involved named third parties) and commentary is an invasion of my privacy that I am not comfortable with, but, more importantly, is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and adds nothing to the discussion where it is posted. I wonder could somebody take a look and see what they think? --Zeraeph 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much more than a not particularly decorous discussion, but without any further history I cannot say I see anything bad or actionable. Have you discussed with A Kiwi (on his talkpage) how the debate is making you uncomfortable? LessHeard vanU 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My greatest problem is with the degree to which this is sidelining the real discussion of the article Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome into total irrelevancies. It will be a contentious and complex enough discussion without that.

I'm not too bothered by the personal references yet, but, on the other hand, I have a gut feeling that it CANNOT possibly be ok for A Kiwi to speculate (wrongly), from among article sources, about who my personal physician is (or how familiar he is with my home), while informing the world that she has just got off the phone with him, from thousands of miles away. I will try discussing it on her talk page. --Zeraeph 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you opened the door by discussing those personal details on the article talk page and using personal info as part of the article discussion with respect to the featured article review. Discussion of your personal diagnoses and physicians were less than inappropriate on the article talk page, and verged into Essjay controversy territory anyway. I suggest that both you and A Kiwi could benefit from reading and understanding Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (not only with respect to not using article talk pages as a chat forum, but also with respect to proper threading of conversations and NOT HOLLERING and better use of edit summaries); you're a more experienced editor than A Kiwi is, and you should have known that discussing your personal diagnoses and physicians on an article talk page isn't wise. Because you made this info part of the article discussion, I can't say A Kiwi has committed any offense. I suppose you've let A Kiwi know that you're talking about her on AN/I, as a courtesy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please try to be a little more accurate. I did not "discuss" anything of the kind, I simply, ill-advisedly, made a single passing reference ("I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" [74]) which A Kiwi has turned into speculation that Simon (presumeably) Baron-Cohen (who I have never met) diagnosed me and is familiar with my home, and then that Michael Fitzgerald is my personal physician. --Zeraeph 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. You still haven't explained how so many personal references and speculations about myself are relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? --Zeraeph 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They weren't relavant on the article talk page discussion either, where you first brought them up. A Kiwi has retracted and apologized everywhere for her mixup of Drs Baron-Cohen and Fitzgerald (two physicians with the same specialty operating in relatively close geographic proximity), so that's done. The best thing for both of you to do is to stop discussing personal matters on article talk pages (remember your two Yorkies, your recent car wreck, and so on), and instead focus on reliable sources, and learning to properly thread comments and use talk pages for discussing article improvement. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; if you use article talk pages and your diagnoses to throw weight into a discussion, you can't expect that info not to resurface later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to "micro manage" and dictate my editing. It is not appropriate for you to do so. It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion here of User:A Kiwi persistent discussion of what she imagines to be personal detail of my life on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Though I am flattered that you have found the time to trawl through weeks of edit histories to find so many personal references to my life to post here. However, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember to discuss content, not personalities in future please? --Zeraeph 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy there, Zeraeph. I don't need to trawl through anything; I remember the posts as they were inappropriate on talk pages, where article improvement is discussed. Reminding you that both of you can avoid taking admin time on these kinds of issues and make talk page discussion easier for everyone by reading WP:TALK, a Wiki guideline, is not micromanaging. It was your mistake to make personal info part of an article discussion; I wish both of you would focus on article content more. Take the last word if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block 170.185.147.19 again?

Resolved

 – IP blocked

This IP address is still vandalizing. sohmc 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to any admins. I have taken the opportunity to post this request at WP:AIV so you can put a resolved box here if you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And the IP has been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Natalie 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody Using My Username

Resolved

User:Yayo Dealer has been signing comments with my username. See here. The user whos page he signed on was kind enough to let me know. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on any topic that discusses Michael Jackson.

Hi this user keeps deleting sourced material on any article that discusses Michael Jackson. Check out his contributions on the following articles, Michael Jackson , World Music Awards and Grammys [[75]]. I suggest he needs a warning. Realist2 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a weird case ...

Resolved

 – Now let's all go out for cake... --ElKevbo 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonny Cache (talk · contribs) has a sockpuppet warning on his User page[76] which, until today, identified him as an indefinitely blocked puppet of Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). The logs of the User: page show the account being created on 25 August 2006, and Jonny being blocked on 2 September 2006 - indefinitely. However, looking at Jonny's user logs shows only the account creation today, and his contributions are pure vandalism (either that or admitting that he's a sockpuppet of a user whose account was created in June and has no visible contributions). Can someone please explain to me and/or block the user properly? Cheers, Confusing Manifestation 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, ah, User:Jonny Cake is not necessarily the same as User:Jonny Cache. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That would explain it. And would also explain why I kept wanting to type "Cake" instead of "Cache" ... I thought I was just getting hungry. Confusing Manifestation 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Oh dear, that's funny! :-D Thanks for the laugh, CM. Now, go and have a nice piece of cake :) Sarah 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• And since Jonny Cake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously here only for trolling, I have blocked that account as well. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

continued concerns

Hi I reported Alanjohns a few days ago for saying he was an admin when he wasn`t and for vandalism. He was banned for 24 hours. Looking at his talk page he has recieved more complaints. there are 2 other troubling issues.
A) I think he is deleting warnings off his user page .
B) He seems to have made a confession on his talk page that he has another acount. Under the blocked section of his page he says something along the lines of Whooooohooooooooo I`l just use my other one then! [[77]]Realist2 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with extending it to an indefinite block, but let's see what happens once the block wears off. Removing warnings and leaving frivolous comments on his own talk page aren't quite reasons to extend the block. Maybe a CU to investigate his claim of using an alternate account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be editing not logged in as well, to usual suspect articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

His ban should be extended by 24 hours for removing warnings. Realist2 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with removing warnings. --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on a seperate note would some1 ensure that my other complaint about the Michael Jackson vandal a few topics above is resolved. Realist2 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like regular old vandalism. You warned him, and he's stopped for now. It doesn't look like anything that needs special admin intervention to me. --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok never the less he has admited to having another account, this needs investigating. Realist2 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Miyokan in persistent edit warring

I have already reported this user multiple times, and he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring. Nearly every time I check this user's contributions, he has been reverting other users. Once again, he has managed to barely thread the letter of the law on World War II, doing 4 reverts within 24 hours and 30 minutes. Could someone please hand out an extended block on this user? Please note that his former username is User:Ilya1166, which he abandoned probably in order to get rid of the block log [78]. The Evil Spartan 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly have considered doing so; given the block log on his prior account he's clearly well aware of 3RR and gaming it. However, another admin already protected the page, so a block at this point would be punitive rather than preventive. I'm going to defer blocking him. If it becomes a problem again, you can report him to WP:AN3 with a link to his prior block log; most admins will take into account if a user appears to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 24.001 hours. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In full disclosure, I saw that prior to my full-protecting for a day. I took a long look at him, and all the other editors, and decided that it would be hard to block him without doing so to several others who were just a little less close to 24 hrs but nearly as active, and that if I had to block 4-6 accounts over something maybe just protecting the article for a bit was more likely to actually cool down the argument. Georgewilliamherbert 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Vandal on Evolution

Accounts include, but are probably not limited to: Loom yellow (talk · contribs) Payp two (talk · contribs) Ray vivid (talk · contribs) Raz grime (talk · contribs) Scen heal (talk · contribs) Furry great (talk · contribs) Tlame (talk · contribs) Staam (talk · contribs) Grooy (talk · contribs) Eve oft (talk · contribs)

All follow the exact same modus operandi - they replace the Evolution article (and the user pages/talk pages of contributors to it) with the first two chapters of Genesis, switching accounts as they get blocked. Evolution is semi-protected, so this is clearly a premeditated attack, since accounts must age long enough to bypass the semi-protection.

Anything we can do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try checkuser yet? Try full-protecting again for 6 hours; it's only for a few hours, and probably wouldn't constitute wheel warring (I would do it for you, but I don't have a bit next to my username). The Evil Spartan 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I put in an WP:RFPP request; I can file a CU request if you want me to. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm already on it. Raul654 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be a reincarnation of this guy Raul654 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article's been locked down for six hours; that should be enough time to block any offenders (if they are Witt socks). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't do a checkuser because the relationship was so obvious and I didn't know it could be used for further protection =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, Raul... Any sleepers? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I found several and terminated them. Raul654 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection review on Talk:Mousepad

Looking for review of my actions by an uninvolved admin(s). The article Mousepad has been under attack for a time by an IP hopping anon that wants to add unverifiable claims of the origin/invention of the product to the page. After the article was long-term semi-protected a while back, he took his crusade to the article's talk page, and has been wildly violating NPA and BLP there since. The NPA comes from calling other editors liars and "Plageism pushers" in talk and edit comments. BLP violations come from his unverified accusations of plagerism against others who may (or may not) have invented the product separately.

Blocking this person over the violations has not proved effective, because he shifts IPs wildly, and not within a small range either. It is also suspected that the anon is either Mr. Fernandez himself, one of the claiments to having invented the product, or someone close to him. Apparently this is not a short-term crusade, and has been waged across the net for a year or more, with WP being only the latest flash-point. So I suspect that the person behind the IP is not going to go away any time soon.

This morning I took the step of semi-protecting the talk page itself, because of the constant NPA and BLP violations. It is this action that I specifically place up for review, as I know protecting of talk pages is not generally done. But at this point I'm at a loss for any other way to deal with this editor, given his IP hopping makes blocking ineffective. I've set the semi-protection for only 2 weeks, but if he's as persistant as I suspect, I beleive this will just flare up once again after that time. But I'm hesitant to protect talk pages for longer than that. But it may be necessary. But.... <sigh> - TexasAndroid 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall this matter being bought up previously. Since it appears that this is a sustained campaign the sprotecting the article appears to be a judicious decision. If you are up to the task, I think short bursts of semi protects when necessary may deter this individual. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen, this is the best solution. The guy just keeps on nagging and repeating the same thing over and over again, and isn't even happy that the article contains a fairly large mention of his claim in the history section already, even though it is doubtful (or at least not verifiable by secondary sources) that there is anything to his claim, while there is a lot of evidence for the other (older) claims. If there is any undue weight in the article, it is in favor of his point of vierw, not against it, and it is very clear that his opinion is not supported by any consensus and that he has exhausted the patience of the people on that talkpage. Semi-protect away, it is hoepfully the best solution. Fram —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An ongoing campaign over who should get credit for inventing ... the mousepad??? Do I see another example of WP:LAME? TexasAndroid, IMHO you made the least disruptive reponse possible; if another anon needs to make good-faith comments, we'll re-evaluate this then. Let's hope this person takes this crusade elsewhere. -- llywrch 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify - a single person that tries pushing his own view, accuses others of being POV-pushers and/or censors, and posts obviously unsubstantiated claims is no different than any other troll. In particular, only the regular users were willing to accept change and escalated the issue when it was going out of hand (to have the page protected, etc.) The anonymous vandal, as you can tell from his posts, made no such attempt at escalation. BTW, the same anon made changes to other wikipedia articles claiming invention as well, including the french version (which I removed by redirecting the article.) You can see which versions are affected through a simple Google search. --Sigma 7 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AIV

There have been a couple of reports at WP:AIV that have been there for over an hour while other newer reports have been removed. Can someone please take care of these reports? Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're the same ones, but there were a couple of reports lingering where the editor had not yet received a final warning, or had been inactive since given the final warning. Anyway, list is clear for the moment. -- Satori Son 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reports that hang around AIV usually have issues that the responding admin is trying to resolve. Dean Wormer 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy?

Resolved

 – There is no cabal --Haemo 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Admins! I’m sorry I complain about a lot of things. But this time is different. Shot info, a user. I sent him a message and he does not respond instead he deleted it. He is been a member of a group. A conspiracy or cabal has formed. You could see the membership being on his user page. He rudely told me once –“ever heard of sarchasm??” and just becaused I asked what the conspiracy all about once he said “editors who write poorly ask these questions”. Who was he to talk about my editing. I am tired of this. Please! Block him for a month!--19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• While the user in question doesn't exactly seem over-endowed with AGF, I don't see anything here that requires admin action. ELIMINATORJR 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  There is no cabal. 68.219.123.8 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there does seem to be a cabal, but it only contains one member. Dean Wormer 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would that make it a unicabal, a monocabal or simply an autocabal? Edison 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

An autocabal is when you block yourself. (Yes, I have done that.) Raymond Arritt 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am 3RR'ing or reverting per consensus

I have no "dog in this fight" so I figure I would ask before I go any further. On Fred Thompson (The guy running for the US president), a weak consensus was developed on the talk page regarding his name. A comment was made in the article page to see the talk page for the name. Today quite a few Anons have been changing it to the non-consensus version and I have been reverting them. Right now, I have 4 reverts on that page and would like to get a little admin insight before I find myself too far on the wrong end of the 3RR rule. Thanks Spryde 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically spirit vs. letter. I would personally not block you (were I an admin) due to a consensus already been reached on the talk - I acutally think in some cases such as these that "enforcing consensus (policy)" should be an exception. Will ^(talk) 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's against consensus, it's considered something close to vandalism, right? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not the 3RR-exception "simple/obvious vandalism" Will ^(talk) 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.. working against consensus, but it's not simple/obvious vandalism, since Consensus Can Change. The only exception to the 3RR is if you're removing clear vandalism or a BLP Violation. (Ie, someone page blanking or replacing an article with "X is a Poopy Head") SirFozzie 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can someone point out where consensus was made? It looks like it's still being discussed if you ask me. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears so. Like I said, I have no vested interest (or care for that matter. I just want to make sure what we have is "right" and matched what WP:BLP says about names. Spryde 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More in the other section, but the IPs are more than welcome to start discussion again, as noted. --Ali'i 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that is the same person editing with different IPs, not several different IP users. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Two additional points: 1) The named editors on the non-consensus side have NOT been changing the name. It is anonymous editors who did not participate in the discussion who are changing the names. 2) There is a hidden comment right next to the name. It tells editors that there was a consensus, that they should discuss the issue on the talk page before changing the name. The editors are violating good faith by: a) not going to talk and trying to develop a new consensus, and b) deleting the hidden comment. (Disclosure: I had a slight preference for the consensus but would have accepted the alternative outcome. I would enforce the consensus either way.) Sbowers3 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page was fully protected for a week. I guess there will be no edit warring for a while. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• At least the last half dozen IP's involved in editing the article are Tor proxies, probably the same editor. I'm reporting them all to AIV. - Crockspot 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• All blocked for a few days each. The protection can probably be rolled back to semi. - Crockspot 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User Lord Loxley making homophobic remarks and being disruptive

In the article James I of England, here, here and in the edit summary here, followed by some edit warring. I think he needs a talking too and possibly a cooldown Artw 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's turned up the volume a little now, to the point where it's pretty apparent he's a troll. I request a ban. Artw 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the talk page all the way through. Apparently, people tried to do what you are doing now before, only to be rebuked by others for undue weight and POV pushing. Now that the rebukers aren't paying attention, you are trying to weaselly insert your propaganda in order to make a point, disrupting Wikipedia and defying the rules you supposedly care about in requesting assassination of my character. You lot are hoodlums of the homosexual type, that is all. Lord Loxley 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're really helping your case much. Artw 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering we now have a WP:3RR violation as well as a personal attack, I also ask for at least a temporary block. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• See here: User_talk:RucasHost#Caveat_on_James Lord Loxley 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • BTW, it is not I who is going around inserting POV to support my personal lifestyle, regardless of whether that may be straight, gay or asexual. Activism and historical revisionism have no place on Wikipedia. Please make a not of that and cease your vandalism at once! Lord Loxley 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Loxley should be blocked for the insanely intemperate comments in his edit summaries. Calling his opponents "Pansy Division" and "Queer Brigade" should cause him to be shown the door. Corvus cornix 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this user after examination of his/her block log; they were last blocked for 1 month by Neil with the comment, "Attempting to harass other users: stonge and racist personal attacks, final warning before indef block." The behavior has clearly continued here, so I followed through. I invite review of my action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly support your action :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block having looked at Lord Loxley's block history and the recent "discussion" on the talkpage in question. I'm not sure it can really be called discussion - Loxley is pressed for explanation of his edit warring and provides none, merely attacking all those with an opposing view. His aggressive attitude, inability to compromise and unwillingess to follow NPOV are unacceptable. Given the block history, reform seems unlikely. WjBscribe 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. This user's behaviour was beyond the pale and he had every opportunity to reform if he was going to. Good job. --John 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please check out what Lord Loxley has added to his Talk page? I can't even see it, my browser just shuts down. Corvus cornix 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. I can't check it either... -- Satori Son 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He has created a 1.4MB wikipedia page -- which obviously causes problems for many browsers. (Can you say "massive buffer overflow"?) What the page itself contains ... I think it's safe to presume that it's not an apology. -- llywrch 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the edits he had just made to his Talk page after having been blocked, and before he added the 1.4 megs, was to call his opponents "faggots", no, I don't think it was an apology. Corvus cornix 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's giving MediaWiki problems, since both Lynx and wget download it as a zero-byte file. --Carnildo 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you care, he typed 1.4 megs of "FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS" to replace his page. Anyways, I think this is resolved. --Haemo 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hueneme High School

Resolved

Could somebody please semi-protect Hueneme High School? It's getting vandalized faster than I can revert it. Corvus cornix 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 day, hopefully that's long enough for them to get bored — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The IPs come from all over the country. They must have been sent here from some board. Corvus cornix 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

==User:Jvalant and User:Bobby Awasthi tendentious and disruptive edits on Indian Rebellion of 1857 and its talk page==

Classic pattern of tendentious editing.. they have a right wing indian nationalist POV of the 1857 events, and have at various times -

1. Campaigned - very abrasively - to rename it "First War of Indian Independence" - even moved the page

2. Routinely revert any edits that dont agree with their world view, calling it "communist propaganda" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159210070&oldid=158687695 for example.

3. This one here is a crack about me being "a janitor of email inboxes" - well yes, postmaster at a large ISP with 40 million accounts does qualify as that, I dare say. New sig fodder, yay. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=159363026&oldid=159362905

4. This little war where User:Jvalant insists on referring to people from England as "Britishers" -

I suggest we use the term "First War of Indian Independence" which is how we in India refer to our history in the news or in the text books etc. "Rebellion" sounds unprofessional (an American) and Mutiny too sounds racist (British). Jvalant 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5. This discussion too - after their using a hindi language newspaper as a source, with erroneous articles - and claiming "yes it is a valid source as more people read it than people do the Times" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Hindi_Newspapers

etc etc.

User:Jvalant does seem to have attracted the attention of wikipedia admins before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jvalant#warned for a previous set of edit wars, whereupon he immediately accuses the admin who warned him, User:Ragib of "misusing admin clout". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&curid=605324&diff=84141302&oldid=84132125

Ditto User:Bobby Awasthi - here's his view of the edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi&action=edit&section=19 and a possibly related autoblock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_Awasthi#Unblock_Autoblock