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

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket #  and VRTS ticket #  for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice^✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice^✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice^✉ 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice^✉ 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Thuranx, I don't read his statement that way. I read it as him being honest and non-delusional about his own innate motivation and world outlook and recognising that it will take a big and constant effort from him to adapt to our collaborative way of doing things.

But I do think that this is a dialogue that you (and possibly others) need to be having with Callmebc himself - which is why I would strongly plead again for his talk page to be unprotected right now. Alice^✉ 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A little late to the party (been away for Christmas) but I'd just like to add that I support an unblock and am willing to do it myself. I'm going to leave that action up to Haemo, of course, but I wanted it to be clear that there are admins willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's three admins who have clearly stated they are willing to unblock and I concur that unblocking is best left to Haemo who says that he is in constant contact, but what about the page protection? We need to be fair not just to Callmebc but to those who have reservations and wish some dialogue so that they can be reassured (or otherwise). Would one of you admins please unprotect the talk page right now as I can not see any objections being voiced to that unprotect after more than a week of discussing Callmebc's block and user talk page protection. Alice^✉ 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the torrent of abuse that he previously let loose on his Talk page, I'm not willing to unblock the page. He's in contact with Haemo so that's fine as far as communication. My own unblock offer does not require discussion, just a simple yes or no (which can be communicated by email). Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing productive that can come from this user on the Killian Documents issue. He should be unblocked only on condition he stay away from that topic, per Guy. Otherwise he'll go right back to insisting on including his original research in that article (and I'll be happy to return from my Wikibreak for the express purpose of stopping that from happening). - Merzbow (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I emailed him a little while ago to try and wrap up this whole thing. I will keep everyone posted! --Haemo (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alice^✉ 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and I know that this section will shortly be archived (into oblivion if there are no further edits) so, would it be possible to drop me a line on my talk page (or by e-mail) when there are any developments with this particular Callmebc theme, since this whole page falls off my watchlist after 9 days? Happy New Year! Alice^✉ 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody is going to reply or deal with this, please would the admins that previously said they would update us do so now and then this section can fairly be archived - otherwise it just looks like it's being swept under the carpet again.

Haemo? Alice^✉ 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikep2008a

Resolved

 – User blocked, page blanked

Hello,

I find the first sentence of his userpage not really appropriate with our scope (building an encyclopedia). Would you agree with that ? I put a message on his talk page but I think it would require some people to track that. Thanks. Poppy (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the use of non-free content on userpages is not allowed. I've left a message to that effect. -JodyB _talk 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too - and I've removed the first sentence and fair use stuff. diff Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User is repeatedly re-adding the non-free content to his user page, despite the warnings: here and here. I've once again removed the content ,which has now been done a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 times by different editors. I've also left a 3RR warning for this user. I see a block in the near future if he continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back further, User:ImageBacklogBot (User:ST47) also removed the non-free content. --Jack Merridew 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 hour by User:JodyB. Probably keep an eye after the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that whole User page one big copyvio, since it's a cut and paste from the Kylie Minogue article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the userpage was a copyright violation. I've blanked it, and issued a warning. JodyB already has spoken to the user (who is currently blocked) and I assume Jody is monitoring for further violations. Avruchtalk 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG misuse of page protection

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

---

JzG consecutive edits to Condensed matter nuclear science:

• [1]
• [2]

represent a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

I have notified him on his user talk page and asked him to remedy this: [3]. Since then, he has responded to others on his talk page: [4], but has not responded to my notice, nor taken any action with regard to it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with his two edits to that page, he's fixing a mistake and formating a source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, JzG's reasoning seems accurate. I see no abuse here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nature of the edits, I'd like to note that User:JzG did not fully protect the page; User:Doc glasgow did.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (eep. Didn't notice the redirect!)

Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Avruchtalk 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, has anyone actually read the diffs, or are we all going off FeloniousMonk's statement? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked - I don't see a problem with restoring a redirect on a POV fork and protecting it. The below information is transferred from a different thread above (As yet unresponded to) and is a little more complicated (and deals with a different page). Avruchtalk 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV judgement and is immaterial to the policies in question. Kevin Baas^talk 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was a bit worried when I started reading about how redirection is the same thing as "fixing a mistake and formatting a source". -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys might be looking at the cold fusion article history. JzG made the condensed matter nuclear science page a redirect to cold fusion. So you've got to backwards from the redirect: [5].

There was a series of reverts back and forth between an article with content: [6] and a redirect: [7], involving multiple people.

JzG is heavily involved in multiple disputes about condensed matter nuclear science on the cold fusion talk page. Page protection policy states that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people."

Before protecting the page, JzG reverted it back to the version that he prefers. Page protection policy states that:

• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, JzG violated wikipedia page protection policy in letter and principle. Kevin Baas^talk 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my case, you are quite right. I didn't notice that I had been redirected, and we had just been discussing the matter of the Cold fusion article at the help desk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG doesn't like "POV forks" and likes to remove them [8]. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was a POV fork. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From talk:cold fusion: a pro-cold fusion reference [9] says "... renamed their subject more appropriately, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". Add to this Ed Poor's history of creating POV forks, and honestly I can't see how nipping this in the bud was wrong for the encyclopaedia. A redirect is obviously the right outcome, per the source cited, and if he'd created one instead of trying to fork the content then we would be tanking him for helping out. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is protected due to the effects of a protracted attempt to insert fringe science.

Point 2: At least three POV-forks have been used to try to get around WP:NPOV and page protection; 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted, this was another, Cold fusion research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a third.

Point 3: Kevin Baas brought this up on my talk page and then came here only an hour later; sorry, Kevin, I'll stop visiting my father in hospital so I can respond to your demands in a timescale you find acceptable.

Point 4: I did not identify the POV forks, that was user:ScienceApologist this time, user:Michaelbusch in the other case.

Final point: Am I sick to death of special pleading, cherry-picking and misrepresentation of sources, querulousness, farcical "straw polls" and other attempts to boost fringe "cold fusion" research? You bet. Anyone else want the baton? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Firstly, this is not about the cold fusion article, it is about the CMNS article. Secondly it doesn't matter what you claim the reason for cold fusion being protected is, or what the what you claim the reason for the CMNS being protected is.

(2)Again, doesn't matter what happened nor how you characterize it. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(3)According to WP's user contribution logs, I posted the message on your talk page at 2008-01-01T12:33:56, and posted the notice on the noticeboard at 2008-01-01T13:30:48. In the meantime, you found the time to make these two edits: [10] [11], while, purportedly, "visiting your father in the hospital". Apparently, making these edits were not only more important than to you than responding to a notice about policy abuse that was left on your talk page, but also more important to you than visiting your father in the hospital. So either you got your priorities really screwed up, or you're lying out your a$$. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(4)It doesn't matter what you call the articles, nor what anybody else calls them, nor who does the calling. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I have refactored your comments so they leave mine with clear attribution. In response:

(1) CMNS was a POV fork created by someone on an ArbCom sanction for creating POV forks. I was not the one who identified it as such, the evidence is, however, presented here and there and seems compelling to me. The two are, after all, synonymous in the (admittedly very limited) literature.

(2) Yes, the creation of other POV-forks is relevant. This topic has been the subject of lengthy and determined attempts to promote fringe science as mainstream. That is still ongoing, I believe.

(3) My father is in the high dependency unit of Hemel Hempstead District Hospital, we had a phone call at 11pm on Sunday calling my mother (who is nearly 70) to his bedside because he took a dramatic turn for the worse, I have visited him today in hospital, but as you point out that was not the period in question, the period in question was, if I track back, while I was packing the car and the kids to drive home. Fact remains, you gave me less than no time to respond on my talk, not that it matters as I'm sure you'd have brought it here anyway. Lying out of my ass? Thank you so very much, I love you too.

(4) Yes it does, nyer.

So, who else wants this mess, or should we just let the POV-pushers run riot again and then maybe revert to the 2004 FA version after another year, as has happened twice already? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I really don't know the history of the article. I do know that the article was not deleted and no RfD was filled. If it really is a POV-fork, an RfD request should be filed. I really don't see what POV it pushes except the one that there is a field called "CMNS" in which some research has been and is being done, which is true. But that's besides the point. I do vaguely recall - though i may be mistaken, that a lot of the content in it used to be in the cold fusion article, but then i think a spinoff article was made per WP article split policy because the cold fusion article was kinda long, and people thought it should deal more specifically with the pons-fleishman setup, because that's what most people think of when they refer to "cold fusion", and the non-F/P stuff, though related, wasn't close enough to that. I believe the article had "good article" or even "featured article" status when it had a lot of that content in it, so maybe merging it back might be a way to go. In any case, an RfD would be much more effective at reaching a resolution than trying to strong-arm the article forever.

(2) As far as I know, the other articles were not reverted and then protected consecutively by the same editor, and certainly not recently.

(3) I'm sorry.

(4) If it matters, than show me the policy that says so. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you thought te article was a POV fork. The issue is that you treated it as such, and then immediately protected the article to keep people from changing it back. If you don't see why this is a problem, then you need to take a break from dealing with POV forks. -Amarkov moo! 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's not, after all, like I'm dealing with a bunch of POV-pushers who have been trygin for years to skew the article on cold fusion to represent a fringe view of a subject which is essentially discarded by the mainstream. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm dealing with! Well hell. So, what process do you want me to go through to get rid of these blatant POV forks, and how quickly can we get it done with so these people stop degrading the encyclopaedia with blatant attempts to pretend to a controversy that barely exists, a field of science that is all but abandoned, a review they interpret as a green light for more research but actually says nothing has changed in fifteen years, and a mess of free energy suppression nonsense reverted along the way? Only this is getting just a bit old, so a really good and permanent solution to this fringe nonsense would be really appreciated, and I do sincerely mean that. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you're also now dealing with me, and I am exactly not someone who has been trying for years to skew the article on cold fusion. BTW I disagreed with the POV-fork and would not have been against a redirect or merger. Very sorry to see this mess now. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a solution that permanently eliminates the controversy would be possible. It probably isn't. But even if you think there is such a solution, that doesn't justify anything you do towards the goal of stoopping the ocntroversy. -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do for the best here. If we restore the text I changed, it is wrong, misleading and confusing for the reader (which is why I changed it, because I checked the conclusion and found it didn't say that, but something subtly different and a bit wider in scope); this seems to me to be a silly piece of process wonkery, restoring something that is actually wrong just because some editors prefer it to be wrong. We could leave it, but then some people will burst a blood vessel because, for some reason I absolutely cannot fathom, it makes a Really Big Huge Enormous Difference to them quoting a selective para from a subsection of the report rather than quoting the conclusion - and incidentally if anyone could explain why, I'd be really grateful. Probably the best thing is if someone goes and just removes the summary text as redundant and more trouble than it's worth. But I am going to do my level best not to care which is done. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a new year, so we're starting it off right, I see. Guy was right, just like the last doze ntimes we've gone over this. A small group of hardcore editors, living in denial about the actual report, state of the science, and so on, continue to agitate recklessless and relentlessly on the page. Guy, they like the other because that subsection lets them walk through some wiggle room the actual conclusion eliminates, in their reading of it. People whose dreams are crushed by reality will seize upon any hope availed to them, and that's happening here. Because Wikipedia is percieved by some as a 'battleground of ideas', they seek to exploit fringe theories here, in the hopes of getting attention, either for their cause or themselves. I support any amount of rollbacks to the FA quality article, and I find it disheartening that time after time, a good article is ruined by people with an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to protected page Cold fusion

The Evil Spartan [12] and I [13] [14] both asked JzG to self-revert his edit to protected page Cold fusion. His response was that it was a minor edit that no one could object to. [15] [16] [17]

However, it was in part due to JzG reverting other contributors' edits that led Doc Glasgow to protect the page. It seems unfair for one party to an edit conflict, being allowed to continue making edits, however "minor".

Action requested: Please suggest to JzG that he self-revert, or simply roll back his edits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he deleted a quote that I made, as explained here. I do consider his edit an abuse of admin power. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the same edits as being discused above, Ed, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was one of your POV fork attempts. I still fail to see any issue with JzG's 2 edits, but I do with yours and you creating another POV fork since you are on probation for creating POV forks, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the CMNS page history will show that I neither created it nor made any edits to it. What on earth are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not have created the page, but much of the content you did. Others have called it a POV fork and spoke to you about that directly [18][19][20][21] and I'm pointing out that you are on RFAR probation for POV forks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are wrong on multiple counts:

1. These are not the same edits as being discussed. This is clear from the fact that the edits are on entirely different pages. One discussion is about JzG protecting an article that he is involved in a dispute on (the CMNS article), and furthermore not protecting it on whatever version it happens to be on at the time. The other discussion is about JzG making controversial changes to a protected article (the cold fusion article).
2. You are in asserting the reason that cmns was redirected.
3. You are wrong for even discussing what the reason was, as it is completely irrelevant, AND it's the wrong article.
4. You are wrong to call it a POV fork, per Wikipedia:POV_fork.
5. You are wrong to assume bad faith on the part of Ed (and everybody else involved in this discussion), per wikipedia good faith policy.
6. You are wrong in stating what the incident being discussed is, both in this section and the one above. Both incidents are about wikipedia page protection policy, which is clear and explicit. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts do not agree with you here,[22][23][24][25][26], nor do I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a content edit, it's an edit to the summary of a link in a reference citation. The citation says see the 2004 DOE conclusion, but the text was not from the conclusion. I was sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text, but the editor in question is now implying that it was deliberate. Be that as it may, it's an unambiguous factual error. As I say, the text was in quotes, represented as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was a small paragraph from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."
original text, a small para from the response to charge element 3

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
what the conclusion actually says

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Honestly, I saw it as a copy-paste error. I don't mind removing the summary text altogether, or if someone wants to suggest an accurate citation text, but it was simply and unambiguously wrong, a trivial copyediting matter that I happened to notice and fix when I opened the report to respond to a point on the talk page - and of course I noted it on the talk page there and then. I really don't see why such a huge big deal is being made of this. I've explained in detail, and there is active discussion ont he talk page, so I see no reason it should have been brought here, unless it's to try and gain an advantage in what I never thought for a moment would actually be a dispute! Guy (Help!) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. I noticed from my watchlist that there were edits. I didn't particularly find the first edit problematic, but I didn't agree with the second one at all. The question of whether the removed information was "unnecessary" was debatable at the very least. I thought it should stay in as without it the reader would be wondering what research areas the reviewers thought should be investigated further. I went to revert it so that discussion could ensue on the talk page. But the page was fully protected. I wasn't able to revert the edits and JzG hasn't reverted them himself, despite being asked to do so at least twice. I'm very unhappy with the situation. Please note that I consider myself as a neutral editor in the edit warring on this page. I don't want to see it advocating cold fusion, which was a problem a few weeks ago, but I am also concerned that a group of editors including JzG want to take it the other way so that it is completely devoted to debunking the concept. I do hope that there will be no further insinuations about editors trying to gain an advantage by raising this issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The second edit was to cut out "two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods." - and I did that solely because the great chunk of text was unwieldy, and the reader probably does not need to know to that level of detail in a citation summary. Actually the whole thing is probably redundant, it could probably just be a link to the report and be no less useful. I don't mind. I just fixed an error of fact, quoting something as the conclusion which was not actually the conclusion, because it gave me a "huh?" moment. I have no interest in debunking the subject, my best friend worked in the lab where the original experiments went on and played a small part in them, he was very excited, he's still an academic in electrochemistry, I asked him about it before I saw this article and his view echoed the DoE report pretty much exactly - something odd is going on, but probably not cold fusion, people need to conduct some rigorous basic science to find out the source of the anomolous results. On the other hand, the repeated hijacking by free energy suppression people and other oddballs over the years is clearly unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm getting this right - the link of the citation was to something other than the conclusion (the response) but it was an accurate quote of the response? Without judging the other issues, wouldn't it have been easier to change the link? Avruchtalk 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, like I said, it said "conclusions" so I pasted in the conclusions. Tat was the obvious thing, to me, since the conclusions are by definition more comprehensive than one single para from somewhere in the body (which may be out of context, after all, if quoted in isolation). It seemed easier to take the very short conclusion than to try to wordsmith a new citation based on why the original editor chose to use that paragraph, assuming it was not an error, which I thought it was. I've invited the editor, user:Pcarbonn, to say what he meant to put, but it's a recent thing so I don't think there's an answer yet. Pcarbonn has been a bit naughty about pushing the fringe side of cold fusion, but not to the point of forfeiting the assumption of good faith, for sure. As I say, it seemed really unambiguous to me. The summary said "conclusion", I went to the conclusion, the text was subtly different. I didn't even spot that it was from elsewhere in the report until I'd copied and pasted the conclusion text. As far as I care the quotation can go altogether, I don't see it adds much and I thik we quote it in the article anyway, I don't know why it's even quoted in the citation summary. The article's been hacked about a bit between competing POVs so it's a tad messy in places. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the talk page that the edit was controversial. Personally, I think you are altogether tight about the edit, the redirect above, and your views on the subject, but you should never have taken any admin action on either of those pages including using admin powers to edit after it was protected or to protect a redirect. Your discussion above about the merit of the edits & the redirects only emphasizes this. I don't think you even realize that this is wrong. DGG (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are spot on there. First, the redirect. Scenario A: We take it to AfD, wait for consensus, then go to ArbCom enforcement and get Ed Poor slapped with a trout for creating a POV fork. Scenario B: We quickly fix the problem, identified by more than one editor, spare Ed the trout slap, and end up with a useful redirect and a discussion of how to cover the new terminology in the article. Why is Scenario B worse than Scenario A?

Second, the edit. I fixed a summary in a reference because it was unambiguously wrong and thus confusing. I freely apologise to everybody who has wasted time on this, but the encyclopaedia is clearly better off if people don't find that the linked text says something other than what the summary quotes - and in "quotes" at that. Seriously, if it's such a big problem, take the text out and just leave the link. We are supposed to make trivial clueful changes without bureaucracy and I honestly do think that was a trivial change, matching the quoted text to the title. Of course I should have foreseen that Pcarbonn would kick up a stink, I should have recognised it as his pet sentence from the report that he wants to stand in place of the conclusion in every instance because he feels it better reflects his interpretation of the report than the conclusion does, but I didn't. Why would we pander to that idiosyncracy anyway? It was simply a misquote, corrected, move on.

I freely admit that when I am pissed off I sometimes do things which are rash, but I was not pissed off then, I just fixed what looked to me like a mistake. And having fixed a mistake, I am (being me) reluctant to make it wrong again just for the sake of process. Sorry, that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to common sense ? Clearly Guy is right here. Nuff said. Move on. Eusebeus (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not just PCarbonn kicking up a fuss. I am cross too. JzG absolutely knew that the edits could have been controversial. It is a blatant abuse of admin privilege. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for the reversion or roll-back of the edits by JvG (aka "Guy"). It's a tempest in a teapot. (By the way, it was cold fusion research not Condensed_matter_nuclear_science which I created, and I have no objection to keeping everything about cold fusion in a single article.)

Let's unprotect the page and move on, as Eusebeus said. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Edits of Pandiyann (resolved)

Resolved

 – user is banned sock, indef blocked

Pandiyann (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Actually, looking deeper into this a little bit - I notice that this editor has a long history of abusive edits and edit summaries, including this page: Talk:1957_Ramnad_riots. I think this could stand for some additional review, and perhaps an additional step beyond the warnings already on his talk page. This type of SPA caste-warring is inappropriate at the least. Avruchtalk 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notifying Pandiyann of this thread now, sorry 'bout the delay. Avruchtalk 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

• 08:06, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (This section must be excluded frm this article as this is not an article abt tamil castes. The low caste scum, Paravar, will be gettin his share soon.......)

• 03:06, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (I know my history too damn well, moron. If u r too damn sure of wat u r speakin abt, y use different ip addresses to post this crap. Afraid that u might get kicked! Better quit, fisherman!!!)

• 03:41, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (The fool from Madras should think thrice b4 speaking abt this caste. Get the heck out of this site or go thru the aricle in wiki abt this caste and shut up!! -Nadar Sagham)

• 10:07, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170301361 by 203.94.202.95 (talk) The article must be protected from morons!!!!)

• 11:04, 8 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170048828 by 203.193.184.206 (talk) y don't u get the hell out of this site...)

• 11:05, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 168276090 by Tn pillai (talk) The coward is back to display non-sense...!!!)

• 14:15, 5 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:1957 Ramnad riots‎ (←Created page with '==Nicely written piece of shit to aggravate the fame of Kamarajar== The 1957 riot happened due to many reasons. This article was obviously written by some thevar to...')

• 14:16, 23 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (The loser tn.pillai returns with baseless theories...)

These are just edit summaries... Avruchtalk 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Some interesting edits can be found:

• here

• and here

• and here (look at the above comments by him there also)

• here

Takes awhile to find typical contributions, because a lot of it seems to be revert warring. Avruchtalk 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My take

As someone from this region and belonging to none of the castes being discussed, I can state the following.

• As for the content dispute part, I've commented at Talk:Pandyan_Kingdom#Edit war reported.
• Pandiyann's edit summaries are clearly offensive to caste sensitivities.
• Some of the anon editors' (from the opposite camp) edit summaries in the Pandyan Kingdom page are equally offensive and provocative.

I'd prefer NPOV brought by removing claims from either group and adding any of them only after discussing in the talk page and only if citations are provided. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a sock of the banned PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've blocked it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, everybody, for clearing up the mess and nastyness. I know I'm not an administrator, but I will pop in from time to time to check on that article, to see that the ones left are being civil. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ALA22222222 (talk · contribs) (Resolved)

Resolved

The user on his talk page is requesting another administrator review his block (He posted an unblock request, but I declined it). Given his first edit was a straight gutshot to here, could someone uninvolved look into this? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems the only edits he's made were the one here, and the one removing the warning from his talk page. Maybe he deserves a second chance. However, would the long string of 2s be a problem with the username policy? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here and unblock. It's possible that the user registered an account to make a comment here after editing anon for a while. I'll keep a close eye on him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just say that I am becoming increasingly disgusted at the assumption that new users who turn up here are ban-fodder. That's it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be a sock and he may not be one, but either way, let's not bite this possibly legitemate newcomer. Let's assume good faith and unblock. If there is any more disruption from this user, we can restore the block at any time. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He is already unblocked; and although I accept full responsibility for denying the original unblock request, I did not block him - all I did was warn him about blanking this page before the block by Pedro. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

His first (and so far only) comment after being unblocked was to ask not to "spy" on him. [27] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it as a bit of humour. We'll see with time. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "banfodder" comment above, while I don't agree with instablocking anyone who blanks ANI, I can definately see where it's coming from. As Jeske said in his unblock-denial, it's quite unusual for a true newbie to know where ANI is. ALA22222222 also asserts very nonchalantly on his talk page that he's allowed to remove warnings once he's read them. Now, I have met the odd newbie who bothered to read the policies, and he could always have been a lurker (or he could be bullshitting and happened to be right), so of course let's assume good faith; however, I think this one is certainly worth "spying" on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iam starting to wonder why I even signed up with wikipedia because somehow I feel like Iam being made fun of or harassed on here so don't expect me to contribute to this site much.--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not being made fun of here, and nobody here is going to "spy" on you unless they want a scolding. I'll be the first to help you out - just direct any questions to my talk page, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way J-ſtan, my username is perfectly fine--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute, to edit some articles that interest you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies at Bates method

Resolved

Just a heads up, but in the last week or so, a whole lot of identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies; they'll identify and block. As for TORs, I'll check using the infobox in each IP's contribs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, other admins have it. The advice avbout WP:OP applies, however. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Already identified and blocked, half a dozen admins beat me to the punch. east.718 at 05:19, January 2, 2008

Actually, it took me less than a minute to verify all of em, but no one is giving me a chance to block them, so I moved on to crack, instead. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually reported three of them some hours ago, but nothing happened. More to the point, these were a whole lot that all centered on a single article, which was my real cause for concern and something some unovolved and/or tool-bearing admin could look into. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be quick. I got four of them by starting at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates method semi'd for 120 hours. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the page been protected? Proxy paranoia? 87.28.84.44 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to Oxymoron83's page) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop using Tor - open proxies are prohibited on all Wikimedia projects because of abuse. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Um no, this is not the case. There is no prohibition on open proxies. The Foundation doesn't prohibit them, Jimmy Wales doesn't prohibit them, the meta policy doesn't prohibit them, and the policy on this wiki doesn't prohibit them. The policy even says that users are explicitly allowed to use them, "freely" it says. Sure they get abused and blocked from time to time, but they are certainly not prohibited. On the other hand the protection policy allows protection when there is vandalism, and prohibits protection to prevent anonymous editing. Your protection on the grounds of "IP Abuse" is without any foundation in policy, and worse, is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. 80.249.115.147 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) From the Meta policy: Although Meta encourages anyone in the world to contribute, such proxies are often used abusively. Since MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have ocurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns. (emphasis mine) The Wikipedia policy is simply a reiteration of the Meta policy, and both are generally interpreted as prohibitions on using open proxies. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You deliberately missed out the relevant bit of the consensually agreed policy: "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Your protection has no basis in any policy. 64.191.50.123 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is legitimate editing? Mr.Z-man 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This TOR proxy's just playing Harvey Birdman now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Anti-Spam Evangelist I am very worried when anon users try to edit with anonymous proxy IPs, but as a free speech and a human rights advocate I am conserned that some people in some countries may not be able to access WikiPedia for reading the content. Is it possible to allow anonymous proxy users to read the content but block them from editing? Igor Berger (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is always the case for all blocks. Blocks only block an editor from editing Wikipedia but the said person can still read. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP backlog

Somebody want to take a look at WP:OP, which has a big backlog? Which, unfortunately, I'm responsible for, since I started adding candidates 37 hours ago and which no one -- with a couple of exceptions -- has touched since? One of those exceptions is one of the Tor proxies commenting above, which I, in fact, had already flagged 13 hours ago.--Calton | Talk 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a trusted proxy-checker. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding inclusion requirements

An apparently new user, User:Esborg / User:76.100.118.160, has engaged in what at first seemed to be spamming of a subject, or at least repeatedly attempting to add a wikilink to some type of alternative medicine practice. From the way the user has reacted to warnings, and the pattern of their continued edit history, I AGF and assume they were unfamiliar with our inclusion criteria and weren't engaging in commercial or malicious linkspamming. But....at the time no one could know that. (The point of all this comes at the end, but this history is important.)

• Special:Contributions/76.100.118.160
• Special:Contributions/Esborg

I happened upon it after seeing that other users were deleting what seemed to be spamming. I then contributed to their efforts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Alternative_medical_systems&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Energy_therapy&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

For that last one I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [28]

The following one I left intact because it seemed a logical place for him/her to place such a request (which fulfilled my request in my previous edit summary), and no inclusion criteria are required for making a request here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=181322992

The problems (only one...;-) start here (the same edit history as one listed above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

It's the one where I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [29]

Here User:John Gohde reverted me using this edit summary:

• "RV there is no such requirement. In fact, one of the primary reasons this Glossary exists is to avoid the creation of stub articles. See talk." [30]

I had read Talk and saw what looked like an argument that could be interpreted as instructions on how to bypass our inclusion criteria. I therefore deleted the link again with this edit summary:

• "Esborg has been spamming this link. Inclusion is fine if referenced with V & RS, and I have left one of his instances elsewhere." [31]

I am not interested in getting into an edit war or getting anywhere near a 3RR situation. I am asking for help in interpreting policy in such a situation. As I understand it, even stub articles have inclusion criteria, and inclusion in this type of glossary would at least need some type of V & RS to justify inclusion. Am I wrong?

If I am misinterpreting things, please let me know on my talk page and also do the courtesy of letting me restore it. If I am correct, I would appreciate it if other users would watch that article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like probable COI spam to me. I did a Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary, that mentions "open source medicine". The search showed this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is a lot like the user name Esborg (talk · contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, it seems like Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. That clears up some background information about this particular user and their link. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still like an explanation of policy regarding the need for fulfilling inclusion criteria requirements or at least using V & RS to justify inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft

Could an administrator please study all edits made by this person since mid-December? Other relevant pages are User talk:Richard Daft and User talk:88.111.83.82.

Richard Daft's contributions are persistently unconstructive. It seems that he is using WP as a means of mounting personal attacks against a particular individual. Some of his comments amount to abuse. Attempts to reason with him have produced responses that are at best incoherent and at worst potentially threatening. His edits have all been reverted apart from his last one which is still on my talk page.

My recommendation is that this user and IP address are blocked for a suitable cooling off period and that appropriate admin notices are posted on the relevant pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post seems to be a spillover from a very hot content dispute at such places as John Leach (writer). Please supply diffs of any violations of Wikipedia policies that you believe have occurred. A cursory scan of the contributions suggests that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the best option for you to pursue. Though I don't know who should receive credit for the article improvement, the John Leach article looks pretty good right now (improved since November), and this is the period when you suggest the bad actions by Daft occurred. I did not see any vandalism, only good faith edits. Daft has not touched the article since 19 December, while many edits have happened since, so it's surely not an ongoing problem. Some of Daft's messages on your Talk are overheated, and he should moderate his language. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not good enough. Look at the three latest posts by Daft/Asquith and it is clear that he is deliberately conducting a campaign to try and discredit John Leach. I see he is now trying to forge an "alliance" with another member. His statement that the e-mail sent to Mr Wynne-Thomas was "rude and unpleasant" is a pack of lies. The e-mail was posted on a forum and read by perhaps 100 people. It is a polite and arguably humorous response to a book review that Wynne-Thomas had written.

Furthermore, in a previous post to me, Daft closes with a statement that could be construed as a threat: how else can you take being told to shut up or something serious will happen?

Do you want genuine editors to quit WP because of vindictive people like Daft or are you going to do something to prevent Daft from adding to his tally of 30-odd invectives all directed against one person? --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have absolutely had it. I cannot stand this situation any longer and I am resigning from the site. If you are going to do something about Daft then contact User:BlackJack and listen to what he says. Otherwise, let Daft have what he wants and you might as well shut the site down. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The responses to Mr Wynne-Thomas are far from humorous and this can be verified by contacting him at Notts CCC. Mr Leach also sent me a diatribe based on false information(He quotes the ACS minutes - I have them as do a small number of other people, and what he states is not born out by the facts). I have had one intention is starting this debate and it is this - Wikipedia needs, as far as possible to be accurate. Obviously mistakes occur, articles are fattened up over time and blatant errors removed and controversy discussed. In my opinion and that of many acknowledge experts(people used as a source by other well known writers, called on in the media, written prize winning books etc) is that whilst Mr Leach has an excellent knowledge of cricket and especially pre-1800, he is not an expert because his research has been secondary. In other words he has not spent 20, 30 plus years researching newspapers and original artefacts - in this area, neither have I but others have and they have compiled books, reports and articles and made their research available. Mr Leach, legitimately has drawn on this. Was is not legitimate to claim that his work is breaking new ground. It is not. he has found athe odd new score and drawn attention to others. So have I, so have thirty other people(I prefer the period from 1840) he has written an ebook that makes claims, some of them reasonable and some of them not. What is problematic is he has no sources or examples of original research to substantiate these claims. Therefore the crux of the matter is that the original and subsequent revision of his entry are completely misleading. Mr Wright is not a cricket expert and you cannot supervise a site such as this without a high level of knowledge and, it seems to me, a lack of objectivity. I would re-iterate that I was the one who initially publish Mr Leach's match scores list. It is a bit rich for him to say I receive criticism from the ACS committee over articles when his was the one in question. I would reiterate again that he has done an excellent job with the overwhelming majority of his additions to the site. However he has made some which are simply not accepted by anybody but himself. I have just seen Mr Leach's new entry and this surely is a better entry. Concise and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) M Asquith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question placed by the alleged "admin" on AlbertMW's page, someone called Mark Asquith (see above) is operating on here as User:Richard Daft (see above) and nearly every single one of his posts since he first appeared on about the 12th December has consisted of invective and diatribe against one person, as per the incoherent drivel above, which is a typical sample.

Whenever genuine editors have tried to be reasonable with him he becomes abusive, ignores what is said and goes off at a tangent before coming back with yet more of the same unsubstantiated garbage.

What has happened to WP:CIVIL? AlbertMW has specifically complained about a comment like "shut up before something serious happens" and you do nothing about it?

AlbertMW resigned from the site this morning and I am resigning from it this afternoon. If Wikipedia's so-called administrators will stand aside and allow a campaign of vitriol like this to be pursued against one person for over three weeks then the site is not worth supporting.

If you want people on the site who carry on like Asquith is doing then go ahead. You're welcome. I'll find another way to pass the time. Goodbye. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

This user is engaging in insulting and flamebaiting on Talk:Muhammad. I would recommend that the same sort of policy be used towards him as towards obvious anti-semites (ie, automatic banning as User:Alberuni or, at the very least, some sort of sanction for such severe lack of netiquette. 68.19.85.8 (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks, and have left a full explanation of why on his talk page. He has been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before. Neıl ☎ 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is, it was more then just TharkunColl (talk · contribs) that was engaged in personal attacks. Aliibn (talk · contribs) has also been engaged in personal attacks and race baiting on other editors whom he disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? TharkunCoil's attacks were obvious, but I can't see any blatant ones from Aliibn. I've reviewed Aliibn's contributions, and I see some frustration and some sarcasm, but only in response to Tharkun's baiting. I note Tharkun has appealed the block as two weeks is "harsh", while not apologising at all for his comments. As I say on his talk page, it was two weeks because he has been blocked on two separate occasions (24 hours, 100 hours) for trolling on Talk:Muhammad alone. Neıl ☎ 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, calling Mohammed a pedophile? Good block Neil, it was completely racist and if it happens on his return, I'd suggest a much longer block. I can't find anything too bad with Alberuni, not the friendliest exchange, but nothing block worthy and no where near the same level as TharkinColls remarks. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl has been at this for about a year now. Good block. 1 != 2 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A request to Ban an abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeilocks

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

---

User:Gohdeilocks is a Stalker nd has been Stalking me from outside of WikiPedia for 9 months. I believe I am not the first Wikipedian editor that this user has attacked and I can prove it if this is to go to arbitration commettie, which I do not see the need for because this user is a Sockpuppet with no editor history.

You can see the conversation on his talk page User_talk:Gohdeilocks and his Social engineering of the dialouge with reverts and comment title name changes. As well as inctigation of other users against me. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the convention here, but think the posts on my Talk page shows the accurate events of the last 36(?) hours. I don't feel inclined to add anything more except to repeat that every one of Igor Berger's accusations is demonstrably false. I have asked him repeatedly to leave me alone, but he keeps returning to add banners falsely accusing me of every WP offense the can think of. I am somewhat at a loss as to how to make him go away, although not for want of trying. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of it. I'll add more here if an Admin feels appropriate, but I think the evidence is pretty plain and straightforward. Gohdeilocks (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore, I followed the policy of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman. The user attacked me violating Wikipedia:NPA with his instigation of User_talk:ST47 while I was in arbitration with him. I leave this in your capable hands and please investigate. I see no more need to post any notices on User_talk:Gohdeilocks. Thank you, Igor BergeItalic textr (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore" Thank you: it is appreciated. Nevertheless, an Admin's eye and advice would, I feel, be productive. Gohdeilocks (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was nice while it lasted Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know who Gohdeilocks is supposed to be a sockpuppet of.--Atlan (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There was already a discussion at User talk:Deskana#Request for CheckUser of user User:Gohdeilocks. You guys should have a look.--Phoenix-wiki 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So there is no sockmaster and this is just an empty accusation, nor does there seem to be any merit to Igor's spamming allegations.--Atlan (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to take a look at a discussion we are having at StopBaware.org I am being Stalked Igor Berger (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about off-wiki discussions. What is being said there that has bearing on Gohdeilocks' on-wiki behavior?--Atlan (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, it establishes a patern of consern for further investigaion of this matter at hand. Why would a new editor with no previes history of editing enter a dispute between an admin and a user? The only way they would know there is such a dispute in the first place is to lay in wait and monitor my contribution history. I did not come to his page to initiate contact but he came to my talk page, and he also went to the admin page. You do not consider this social engineering Malware? Igor Berger (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they have no editing history? He could have been an ip. Look at Redrocketboy (talk · contribs) — an ip for ages. And there's 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) and 24.147.86.187 (talk · contribs) — they'd know there way around if they created accounts.--Phoenix-wiki 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like grounds for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser to detemine if the user is a Sockpuppet and has Conflict of interest with me as an editor on WikiPedia. But I will withdraw my request for the ban if the user stops to attempt any social engineering and respects my space as an editor. WikiPidea is full of many articles so this user has many places to edit without having to come in contact with me. So I will avoid, intentionally, editing on the back of him and he will do the same. Neither he or I will go around to other user talk pages bad mouthing each other or making references to behavior I or him do outside WikiPedia. So pretty much stay out of each other way! Igor Berger (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture I feel Igor Berger is attempting to paint of me is of an editor who has gone out of his way to disrupt, harass and bully another editor, making unfounded allegations and attacks, and ignoring pleas to stop. As the correspondence on my talk page shows, the truth is quite the reverse. I add this in interests of fairness, because I cannot help but feel an element of revisionism and deliberate misrepresentation is going on, as it has gone on throughout this dispute. And I repeat, to the very best of my knowledge I have had absolutely no contact with this user before 36 hours ago, here or elsewhere. Gohdeilocks (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like the User:Gohdeilocks agree to my proposal here at this noticeboard same as I have. And please have an administrator place reference to this agrremenet on both of our user talk pages so everyone will be alert of the agreement resolution. Thank you.

I also like to state to User:Gohdeilocks that fighting between each other is not in the best interest of WikiPedia community as a whole and we need to learn to agree to disagree for the best of the community. So at the end it is not who is right and who is wrong but how we can solve this problem in an amiable fashion. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I would like the User:Gohdeilocks agree to my proposal here" Given your proposal here is to ban me from Wikipedia, it seems pretty unlikely I would agree, doesn't it ? Gohdeilocks (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) I think he's referring to "So I will avoid, intentionally, editing on the back of him and he will do the same. Neither he or I will go around to other user talk pages bad mouthing each other or making references to behavior I or him do outside WikiPedia. So pretty much stay out of each other way!" Agree to avoid each other and move on. Lara❤Love 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly made exactly the same suggestion to him as early as 24 hours ago, as my talk page shows:

here("I am happy for you to stop this vandalism with no conversation or further contact between us")

here (" I have no desire for our paths to cross again, ever. Would that be a good way to take this forward ? Please don't take undue offense. I just want to resolve this.")

here, ("My offer for us to never have any contact with each other every again still stands. Please take it up. Please.")

here ("Please don't [contact me again] I've had as much 'clarity' as I need today, thank you. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation ended three comments ago")

here ("Please go away")

here ("Please take this to an admin, and discuss it with them, not me. I am simply not interested,")

and

here("Please do not post here again...Instead, please speak to an admin")

Igor Berger did not take the opportunity to accept any of these offers (all of which occurred well before this process began or was even hinted at), instead either deleting it and marking it as vandalism, ignoring it, or first saying that he would accept, then continuing to vandalize my user page with baseless warning banners and repeats of the personal attacks, warning me that this was the last warning for disruptive edits and "final warnings" (same link), before proceeding to raise this action here.

The offer was there before, and he chose not to accept it, but instead to escalate his attacks against me. I would like to assume good faith with Igor Berger when he says that this time he truly intends to stop his personal attacks on me. However, it would, I feel, be a triumph of hope over recent experience. Nevertheless, he clearly doesn't need my permission if he wants to drop this action or to stop harassing me in the future.. Gohdeilocks (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case it seems that both [IE, GOHDEILOCKS AND LARALOVE - ADDED FOR CLARITY] our assumptions that Igor Berger wished to withdraw this action were misguided. I'll step out of this now, and let the admins decide. Gohdeilocks (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gohdeilocks to show this community and to anyone outside the community that you are not involved in social engineering of your talk page, would you agree to place a link to this Administartion notice board incident case on your user talk page? I have placed a link to this already, and will place a diff link (or better oldid) to the final resolution? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a link (which you placed there, and I moved into chronological order), I absolutely have no idea what you mean by "social engineering" or the "malware" reference you made earlier, no particular desire to learn, and no great yearning to communicate with you ever again. Please deal with the admins in this case from now on; I will comment here if they request it. Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Our assumptions is refering to whom? I ask you to finish this and you replied what? So I am reference to your not hearing what I said! Where do you want to take this, because I am begining to see a destructive behavior on your part. Igor Berger (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The user is wasting the time of the administration board members, and in my opinion his talk page was socially engineered to be referenced to from outside the WikiPedia community to further social engineer negative bias towards User:Igorberger and maybe even towards WikiPedia community as a whole, I recommend to delete the user page, and to delete any comments that he has made on other editor`s talk pages! This is a very difficult thing for all of us to experiences and we need to guard and protect each other from abusive social engineering practices to uphold our authority and trust as reference to knowledge. I rest my case. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reboot

Outside opinion: it appears you have both done nothing this year (Wikipedia contribution-wise, I mean) except argue about this. Rather than talking about linking discussions on talk pages, discussing who thought of what first, including "social engineering" in the agreement, etc, I suggest you both just agree, with no further tweaking of the wording, to very simply:

1. Stop posting in this thread
2. Avoid posting on each other's talk page
3. Avoid editing pages the other has already edited
4. Avoid mentioning the existence of the other user
5. Agree to disagree about who is at fault
6. Have a cup of tea.

Based on your previous comments in this thread, it seems like something you should both be willing to do. In my perfect world, you would both type "I agree." under this, add nothing else, and then I (or someone) would archive this thread, and then everyone involved could move on. Or, going further, in my nirvana, if one of you typed more than "I agree", the other would ignore it and not respond. Nothing is being achieved here. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Gohdeilocks (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Igor Berger (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Bluemarine

I'm requesting a 48 hour block of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) for abusive comments. This user is also known as Matt Sanchez and a look at the recently archived Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive11 shows an extremely long history of abusive comments, most recently [32]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I say indef block or ban. Hasn't he caused enough trouble as it is? Isn't there an Rfc on him now? And isn't this diff unpleasant enough to indef block, given all the other warnings he has had? Jeffpw (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him to stop. I don't think the diff Jeff gives is unpleasant enough to indef ban him. Based on [33], I think he's on his last warning now, though. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his Rfc? How many last warnings do you think this makes, now? And why is it that some editors get a free pass to edit their own bios, and behave in as abusive manner as they want on this site, while others are shown the door for much less? This guy is editing with an agenda and without regard for his fellow editors. Ticking his fingers each time he violates policy only encourages him to be that much more aggressive the next time. Jeffpw (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention his RfC - thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How many final warnings was the user given, exactly? I'll notify him of this thread, as well. Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four, if I count his recently archived talk page correctly. Three for uncivil behaviour, one for a possible legal threat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest a ban altogether, but looking at his history, he *does* contribute to other articles besides his own. I don't know if he's abusive on those or not, but I'll take a look. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, that is 4 final warnings, and 22 warnings in total, if I counted correctly, over a variety of issues, including NPA, CIV, sockpuppetry, COI, etc. Surely the community's patience has been exhausted by now? Jeffpw (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he made it this long? Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec3)*I've been following this for awhile, and personally I don't think he should be banned. I don't think he is consistently disruptive or abusive, and I can appreciate that he loses his cool occassionally as a result of some of the editors who work on the article provoking him. His article attracts a lot of tendentious editing, and while he is certainly not a model Wikipedian I don't think a ban is the answer. Avruchtalk 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the answer to stop someone who is routinely uncivil? Some sort of parole, do it again, banned? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Neil's issuing of a final warning and would endorse a block of up to a week should Matt Sanchez disregard it. I don't think a ban is the answer - we should be very reluctant to take such measures against people who have article about them (especially ones that have serious WP:BLP issues). Having followed some of the discussions on the talkpage of Matt Sanchez's article in the past, I know that there are a lot of efforts to bait him. That doesn't excuse his conduct, but I am sympathetic to the fact that there is more going on here than one rogue editor making random personal attacks. There has been some talk of refering the editing of Matt Sanchez and other articles to ArbCom - that is starting to seem a sensible way to go. WjBscribe 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean by a free pass. Only one block, and that was for a legal threat. The rest of his grossly uncivil actions have only resulted in toothless warnings which he obviously feels he can disregard at this point. I'd say block him, and for each repeated infraction add to the block time. I haven't had time to go look and see the outcome of his sock case, but I know he as at least two accounts. Seriously, situations like these are what make people question Wikipedia's enforcement of policy. And just to be perfectly clear, I have neither read nor edited his article, and only know of this user through all the discussion his actions have provoked on various pages I watch. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattsanchez and User:Bluemarine, I believe. He hasn't, as far as I know, been accused of abusive sockpuppetry (at least I know I have been aware of both and they have been listed on the talk page for quite awhle). Avruchtalk 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have been tempted to block him, but Neil responded to this thread first and judged a final warning to be the appropriate response. I respect that decision. I suspect this matter is one that needs to go before ArbCom as it may require more carefully crafted remedies than simple blocks. WjBscribe 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't subjects of BLP if they edit here be held to the same policy standards as any other editor? I think it would be bad precedent to make them a special class of editors. Their articles are one thing, and BLP applies, but their behavior should be held to identical standards as anyone else. Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you. But I think that should be tempered with some sympathy for the additional stress they may be under above other editors. Especially where there is an interest group trying to add weakly sourced information alleging that one has worked as a prostitute into your biography. My opposition was to a ban, which I think would be premature and a bad way of dealing with this particular problem. I think a block of up to one week would be appropriate should the behaviour continue - it would after all be his first block for incivility/personal attacks. WjBscribe 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A short block is usually the next step following a final warning to play nice - while I saw some warnings, I didn't see a "final" one, which is why I gave one (also noting he has made good faith edits). I also note there has, as yet, not been a valid block made on the account (the only one that has been made was overturned). Neıl ☎ 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that if (when) Matt acts unpleasant again, that it will be followed be an actual block. I agree he shouldn't be banned outright at this point, but he has gotten by being very incivil for a long time. There are some editors who deliberately bait him, but he is also incivil to those who are polite to him, sometimes even after they have agreed with him on a content issue. Aleta (Sing) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who invested far too much time on trying to fix that article, I recognize that ArbCom might well be the only solution to the longstanding issues with it. (I dropped in after a month-long absence to see that little has changed.) The article has been semi-protected (or fully protected) for eight months now (protection was removed 3 days ago), and as soon as the IP warriors realize that it is open again, they will be out in force to attack Sanchez, which will result in another round of protection. Sanchez himself is not helping matters with his nasty attitude towards gay editors and his ceaseless self-promotion. As WjBscribe has pointed out, Sanchez has been baited by many people (including three now indefinitely-banned editors, one of whom runs an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez), but he seems to think that gay editors should not be allowed to edit the article (which is an issue, considering the LGBT WikiProject tag). Since blocks are not punitive in nature, I don't know if a block would be appropriate at this time, but I would support an indef-block upon his next blanket attack against gay or leftist editors. However, something should also be done to address the flock of single-purpose accounts associated with this article, most of which are anti-Sanchez editors with a clear agenda. Horologium (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This person has additionally attacked homosexual editors? The NPA policy aside, does this cause problems with any sort of discrimination policies here? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Long time problematic user. He's had plenty of warnings. Support 1 week block now, 1 month on next infraction, indef after that. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He attacks them as biased against him or for inclusion of his porn history in the article. Avruchtalk 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the RFC for diffs. The history is rather extensive. Often, they have been posted after nasty comments from anti-Sanchez posters, but sometimes they are unprovoked or totally disproportionate. Many of the worst attacks (on the talk page) have been redacted by other editors (primarily me and WjBscribe), but some of them still appear in the extensive talk archives. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For just one example, see this diff. Aleta (Sing) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would block both user names, for at least 3 months' time or indef, for sockpuppetry, incivility, and the risk of further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we've got consensus that:

• If User:Mattsanchez or User:Bluemarine writes WP:CIVIL-violating comments or edit summaries he will be blocked for at least 48 hrs.

I'm going to be monitoring the article (and probably doing some minor cleanup), so I'll leave word here if anything requires admin attention. Since I'm not really an "uninterested party", I'd rather have another admin take any required action. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine blocked

I have blocked Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine) for 48 hours. He chose to disregard Neil's warning and made two attacks replacing the names of two others editors with crude homophobic references: [34], [35]. WjBscribe 05:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have done exactly the same thing - he was warned, and chose to ignore it. I suggest if he uses his other account to evade this block in the meantime, it (the alt account) ought to be indefinitely blocked. Neıl ☎ 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tara Whelan (resolved)

Resolved

I have tried to submit a 2nd AfD nomination for Tara Whelan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_2#Tara_Whelan (2nd nomination), however I have not been able to do so properly. Can someone please help. I haven't been able to find any instructions on how to renominate for AfD, maybe my bad. Thanks. Happy New Year. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, looks fine to me. Avruchtalk 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lopakhin and the Jewish Encyclopedia

Lopakhin (talk · contribs) has created a number of articles that are almost verbatim copies of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See for instance Barthold Dowe Burmania‎ and [36], Seligman Baer Bamberger and [37], Davicion Bally and [38], etcetera. The Jewish Encyclopedia says on the bottom of each article: "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." Are these articles violations of the copyrights of the Jewish Encyclopedia, or do we have an agreement with the Jewish Encyclopedia about the use of their content? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: the articles appear to have been created in accordance with Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely republishing a public-domain work with a copyright notice does not take it out of the public domain. They specifically state the contents are unedited, therefore they probably cannot claim copyright. The copyright notice is probably only intended to apply to the website layout etc, not the article contents. I've sent them an e-mail asking for clarification. —Random832 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This totally sucks. No, it can hardly be copyvio, but we should NOT be using the Jewish Encyclopaedia as a source anymore, no more than we should Britannica 1911 nor the Catholic Encyclopaedia 1913. Outdated and partisan sources like this are not good enough for Wikipedia any more. We've outgrown them. Come on, we can surely do better than this. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'm personally glad we did use those Brittanica dumps as a starting point - in my opinion they helped us grow faster - but nowadays there's no excuse for relying on 70+-year-old material just because it's out of copyright. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thats an opinion I've expressed before in specific instances of JE references. Its hopelessly partisan and out of date, and while references can't be removed they should be inserted with extreme attention to the lack of quality often displayed in these articles. Avruchtalk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this about using the JE as a source for article text or as a reference in any shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I think that Lopakhin has been doing a good job in creating these articles, and I hope that the work rate keeps going. I think the problem is that the guidelines on externally present articles are not at all clear. I would suggest that there are two alternatives:

(1) To text dump the articles into a sandbox and only to release the articles after they meet (a) NPOV criteria, (b) have up to date language and (c) remove outdated references (eg 1908 population statistics), or

(2) Create a one line summary article which asserts notability and includes a link to the old encyclopedia to meet WP:V and have either a talk page tag or (less preferably) an external list of the "expandable articles".

JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is in Public Domain, and therefore copying text from there to Wikipedia is not a copyvio. The quality and today's relevance of the articles there differ dramatically - it would be absolutely wrong to claim that that every article is "hopelessly partisan and out of date". There are plenty of articles which are as up-to-date today as they were a century ago. If anyone feels that particular text copied from JE doesn't meet the Wikipedia quality standards, it should be dealt on per article basis. I am sure user Lopakhin used his best judgment when picking the articles. Wikiolap (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Czar world copyrighted image upload

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fresh off a block for image upload problems, User:Czar world uploaded a huge stream of apparent copyright violations today, in each case claiming to be the owner of the copyright for such diverse things as screen-shots from Britney Spears videos and publicity shots of Thai actresses.Kww (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP vandalism

Resolved

 – IP has not edited since 1st January and articles are placid

• 83.100.160.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 28 edits mostly since November, 90% of which ignore WP guidelines, being controversial POV & original research, never with any sources, vandalism, defamation. Final warnings given. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four of which are dated today, and not linked to specific edits, despite IP not having edited since yesterday. Having said that, most of the edits seems to be nonsensical, and previous warnings have been given. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I placed the 4 warning on today to cover the aspects of their behaviour that had not been covered before. I felt that this would also help any admin taking a cursory look before considering a ban. To link to all instances of their previous edits would have placed too much of a burdon on a good editor (me). I sometime think that editors with mal-intent are running rings around us. :-( -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring a talk page (resolved, monitor)

Resolved

 – page restored and protected, monitor sockmaster

Help required to restore this page [39] to User talk:Will Beback, I cant do it, some nasty vandal and my link is to Will's history talk. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, I also move-protected Will's page. SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked the sock that did the move.. they'll probably be more later, the sockmaster seems to be really upset that he got caught. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person returning??

It would appear that the George Reeves Person (whoever he might be) is returning to Wikipedia. Judging by the post here - [40], it seems like the George Reeves Person/Squidward is returning to Wikipedia.

Looks like we might have to restore Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that was deleted as a courtesy - since he seems intent on returning.

I also notice he's trying to incite people to vandalise Wikipedia too, from what I read.

Should the page be restored or kept deleted?? I'd take it to deletion review, but I'm not sure if we should ignore this or see if he does come back.

Hope this is of help to you all. --Solumeiras ^talk 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras...how did you discover the post? I just find it weird that you found it and posted here about it all within 8 minutes of it being posted to that web forum. Metros (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I had it open in another tab on my browser... was reading it for a completely different issue - unrelated to Wikipedia (sex/relationships related!) That web forum is one I read regularly anyway, quite entertaining to read, sometimes not worksafe though! I myself was surprised to see it. I've no idea who this George Reeves person is, but whoever he is, isn't he banned or something?? --Solumeiras ^talk 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sprotret (talk · contribs)

Resolved

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

---

All of Sprotret (talk · contribs)'s edits have been vandalism or nonsense. The extreme BLP vandalism and move vandalism of Regina Richards should result in a block. I've issued a uw-bv warning, but haven't taken this to WP:AIV because we haven't gone through four rounds of warnings. Corvus cornix_talk 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While the contributions are dubious at best, the user hasn't been active in about 5 and a half hours, which makes me wonder if a block is really necessary at this point. Since you have issued a final warning, the next time they vandalize, a report to AIV should suffice.

Their last edit was less than two hours ago. And they get a free pass on vandalism like this? And since I've put a uw-bv tag on their page, does that mean they now get to go through three more rounds of vandalism before anybody will do anything? Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did look at my clock wrong, my apologies. No, of course they don't get a free pass for vandalism like that. As I said before, you issued a final warning, so if they edit again, they can be blocked immediately. But, after taking a look at the user's deleted contribs, I think a vandalism-only-account block may be in order. Sorry for overlooking that before. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

help sought

A few days ago user:ScienceApologist (a productive editor) was blocked for 72 hours for incivility and related issues. He had had such issues before as well. After considerable discussion, the roots of the problem seem to be that he is trying to ensure balanced and fair handling of scientific topics, but he feels that when faced with unscientific viewpoints, he will be unsupported if he seeks help, and considered uncivil if he tries to deal with it himself.

Whilst there may be many views on this perception, the bottom line is, he has been suggested to use dispute resolution and factual descriptions of editing problems, and use the community to help in such issues, rather than sharp words and uncivil personal views on editors ("calling a spade a spade").

I'd like to ask if a couple of experienced admins who are neutral in science/pseudoscience type issues, possibly with some mediation-type ability, might be willing to offer themselves as people he can contact if he has a problem, for a more immediate response/input/handling? Thus supporting him better, and maybe making it easier to get this kind of problem resolved without wondering how much time or hassle it will take if he can't speak as he's used to :)

Relevant background (shortish): User_talk:ScienceApologist#Handling_problem_editors.

Thanks to anyone able and willing!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The major problem here is that ScienceApologist has enemies, and those enemies know his hot buttons and press them relentlessly. Getting SA out of the way would be a major step forward for those wishing to promote fringe and pseudoscientific views on Wikipedia; he's a standard bearer for scientific rationalism, well educated and articulate. The various arbitration cases surrounding paranormal subjects, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and the non-standard cosmologies case, show how determined the fringe advocates are. I'm trying to help as much as I can. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In part yes, but the issue here and now is, he has made clear he doubts that he will get prompt support and help if he did try a more "DR" type approach. Support may provide either reassurance, or skilled input if a dispute arises. In both cases he may feel if it's in competent hands, or he has competent admins to pass it to who will help resolve it properly, then he may not feel under such pressure personally to act himself, as he has been. If he felt he had support that would act effectively, that could only be good for both him and for the project. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem, of course, which is that in most of these cases the neutral point of view is much closer to the scientific point of view than the paranormal. Which means that the paranormal supporters will not consider the neutral parties to be neutral, and anyone they do consider neutral probably won't be :-/ Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with JzG here. Though, I find a substantial problem with many folks trying simply to insist on use or not use of the word pseudoscience. Even in "mainstream" academia there is plenty of poor (even pseudo) science that has gone on, and is going on. If we keep to clear explainations of sources, and not worry about 'labels' as much, we might keep the heat lower on some of these topics as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are willing to help me with this, please add your names to User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. I really do appreciate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor considers an administrator neutral is one problem. The more immediate one is helping SA to feel he can stand back a bit from the line of direct confrontation, in favor of more dispute-skilled others who can help him better, when an actual problem conduct or dispute is at hand. This will keep disputes down a lot. As a community, we appoint mentors (and admins step in on disputes) every day, routinely. First things first, then deal with any genuine remaining issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will help as much as I can as a user, and I will step in and say that ScienceApologist's experience seems very real to me. There is a problem with admins that misapply NPOV when the article is about scientifically nonsensical subjects. The one and only time I have been blocked was for "edit warring" on What the Bleep Do We Know, and I have had my behaviour reviewed by one other editor and an admin that I have edited controversial articles on Wikipedia with, both of whom were surprised that blocking was considered or done.Kww (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second! For months now I thought that FT2 and NE2 are the same person and only now I, indirectly, learn otherwise. Not a good sign. El_C 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IPs in 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2

Getting out of archive so a admin can finally do something about this

• 63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs)
• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs)

I have a feeling the IP's in this range are being used by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1. I therefore, a few weeks ago, tagged 63.3.10.1 and 63.3.10.2 with the {{suspectedsockpuppet|Cowboycaleb1}} template. I believe this, as 63.3.10.130 has been determined to of been used by Caleb as found out in the SSP case for Caleb. However, since then, those 2 IP's, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see [41] [42] [43] [44]. I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the SSP case. Can someone block these IPs for two - three months as sockpuppets of Caleb. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

D.M.N. (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whois states the range is 63.0.0.0/10, and I wouldn't dare blocking that for 3 months. Does he stay on 63.3.10.0/24? (eg. 63.3.10.xx) -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Socks?

User:24.20.216.95 and User:Brennusgroup. Both started editing this week and both have only edited the same 3 articles (with the exception of the IP putting a link to the movie that the registered account wrote the article about). It looks like either a good hand-bad account or something weird... --Smashville^BONK! 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you want a cookie? 72.193.221.88 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Smashville^BONK! 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you wanted. I was thinking: "cookie." 72.193.221.88 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wanting to know opinions...--Smashville^BONK! 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They haven't done anything wrong, so this is pretty pointless. It looks like a well-meaning user who doesn't always remember to log in - please assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:FortKent Block Review (Resolved, reduced)

Resolved

 – block reduced to 48 hours

Per Special:Contributions/FortKent I've just blocked, without many warnings, this user indef. Sorry if my WP:AGF has run out but it's trolling to me. Only bringing it here as I'm about to go offline, and will not be back until 08:00 UTC. I have no issues with an unblock at all, if someone feels the editor deserves another chance. Night all! Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He claims in his unblock request that he was just being bold. Those weren't edits consistent with a new user being bold. I think it would take an experienced user to find and redirect RfA and a malicious intent to make the edits he made. Sometimes AGF must take a back seat to IAR and protecting the project. Dlohcierekim 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted this user made his last edit in the same minute he received his first warning. In any event, his edits were truly bizarre for a new user. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned, ceases editing, then blocked indefinitely? Have I read the page history right? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly would appear to be the case here - Alison ^❤ 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the block occurred before the next edit. However, it may have just been that the next bad edit was pre-empted. 6 bad "test edits" is a pretty bad start. Dlohcierekim 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The first two edits seem fine to me, and as far as I can tell actually clarified the meaning of the sentence (if not the simplest way of doing so). And the next four were self consistent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt its a new user, but it looks like this one should be unblocked or at least have the block reduced to something reasonable. Avruchtalk 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the block to two days.   jj137 ^♠ 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the reduction to two days. Thank you Jj137, and all. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion

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

---

Resolved

 – Referred to DR

Consequent on the discussion above. Doc has unprotected the article, and almost immediately user:Pcarbonn made this edit [45].

There is a problem here. It is a cherry-picked sentence from the middle of the report which supports his preferred interpretation that the reviewers were virtually unanimous in supporting more research; the report's conclusion is more neutral, and the link says "conclusions of", but Pcarbonn wants to say that the conclusion is much more supportive than actually it is. I've had more than enough of this querulous POV-pushing, could we have more eyes please. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) ... And, after a brief storm of POV editing, protection back on. Perhaps we should just leave it to the kooks and have a quiet life. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reprotected the article. I no sooner unprotect it than inane edit warring resumes. Take this to dispute resolution - and don't bring the content dispute here. I'm tempted to block everyone concerned.--Doc^g 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free, I'm sick to death of resisting fringe science POV pushers and could do with a break :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned with this edit, where Pcarbonn removes the major quote. A few edits later, he inserts the OTHER contentious paragraph he prefers. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is no longer an AN/I issue. Avruchtalk 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Second opinion on User:Calumbyers (not resolved)

^{Sorry, thought it was resolved Avruchtalk 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)}

Could somebody take a look at User:Calumbyers and Calum byers? Besides being an nn bio, the article looks like an attack page. But since it's written by User:Calumbyers (who claims to have sourced the article from an interview with the subject), the User name itself seems problematic. Corvus cornix_talk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I speedied it per A7, didn't assert significance.   jj137 ^♠ 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about blocking the User? And deleting the User page? Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user   jj137 ^♠ 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned them what? They're using somebody else's name as their User name. And their User page is still an attack. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that they aren't the person? Also, just looking at the user page, without knowing what "GSA" is, I don't see how it is an attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the deleted Calum byers page they created, in which they said they got the information about the article "FROM" Calum byers, and in which they claimed that the GSA is a gay organization. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that no admin will do anything about this situation, so I have blanked the offensive User page. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aatomic1 editwaring again (resolved)

Resolved

 – page protected, no action against Aatomic1 taken

User:Aatomic1 has just dropped into this article Easter Rising for a spot of edit waring. This issue was discussed and the references don't support the statement. All they want is to join the POV bandits on this article. Could Admin's review this article, and the editors. --Domer48 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for one week due to edit wars.   jj137 ^♠ 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - semi-protected? Is Aatomic1 not the one edit-warring? I thought edit-war protections were usually full? ^Avruchtalk 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was full protection. Marking resolved. ^Avruchtalk 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN/monobook.js

User:TTN is using Twinkle to make large number of high speed controversial edits. Would someone be good enough to remove his access please?Geni 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Avruchtalk 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Diff's would help. Resolute 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have had discussions similar to this before. TTN is always making high-speed merges without really getting a consensus, and it seems he can now do it even faster with Twinkle. I'll alert TTN of this discussion, by the way.   jj137 ^♠ 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that has already been done --  jj137 ^♠ 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I used TW with recently were ones that underwent discussion, but were brought back anyways without as much of a peep on a talk page. I don't really see that as contraversial. TTN (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide some diffs. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57].   jj137 ^♠ 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like User:Catchpole needs a severe talking to.Kww (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I started boldy restoring content due to the response at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. Many editors have complained about the WP:EPISODE on that guidelines talk-page. I then saw similar insstances where TV shows had been merged and redirected without a consensus and so similary restored the content. Catchpole (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I cry "foul"! If TTN is using Twinkle to do his work, the Twinkle developers should consider optimising it to do whatever it is he needs done. Making his task harder by preventing him from using tools isn't reasonable.Kww (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(To initiator of this thread and in general) I thought the first step would have been to discuss this directly with the user first, before deciding its needs admin attention. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't there an ArbCom decision admonishing TTN regarding these types of actions? Can someone post the relevant text? Thanks! ^Avruchtalk 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN went through all the necessary steps for a merger this time round, short of flashing neon signs on the main page. Catchpole isn't even attempting to discuss. Will ^(talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did TTN discuss this on the target merger page? Where was this discussed and supported? I couldn't find anything. Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no arbcom decision against him. The arbitrators split, and could not manage to pass any motion admonishing TTN. He has a lot of fans, because he is doing a good job of a necessary task.Kww (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Final decision here, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Final_decision. TTN was not admonished. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Still it was stated that the editors involved should seek consensus on the issue. I don't see TTN seeking consensus at all, rather he keeps up doing what he has been doing in the past - rapid, semi-automated editing, mass "mergers" and down talking to editors. CharonX/talk 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• His edit summaries are saying to refer to talk on Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, but there appears to be no comments from him there? Is he just redirecting entire seasons of TV shows and changing all those articles to be redirects? If there is objection to this activity, wouldn't it require consensus to proceed? What user name discussed doing this? Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#SG-1 Episode notability. The project agreed that some articles failed the guideline. Will ^(talk) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Must be a small project then, there is hardly any discussion. Shouldn't something like this be mentioned on the target page, rather than some out of the way corner of Wikipedia that most editors may not be watching? TTN just swooped in based on that? I don't see him participating. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of the people that participated in that discussion have made the necessary redirects, and not TTN? It looks to me like he just "swooped in".   jj137 ^♠ 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some controversy about use of TW by editors lately. See here for a recent example. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was talked about they seem to be in the process of transwiki, this is no big deal and not the type of thing that took him to ARBCOM. Seems like every time he performs a redirect people are going to jump all over him. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit histories for those articles, you'll see that the merger/redirects were originally performed by sgeureka (talk), reverted by Catchpole (talk), and redone by TTN, probably by just hitting the undo or revert button, which is what made it possible to do them so fast. They were discussed by Sgeureka on the project talk page in advance, with a reference to the discussion on the episode list article with no objections or comment by Catchpole. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

three editors is not wide enough participation for something of this magnitude. TTN is violating the spirit fo the arbcom decision--it was that census was required, and it was up to us editing here to find it. They were right about that, and continued edits without substantial consensus might be good grounds for reopening. One is supposed to learn something from an arb com. Many of us hoped they would say something one way or the other giving more direct guidance, but if they think we can deal with it ourselves, they deserve that we give it a good try in good faith--not try to see how much one can get away with. Transwiki to Wikia is not a reason for unilateral action--its not a wmf project like Wiktionary. Anyone who performs mass actions in controversial matters, damn right people are going to complain about it. Now its up to us to follow through on those complaints. DGG (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was not a single complaint (rather the opposite) in the last five or six weeks about the transwiki I (in this case not TTN) was doing. Catchpole did not leave a comment at the LoE talk page, my talkpage, or the WikiProject talk page, all of which I have watchlisted, so I had no idea that he resurrected the episode articles despite the (my) last edit summary Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article. The only controversial thing here are Catchpole's may-I-say-sneaky actions, which TTN promptly undid. TTN had and still has unglorious moments, but this is clearly not one of them. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky? I didn't realise I was required to fill out multiple forms to edit the encyclopedia. Whatever happened to being bold? Catchpole (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, these redirects have been discussed at length at the appropriate forums, and the edit summary was quite clear what to do (and what not to do). As you ignored both consensus and failed to leave a note *somewhere* so that others would notice, despite you being an established wikipedian who should know better, I can only call such an action "sneaky" (for lack of a better word). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ruled collaboration. TTN is just merely continuing his edit behaviour and I see no evidence of collaboration on his part. Had there truly been a consensus no one would be revert waring or even reverting. A non-controversial edit would be trivial stuff like double redirect fixing. Something is controversial by nature if it is disputed. -- Cat ^chi? 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if no-one complains to a proposal where there'd be the most views for six weeks, it's not controversial. Will ^(talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TVS consensus

The established consensus for television station articles is to only include staff members who appear on-air. Several individuals have been adding non-air staff to WKYT-TV, in blatant violation of that established consensus. What is the best way to deal with that sort of issue? I've been told when trying to report the individual for vandalism that the edits have been in good faith. But they stand outside of the establihed guidelines for those articles. The person in question refuses to communicate and certainly does not want to cooperate with everyone else. --Mhking (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've got yourself in an edit war my friend. Seven reversions in less than 24hrs. Whoa now, time to step back and take it to the talk page. RMHED (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and 3RR warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I've backed off of reverting the other two editors in question. Despite taking the conversation to the talk page of the editors in question along with the talk page of the article in question, I've received no feedback from anyone else involved. I still am pleading for guidance and commensurrate intervention from others both here and in WP:TVS. Thanks in advance... --Mhking (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not able to get any further guidance here, I'll go to WP:3O to see if there can be any other means of solving this impasse, but I remain open to any additional suggestions and guidance. --Mhking (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 2nd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on Wing Chun and Wing Tsun, and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and several other pages. He was previously blocked for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference, as well as references back to wikipedia. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war as well again at Wing Tsun and has started the same at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu and List of Chinese martial arts. I have stopped before reaching 3rd this time. I'm requesting administrator intervention again.

Here is the record for the previous block:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#Dissruptive_Editing_by_user_Koonleg50.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone that can take care of this? Its 12 hours later and he's still continuing his disruptive editing across all the pages mentioned, doing everything he was warned not to do after the last block. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up, its 3am and I need sleep. He's still going at it, moving pages, doing reverts, pushing WP:OR, etc. and now throwing up "edit protect" tags in an attempt to keep his reverts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked by admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Off to sleep for me......*thud*. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) is promoting a school of martial arts that does not have external references (for example, books, documentary) and has a name that is identical to a widely known martial art (Wing Chun). In order for him to do that, I suggest the following:

1) Provide a reference or source to his information other then the organization's website. His reference provide no information on this style so according to the information on the site I would consider it a traditional Wing chun school. If I can see some additional information the nature of this style then I can consider it a separate and distinct style.

2) Refrain from editing the Wing Tsun pages because according to you, it is not your style anyways. Find a classification that matches your style, describe your similiarities to other Southern styles and your uniqueness but leave the traditional Wing Tsun information alone. For example, if your style is more related to Fukien style, Hung Kuen or White Cranes, describe it. Then we can relate in within the broader context of this encyclopedia. The Weng Chun style might be interesting but I do not have the information to make any inform decisions about this style.

3) I and the Wikipedia community are here to help each and everyone to contribute and disseminate quality information.

--Ottawakungfu (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

Will someone take a look at Talk:Blood_libel_against_Jews#Jewish_women_admitting_Child_sacrifice_on_OPRAH. User 85.92.85.2 (talk) claims to be the same editor as the blocked IP 78.86.159.199 (talk), which seems like a pretty clear-cut case of block evasion, if true. Note that I did not ask for the original block, and I think his conduct so far, although clearly inflammatory could probably be handled without the use of administrator tools. He also claims that he's editing from a computer at some kind of student residence. Perhaps someone who knows how to get the information to use the {{SharedIP}} tag should take a look at this and see if it applies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's odd; the new IP doesn't seem nearly as rude and trollish as the first one. Maybe he took the hint? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the first one; I'm inclined to block-evasion block the second, but if someone else wants to try to reason with them a bit first then I will hold off. They do seem to have become somewhat more reasonable with the second IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Block applied - user HowFake

HowFake (talk · contribs) was identified as a vandalism only account targeting The Pinks by inspection of contributions and summarily blocked indefinitely. This message is to notify so that opinion regarding the action can be registered. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a vandal, but why not give him a final warning instead of blocking? All he received was a level 1 cluebot warning. I personally doubt he has anything constructive to add, but he stopped editing hours before you blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User makes a total of 4 edits in a 6 minute time frame, and is indef blocked. Doesn't seem appropriate given the edits he made, which were vandalism, but not anything more than that. No warnings except for one. Should definately be unblocked, and given a final warning for the vandalism, and the misleading edit summaries, asap, IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously a bad faith account and warnings are just a formality. A short block may have been a better idea. John Reaves 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating sockpuppets

If this is the wrong place, I apologize. I am not sure if it is Tajik or Beh-nam who is creating these new sockpuppets, but they keep appearing. CanadianAnthropologist (talk · contribs)/HariRud (talk · contribs)/KabuliTajik (talk · contribs)/BamyanMan (talk · contribs)/Padmanii (talk · contribs)/AntiFascism (talk · contribs). The latest is Ghurid (talk · contribs) who picked right up after AntiFascism (talk · contribs) was blocked. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghurid appears to have been created inside the account creation block levelled against AntiFascism. Uh, I have nothing more to say, but I felt that worth noting. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-BS Squad (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about User:Anti-BS Squad. Although "BS" stands for "big squid", this can be easily confused with "bullshit." I didn't go to UAA, but what does everyone else think? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, personally. Even if it was intended to represent bullshit, I don't think that necessarily would be a huge problem considering its abbreviated and not a directed epithet (like F-U-A-Hole). ^Avruchtalk 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. John Reaves 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, I guess it's okay, but I doubt the person had the name "Anti-Big Squid Squad" (heh, Squid Squad!) when they created an account. Unless of course the user is a Giant Squid hunter. I guess it can slide - BS stands for more than I'd expected. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously stands for bull shit. The username is inflamatory and aggressive and it wouldnt be a problem if the edits coming from the username werent agressive ([58],[59]). I have a slight hunch that this is another a Kirbytime sock (claims had old username, started right when Atarti400 was banned, Islamophobia) but time will tell. Anyway, I'll AGF for now and will keep an eye on this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think I'm right. Anyway, we'll see. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh...... does 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs · block log) ring a bell? Similar username. He made a mistake. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nercronalon (LWA)

Nercronalon (LWA) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs a block; sockpuppet of User:LaruaWA11, as evident from the users' first contributions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the initialization. I was curious as to how you suspected it was that user's sockpuppet, but I got it now. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. John Reaves 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody please protect User talk:Nercronalon (LWA). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Been done. Thanks, User:Jéské Couriano. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More

Maybe these should be blocked now? Special:User creation log. Should probably protect all the talk pages also, he always abuses the unblock and helpme tags after blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that was kind of silly of him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure was. There are still a couple more that aren't blocked; see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LaruaWA11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more pop up, be sure to protect their userpages after you block them - I just got through protecting a spate of them. In the meantime, is it possible to add "(LWA)" to HBC NameWatcherBot's filter? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've blocked all of them. John Reaves 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

S/he may still create more, hence the reason I asked if it was possible to add "(LWA)" to the filter so that HBC NameWatcherBot could flag them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know admins can add things. The page is User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't know if the parentheses will break the bot. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) I'll ask on the bot op's userpage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed POV

Does anyone agree that the following is POV?

when the author combined his work in quality assurance and quality control points with function deployment used in Value Engineering

Rjsfhl (talk · contribs) has inserted this several times, but insists it is not POV on his talk page. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tales of it, sounds like corporate double speak to me, but it sounds like a content dispute. Maybe try getting more input on the articles talk page. This really isn't the place for content disputes. RxS (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not POV if it's supported by a citable reference. It is saying that the creator of this technique did so by synthesising two existing approaches, and he either did that or he didn't. This would be better at WP:3O, perhaps, as the article's talk page is not overloaded with editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rodhullandemu. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not POV. "A combined X and Y to make Z." I don't understand why anyone would think it *is* POV. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can see it could possibly be read as POV is if someone didn't realise that quality assurance and quality control are two processes used to maintain the quality of a product, and as such the word "quality" is not actually a comment on this person's work. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DOS and MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems

There had been a dispute that DOS be deleted or merged into MS-DOS for various reasons. It survived a vote for deletion (unanimous keep) and a vote to merge (unanimous oppose). Consensus was that DOS was a separate entity and deserved an article. One of the opponents (see here) moved the DOS article to MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems, and changed the DOS redirect to DOS (disambiguation) so that it can't be moved back. They didn't put a discussion up before doing this (other than that linked above, which doesn't mention moving). Could this be moved back and move protected until a discussion and consensus could be done? 69.221.166.33 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous, and needs to be reverted. This is total circumvention of the process to achieve a goal that was discouraged. I'd also support a block of the editor. ThuranX (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. I am going to issue A Plague of Rainbows with a strong warning about unrevertible moves. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it happens again another admin should move-protect the page. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, "scorched earth" moves may be summarily reversed without any discussion. east.718 at 14:43, January 3, 2008

Same anon; thank you very much. It's been in the VfD and merge votes above; I wish people would let the issue drop already. Thanks again. 69.221.152.25 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please halt this

Last week I reported massive canvass disrupting a move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß. The proposal was rightfully speedy closed by User:James086, who called for a period of about one month to elapse before a new move proposal could take place (in order to have the canvass die out). However, the same user took the initiative to restart the same move proposal just a few days later, apparently pressed by users unsatisfied with the early closure. I've contacted James about this but received no response. Meanwhile, at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß the second proposal goes on, with the effects of last week's canvass still obviously present. Please analyze this situation that should really be halted. Thanks. Húsönd 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have been closed in favor of the move. I stand mute on whether the closure is proper, but note that the most recent discussion began on 28 December. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are opened for five days or whenever discussion has ended (whichever is greater), and the Strauß/Strauss discussion was on the WP:RM backlog when I closed it - I note 28 December was 7 days ago, and there had been no particularly relevant contributions to the discussion since 31 December. Neıl ☎ 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I specifically highlighted the date. Apart from not waiting a month before opening a new discussion, I saw no other problems with the discussion, which is why I didn't comment on them - nor do I see evidence of canvassing, as was claimed in the previous discussion. It looks like a good close to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I'm not sure how bringing an ongoing move discussion to the attention of interested parties could have been construed as canvassing, providing both "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed. And as for the lack of a month's wait, given a discussion had taken place, at great length and in an admirably scholarly fashion, it would have been very discourteous to dismiss it with a "sorry, you didn't wait long enough" and leave as is. Neıl ☎ 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

providing bot "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed - didn't happen here. Check the first move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß and see what User:Unschool's canvass to 34 users supportive of only one "side" made to that discussion before it was speedy closed. You'll see a handful of those 34 back at the second proposal. By the way, I don't think that informing both sides of a discussion would not be canvass. The only way to make things even is not to tell anyone. Húsönd 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence, other than the way they ultimately voted, for your claim that they were chosen based on what "side" they're on (IIRC the proportions among those who were not canvassed were similarly overwhelmingly in favor of the move, and this was a reason people were dissatisfied with the early closure). It looks to me like you're against the move and, lacking any consensus for your view, you're lobbying against it any way you can. If there were a significant number of people who agreed with you surely they would have spoken up one of the times this came up in this highly visible noticeboard. —Random832 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns on candidate pages (American election)

Just an FYI, the first major event in the American election cycle for 2008 is January 3rd, the Iowa Caucus. All the candidate pages may be major vandal targets. Lawrence Cohen 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Those candidate pages would be Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They may well be vandalised but I don't think we need worry about BLP concerns. Politicians are highly public figures. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most admins will be more open to semi-prot if we see vandal activity in light of the timeframe, but we may get lots of good IP contribs as well. I'm more concerned that after semi-prot, we'll see sleeper acc'ts popping up for weeks, but that's nto totally a bad thing either. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

121.45.181.31 removes external references again

Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29 [60] (with comment There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion).
Is he playing dumb?
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages [61] on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. Kubura (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC

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

An editor in need of a bit of attention, I think. Single-purpose account pushing Turk nationalist POV only (anti-Kurd, anti-Armenian, this being a good example), see in particular edits to Armenian Genocide and Talk:Armenian Genocide. His talk page looks innocuous but check its history - a lot has been removed, including the whole discussion concerning his block for edit warring. Any ideas as to what to do? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mervin 110694, part 2

Resolved

 – Blocked indef until they respond to warnings and agree to stop.

Can anyone stop the madness of User:Mervin 110694? S/he uploads images without copyright tags, adds logos for decoration, and several other useless GMA POV-pushing edits. --Howard the Duck 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor also had problems with copyvios in articles; hasn't responded to any warnings or communication. Blocked indef until they communicate and agree to stop. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Sfacets

sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just finished a block and piled straigh in with this: [62]. As far as I'm concerned this is deliberately pressing the self-destruct button, I have blocked for a month because it's clear that everyone who's ever come across this user has to watch his behaviour whenever he is unblocked at present. I'm not opposed to shortening (if someone wants to take on the job of helping him not to disrupt, push POV, harass other users and in sundry other ways be a dick) or lengthening to indef if people think we should wash our hands of him. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just one in a long line of reasons that I believe we would be better off without this particular user. The user has uploaded some suspicious images in the past, fought to keep them from being deleted by making many contradictory claims (including having taken pictures before he was born) and attacking those involved in the deletion discussion and now re-uploads them on the sly despite being warned not to. This most recent action is more harassment of the editor who originally discovered the copyright infringements. Since the user does not seem to care about violating copyright, its unlikely that his presence will do anything but hurt the project. Shell ^babelfish 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have engaged in a discussion on his talk page - it is not going well. He seems to feel that his harrassment of Will Beback and re-uploading the image which has already been deleted something like 8 times are ok. The edits to the archived RFCU page might just be a mistake, but the others seem implausible to have any non-disruptive interpretation, and he is sticking with his story that he hasn't done anything wrong.

More uninvolved editors taking a look at the situation and commenting on his talk page may help clarify in his mind that he really does have a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion provided and unblock request declined. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation?

Resolved

Could some admin undo this unwarranted and undiscussed move?[63] I think WP:POINT needs to be explained. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I'll drop a note at the user's talk page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous threatening

IP 122.167.6.1 (talk · contribs) is threatening to ban me, accusing me of spreading fascist, racial propaganda, telling about some "legal action" against wikipedia in Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). An investigation is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he can't ban you.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for an IP or a standard user to block anyone from Wikipedia. Only Adminstrators can do that. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is continuing legal threats. Please see User talk:122.167.6.1. Demanding "formal explanation from wikipedia before proceding with legal action". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is violating WP:NPA WP:NPOV and has WP:COI Special:Contributions/122.167.6.1, please block his IP. Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a short period of time. However this does not mean that he is the only user at fault in this dispute. I have not looked in detail at the situation, but it is clear to me that 122.167... has in some way been baited by other users, even if he instigated some offence to them. I'll remind all parties to observe no personal attacks and civility policies, and suggest that they consider pursing dispute resolution, from step one, after 122.167...'s block expires. Martinp23 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anon editor was provoked in any way. Their allegations that everyone editing the article is a fascist are completely unprovoked and without foundation. The targets of their attacks have been remarkably calm.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon user has definately broken against WP:LEGAL. However, as per the other accusations presented here by Igorberger, I would disagree. The debate climate on the Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) has deteriorated significantly in the recent period, but it would be unfair to attribute this solely to the anon user. As per NPOV, the massive POV edits in the mainspace have been done by other users, whose sole purpose in editing the mainspace of this article has been to push negative pov. As per COI, this was an accusation raised on the talk page, an accusation that (see the talk page in question) was full of flaws. --Soman (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copacabana

I believe an article which I helped to construct has been a victim of abuse of power by an administrator, and decided to write here in request for help, since the dialogue between all the parties has been aggressive and offense-riddled.

I have been envolved for some time in a discussion about the Copacabana -- Copacabana (disambiguation), and I think it may need some external arbitration. I have reorganized the article, in order to classify the topics being disambiguated by order of relevance, that is, cities first, then neighbourhoods, then nightclubs and other places named 'Copacabana'. Sadly, my changes kept being reverted and I was repeatedly insulted by an individual native from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who kept offending me and, unable to disguise his nationalistic bias and partiality, would not accept that there should even be a disambiguation page for what he considered to be "his" Copacabana (Rio de Janeiro), and even when a consensus was achieved that this page should indeed exist, he kept altering the page in order to have his Copacabana (Rio) on top of the list, even though it is a neighbourhood, in contrast to cities which were named Copacabana hundreds of years before.

User:EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view, in my opinion, and exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way, refusing to properly debate the subject. Furthermore, he has blocked the page for editing without properly double-checking it, therefore leaving the page with some spelling and editing mistakes (pieces of links which do not work etc). I appeal to all other administrators who might be interested in helping me solve this problem to take a look at that page and see what could best be done for the good of Wikipedia, which, in my point of view, has been the only harmed in this débacle. Rsazevedo (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec) As the main search term was a redirect to a disambig page (which makes no sense), I've gone ahead and fixed that. east.718 at 15:18, January 3, 2008

Discussion location → Talk:Copacabana. I might also add this page is being extremly disrupted by Rsazevedo. My protecting the page was a reuslt of severe disruption by Rsazevedo after an appeal by User:EconomistBR here →User_talk:Hu12#Request_for_really_simple_conflict_resolution. Neither versions seemed to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Both parties participated in edit warring and WP:NPA, however Rsazevedo seems to have engaged in tendentious editing in pursuit of a certain point for an extended period of time attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point and despite discussions, is perpetuating this conflict through the use of brute force and Harassment.

• "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah
• Why the hell did you delete my entry in the discussion in the Copacabana article?
• Are you mentally challenged?
• By the way, the correct spelling is "biased", and not BISED; you should know better, cause you seem to fit that concept perfectly.
• Man, you really are a nut job! Get a life

--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are biased, Hu12. You conveniently "forgot" to mention that I had been extremely restrained, even though EconomistBR had been offending me, and it was only after he called me A LIAR in a TOPIC and being repeatedly offended by him that I lost my patience and eventually lashed out -- something which I, BTW, deeply regret and am not proud of. But may I ask why you did not quote his offenses as well?

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Wikipedia's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Wikipedia for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Wikipedia corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Wikipedia not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Please try to understand my point of view and not be that one-sided. I am NOT a vandal and have always contributed positively to Wikipedia, you can check all my previous edits. Have some respect, both for myself and for Wikipedia. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another key to the problem here, Rsazevedo. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral..^[64]--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true, Hu12. I may well have a bias, as everyone does, but this is certainly the case where I have not incurred in that (if I were being biased, wouldn't I change the page in favour of my country, putting Copacabana (Rio) on top as EconomistBR did? On the contrary, I prefered what seemed to me the better way for Wikipedia to present a disambiguation page); I simply tried to set the page in a logical and rational way. If you disagree, you could have at least discussed it, something which you, under the cloak of Administrative Authority, has consistently refused to do.

On the other hand you have been acting with an enormous degree of bias, in favour of EconomistBR, perhaps because he came seeking for help in your talk page, to the point where you chose to portray me here as someone inherently bad who does nothing on Wikipedia but offend others and conveniently "forgetting" to post EconomistBR's offences and disruptions. I'm appalled, and considering leaving Wikipedia for good if that is the standard of decisions one has to put up with. Rsazevedo (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This case seems to be an attempt by Rsazevedo to continue to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Attempts to resolve this dispute has resulted in attacks against myself and wholsale mischaracterizing of my good faith actions to make me seem unreasonable or improper. In this situation, Rsazevedo is attempting to perpetuate the disputes act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, by sticking to a WP:POINT, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity. A slippery slope, in which usualy ends in a block.--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you protect a page you've been involved in a dispute on after reverting to your own version? east.718 at 17:20, January 3, 2008

Why not? Its not my dispute and an appropriate action due to the disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair we can't blame Rzacevedo alone for the uncivil path that led to this content dispute, here is just a nice quote of what the other half (EconomistBR) has said as well: "3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are." was there really a need to escalate this to the point where one user attacks the other's nationality? I doubt it, either both of them calm down or both receive a nice block for uncivility, no preference for one user or the other. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, I tried to discuss with you my "standards to apply", but you chose to ignore them and in an unprecedent and authoritarian way imposed yours. Does it not seem logical to you that the first city in the world to be called Copacabana should the be the first in the disambiguation page, considering that the others were named after that? And, not only that, should a city not come before a neighbourhood in a list of relevance? I have never received an answer for these topics, and, instead, have been patronized insistentely by you.

It's behaviours such as these that are the sort of stuff which exhausts the patience of productive editors such as myself and degrade Wikipedia's reliability.

Now, for the last time, I am asking to correct the mistakes you left in Copacabana and answer the question I asked you in its talk page. Rsazevedo (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rsazevedo, you make serious, baseless and defamatory accusations. I requested Hu12 to resolve our conflict. Since Hu12 is an Wikipedia administrator and therefore his impartiality is above doubts, we must be prepared to acknowledge and accept his ruling on our conflict. Instead, by accusing him of being partial and a dictator you, Rsazevedo, drag his name and reputation through the mud.

Rsazevedo, nothing can stop you from having your way, if it takes bullying and smearing the reputation of a Wikipedia Administrator so be it.

The user Rsazevedo is going to keep this unashamed defamation, continue this relentless slander and making false accusations until people give up and allow Rsazevedo to have his way.

I admit, I behaved badly and in an uncivil manner, so did Rsazevedo. But there was no justification to drag Hu12 into our conflict. Rsazevedo dragged Hu12 into our fight as vengeance because Hu12's decision was not satisfactory to Rsazevedo.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply a lie, EconomistBR, as anyone who checks the history of the discussions will tell. I did not "drag" anyone into this, I don't even have the power to do so. You cannot change facts; a lie will always be a lie, no matter how much you scream and shout. And the proof that you don't regret your disgraceful behaviour is that you keep doing the same things, offending me over and over. Will any responsible administrator take a stand against this person? I am being seriously offended by him, and this shouldn't be allowed to go on.

Can an administrator also please fix the mistakes left by Hu12 when he blocked the Copacabana page? I explained them in the talk page, and Hu12 doesn't seem to be very interested in correcting the page, only in preventing me from editing it. Rsazevedo (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't one of you just opened a request for comment before involving a admin in this? disputes like this one are better solved with consensus of the community instead of a admin making the choice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no community on that page just the 2 of us, I had previously tried to reach consensus with Rsazevedo, but he simply ignored me, undid my editing and written some excuse justifying his actions. The Rsazevedo has twice undone edits made by Hu12. Hu12 edited the list and we should have both accpeted it but he embarked on this smearing campaign to get things his way.

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 an abusive administrator: "victim of abuse of power by an administrator"
• Rsazevedo accuses Hu12 of having bias: "You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 a dictator: "I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12 arrogant: "exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way"
• Rsazevedo calls Hu12's opinion unfair: "EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view"

This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.

I behaved badly and I was uncivil at many times, so was Rsazevedo. But there was NO reason to put Hu12's intergrity into question. This was a low blow EconomistBR (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

EconomistBR, please refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Wikipedia, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Wikipedia:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to reach a consensus with Rsazevedo, but he ridiculed me:

• "and much less "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah"

Someone who makes this kind of comment doesn't want consensus, he wants to shove his view down everyone's thoats.

Rsazevedo has also offended and ridiculed me other times:

• "Are you mentally challenged?"
• "Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :)"
• "Man, you really are a nut job! "
• "Get a life, carioca"
• "EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are your displays of impartiality and civility, EconomistBR:

• 'Rsazevedo you lied to me
• Rsazevedo, you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.
• Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Wikipedia's expense.
• (Your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top is all 3 organizing methods created. It's shameful)
• I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays".
• This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Wikipedia for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.
• But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Wikipedia corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Wikipedia not being "the place for nationalistic displays".
• 3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.
• You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

Once again I call on you, EconomistBR, to refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Wikipedia, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

• Wikipedia:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
• Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked

As noted in bold red type at the top, this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Per the recommendation of Caribbean H.Q., I have blocked both Rsazevedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and EconomistBR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours in order to stop the out-of-control mudslinging above. Once the block expires, both users are invited to settle their content dispute according to WP:DR. Sandstein (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the drama continues on their respective talk pages proves that they were talking past, not to, eachother. Unblocks posted, one so far declined, bets on how long before the other? ^Avruchtalk 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Square Park, New York

Resolved

 – user given a welcome and advice

This IP User:207.237.41.137 persists in inserting a lengthy, highly partisan edit to the recent controversies about rebuilding the park, complete with use of people's and organizations' names in a manner which suggests to me that the IP is one of the people on a particular side of the dispute, probably one of two people favorably described. Could somebody check me on this and consider semi-protection? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has made three edits, one correcting a typo. Rememberr don't bite the newbies. I have just left the user a welcome message and advice about COI editing. Hopefully the communication will alert them to our social norms and they will respond appropriately. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton

While reviewing new edits, I noticed an edit that seemed to boarder on WP:AGF. I mentioned this to him / her and immediately received a response: "You would, in fact, be dead wrong. Go away." I shall refrain from responding to kind of comment. Perhaps someone else could remind him / her to be a little more constructive and less hostile. Thank you. 58.88.55.173 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without commenting one way or the other, I have advised Calton of this thread. [65] Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Hirohito page move issue is kind of a heated topic right now, with some discussion here that might help explain Calton's commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Calton was previously blocked in November for "continued incivility and taunting", following a block in September for "persistent incivility and taunting of other users"; in fact, this behavior has been going on throughout Calton's editing career, for about three years. Since returning from his last block, he has engaged in further incivility and generally aggressive editing. I suggest that only a block of quite considerable length may be sufficient to convince Calton to follow our policies concerning interaction with other users. Everyking (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two diffs here, while not commendable, are not in themselves blockworthy. If James (or anyone) has more diffs since the last block we can certainly take a look. Haukur (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another edit of Calton's caught my eye - on 1 January, he blanked another user's userpage here. The user, Sellick666 (talk · contribs), has contributions, but has not edited since 1 November 2007, so I'm not clear on what caused this to become an issue. The userpage didn't have a whole lot of worthwhile material on it, and did have profanity, but the edit summary read "blank non-editor's page". MegaMom reverted the change, and Calton reverted twice as vandalism. MegaMom then left a note on the user's talk page apologizing for the incident here, which Calton then removed as "nonsense" here. Again, I don't know if it's blockworthy, but it's certainly unusual and quite possibly uncivil. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: [66] Everyking (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appericate the above diff being added to this discussion, could we please leave me out of it, as it will get me in much trouble. Thank you...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doon't see how it would, he's clearly baiting you into trouble. Big deal. so long as no one finds a diff where you bothered to respond, you're perfectly in the clear. And block Calton for a long time. ThuranX (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

requesting a block of User_talk:82.36.179.158

Resolved

The user has been given enough warnings User_talk:82.36.179.158 and vandalizing and deleting Hippocrates Igor Berger (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked 31 hours. Keilana^talk_(recall) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgexx41 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

• When I reverted some routine Yu-Gi-Oh! vandalism, I noticed this user uploaded an extraordinarily large image that doesn't load. I'm worried that this may not be an image at all, but some malicious program. Could someone check it? JuJube (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:She and meh.jpg deleted under CSD I2. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been a photoshop file. —Random832 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

AnteaterZot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been discussed at the village pump before for drive-by tagging. [67]. Initially he was using RS tags to "experiment" to see if he can change wikipedia editor behavior (his words). Now he's moved on to prod and merge tags. His methodology is to simply leave the tag and move on, no discussion on the talk page, etc. The high volume of tagging vs actual editing coupled with the lack of productive edits seems to have moved this into the disruptive behavior category. Drive-by tagging with RS tags is annoying, doing it with prod and merge tags seems to me to be worse. Comments? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like awfully pointy behavior to me. — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like? That's pretty much the _definition_ of WP:POINT - wikipedia is not for breaching experiments. —Random832 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I was going to say that; there are better ways of "changing editor behaviour", consensus being the obvious route. I don't think WP is meant to be a Social Psychology lab. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I suppose some articles should be merged, some reliable sources needed, and some non-controversial articles PRODDED, and I don't think we should tell him to stop editing like this and make more constructive edits, but tagging all of those articles in such a short time is a bit disruptive. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might help if others let him know that they think this behavior needs to be improved. If you're going to tag an article for PROD or merge, it's best to give a reason. The tag itself suggests that a discussion has been left on the talk page. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on Oxford Round Table?

Resolved

Hi, I've been trying to tidy up this article from what seemed like an extensive piece of original research to begin with. It's looking more encyclopaedic now with the input of other editors too. However, there are claims it is an attack page, and there has now been mention of legal issues on the talk page here. Some of the editors also seem to be single purpose accounts, not that this is anything new or worthy of punitive action, but I just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, I thought I'd flag the article here because I can see it might get out of hand sometime soon... Coldmachine^Talk 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the editor who made the legal threat and - big surprise - it threw up an autoblock three minutes later. east.718 at 18:09, January 3, 2008

Vandalism 192.249.47.11

Resolved

This IP address has numerous warnings (including one in the past 30 days) and at least one previous block (see User_talk:192.249.47.11. I have reverted two vandalism edits in the past 24 hours. I'm recommending another block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancookie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked. Thanks, but that shared IP has no warnings after its recent vandalism, and as a matter of practice, we do not block users until after a recent final warning. For future reference, such requests are processed faster at WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

User:Fasach Nua has made a threat to block me and has accused me of vandalism. I am increasingly concerned about the irratic behaviour of Fasnach. This includes removing opinions from talk pages he disagrees with and he has now resorted to blocking threats. Can anybody tell me if he has any authority to do this. I am a respected editor on Wiki, having contributed hundreds of articles. I do not deserve to be treated like this. If anybody should be blocked it should be him and not me. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Djln, would it be possible to provide examples of this conduct by way of diff's please, thanks, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The conduct Djln is referring to happened on Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), in which Fasach Nua blanked an entire thread without citing a valid reason for doing so. I have left Fasach Nua a message regarding the blanking. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it it looks like User Djln cpoied and pasted an entire threat from talk:Fasach Nua into an article talk page. Fasach removed it Djln edit warred over it and Fasach left a level 4 warning on Djln's talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever call it vandalism but Fasach Nua was rm'ing a very unfriendly and longwinded threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Ioeth's reinsertion, as I'm pretty sure he didn't look into the matter as far back as i did and I'd like to see Djln's explanation for the copy and paste job myself. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Djln, if this is the case I feel I should let you know that the manipulation or movement of other users' talk page messages is generally discouraged. If that thread was initiated on Fasach Nua's talk page, there is no reason to move it en masse to an article talk page. To answer your original quesiton, Fasach Nua is not an administrator, and as such has no power to block any user. However, your edits were improper, so the warning was justified, if a bit harsh. You can of course remove the warning from your talk page, but please remember that this sort of content manipulation is not acceptable. Thanks for fixing that up, Theresa knott! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion at Fasach talk page was relevant to the discussion at at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). Fasnach is a menace who is trying impose his political opinions on pages about a national football team and football players. Wiki needs to reprimand him about his behaviour which is very negative. His is seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki to the point I am considering quitting it all together. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the discussion on Fasach's talk page was relevant to the article; altering other users' talk page messages is inappropriate. If you feel that Fasach is acting inappropriately, please seek try to resolve the situation with that user civilly or seek mediation, as it seems that you two are having a disagreement that can likely be resolved; ANI is not the place for it, though. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Loeth, you have got it completely wrong, I did not alter his talk page in anyway. All I did was transfer a relevant discussion from one talk page to another. How exactly is that inappropriate. Fasnach has only objected because another editor expressed a similar view on his talk page as I did at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA) and he did not like it. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because you moved other users' comments from one talk page to another. The discussion was taking place on Fasach's talk page, and that's where those users left the comments. Moving those comments to another talk page makes it look as though the discussion was taking place there, which it was not. It may not be obvious, but doing that misrepresents those users, which is why copying the thread was inappropriate. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are moving peoples comments from the environent in which they were posted, and in changing context you are possibly changing meaning. I repeatidly invited Padraig to contribute to the Ireland page, and he doesnt want to that is his choice. There is no problem with you copying your own comments between talk pages, but 'only your own comments Fasach Nua (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability issue at Cayra

Resolved

An editor recently made this post at WP:EAR. The editors there, including myself, are probably able to handle the DR work, however when I was checking the page's history, I noticed a lot of reverting being done, not as vandalism, but removing and replacing a Notability tag there. I wanted to alert the administrators of this little edit war going on. The article does seem to be covered by multiple independent sources, but it does lack in-text refs. As I mentioned previously, we can handle the DR for now, but this situation might require admin intervention. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention against what or whom, specifically? I just see a minor edit war with IPs and new users over cleanup tags. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None right now, I just wanted to put admins on alert, in case page protection or 3RR blocks are needed. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do this again. This page is reserved for incidents requiring actual intervention. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, won't happen again. I'll post if any intervention is required. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs)

Pardon my French, but what the hell is going on here? All I saw was East718 (talk · contribs) placing username and indef-block templates on those pages and blocking him. However, he unblocked himself a moment later. Could we find out what exactly is going on? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. A couple of us have already left a note at East718's talk page asking for an explanation of the block. Metros (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what's that about? Is it because 13's an unlucky number? :) Kidding. Probably just a slip of the mouse. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently something to do with user error on a report in IRC (blocked reporter rather than subject of report), but awaiting clarification from East718 himself. AGF on fumble-fingers for now, I assume... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to bet me that it has to do with this? Time is identical to the block time. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess others already figured this out on East's talk page. Thought I was so clever... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted my suspicions on East718's talk page; can't wait to see if they were correct. Миша13 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm male, btw. :) Миша13 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Special purpose Twin Paradox account TwPx

This user TwPx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to insert what amounts to an unsourced originally researched essay ([68], [69], [70])into the Twin paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article.

See also [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Can something be done about this whithout risking a WP:3RR offence? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll place a test1 warning on the user's talk page. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression.

This userbox was featured until recently on Noor Aalam (talk · contribs)'s user page. I removed it because Wikipedia is not a battleground and WP:UP prohibits userpage content that is likely to give widespread offense, as enforced in various recent arbitration committee rulings. Noor Aalam disagrees and considers the box not to be offensive (see the discussion at User talk:Noor Aalam#Offensive userbox removed). Before I apply any sanctions to prevent the repeated readdition of this box, I would appreciate input by other administrators and experienced users about the appropriateness of this userbox. I'll be offline for nine hours or so following this post. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That userbox is too inappropriate, offensive, and controversial. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox advocates "armed resistance", which in itself seems too provocative for Wikipedia. Linking the term to an organization which is deemed terrorist seems to imply the user advocates terrorism. I support the removal of the userbox. Jeffpw (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As i stated on the tk pg, i am willing to change it to "This user supports Hezbollah" and remove the rest. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that userbox is a perenial problem. That version is toned down - agression used to wikilink to massacres - but still in my opinion, divisive and soapboxing. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the box to

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports Hezbollah.

Noor Aalam (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no desire to restart The Userbox Wars — but how is this any worse than at least 50% of the entries here, all of which are on a relatively prominent gallery, and about which nobody seems to have objected? Or this fine piece of T1 material, which is transcluded on over 50 user pages? — iridescent 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I don't see any userboxes there linking to terrorist organizations. That makes a difference to me. Also, it seems prudent to confine the discussion to this one box, instead of widening it to an elaborate debate of boxes in general. Jeffpw (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I've nominated the Dead Marxists userbox for deletion. How are some of these allowed. "This user believes Vince Foster did not commit suicide, but was instead murdered to prevent him revealing information about Whitewater." What is the point of this? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Six countries view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which means that the majority of the world doesnt. Bias should be avoided. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: How does having this userbox on your user page promote building the encyclopedia? If we can't come up with a good answer to that (and not just in reference to this particular userbox - I'm not trying to target Noor Aalam personally), then that's a pretty good indication that we've got something superfluous on our hands. I'm not interested in wandering into userbox wars either, but if having one causes disruption for more than a few editors, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are coming across several userbox issues lately, and this makes me wonder, should we actually try to establish a guideline for the userboxes themselves? I know WP:USER covers it nicely, but maybe a very direct set of content instructions can prove useful for new users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

restoring past discussion for contextKww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Temple garments, where LDS editors will attempt to strike large sections of text and images on religious grounds. Usually, they give up after a few patient explanations that we don't censor Wikipedia to match any religious groups tastes. One particularly persistent anonymous editor showed up on Nov. 13, 2007, alternately using IP address 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 (its a home and a work account for the same user, as stated on the talk page. This editor claims that it is "excessively detailed", but the section he strikes is exactly the same section stricken as "too sacred" by previous LDS members. I've explained it to him. I've enlisted the help of User:Storm Rider, a long term LDS member. He has explained it to him, and recognised, as I did, that the issue was the "sacredness" of the material, not the detail. Ultimately, Endowment (Latter Day Saints) was semi-protected to put a stop to it. After that, User:Brock Soaring pops up, a single purpose account that makes that edit, and only that edit, repeatedly. The tone and style of his comments make it clear he is the same anonymous editor. Protecting the article doesn't seem to be the answer: blocking Brock Soaring probably is.Kww (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least this user is contributing with the same account now ;). In any case, you're right, this is a single purpose account, and he has been chided by other users, including LDS members, to no avail, and continues to edit war. Will an administrator give this user a short block for edit warring and incivility? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a level four warning to his talk page, but since this has been added to the AN/I, he has not edited. I'll watch the article (which I did in the past for months); if he chooses to ignore the latest round of advice, it will likely result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He only shows up every few days ... one of the behaviour patterns he shares with the anonymous IPs that were making the same edits before. I could take care of it for a long time without hitting 3RR, but I don't want to risk looking like I'm in a slow edit war.Kww (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brock came back today, in the guise of the anonymous IP he used before (12.159.66.24), and deleted the exact same text, despite having received a level 4 warning. Can we please just block all three and be done with it?Kww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Given that this user has a history of persistent, long term disruption, both at the Endowment article and elsewhere (i.e. WP:OWN of RealGM), I'm going to do block all three accounts. The IP pages will have {{anonblock}} added in case there are legit users who get caught up in it. If other admins want to revise this solution, that's fine, but make sure to look through the three contribution histories first to check the extent of the problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1

Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs) is, despite my repeated attempts to direct him to the guidelines in WP:CAT that indicates that generally, an article should not belong to both a parent category and a subcategory, misstating the situation and making improper claims about my edits. (See Talk:Qilibi Khan.) I'd like for someone else to review the situation and to warn/block him/her as you see fit. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, which does not belong here. Also, see the Blocking Policy, and note that the user hasn't done anything to warrant a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin using his admin privilages to edit a protected article whilst involved in edit dispute.

This article is protected yet User:R. fiend is using his admin privilages to continue editing he has been warned before about doing this when he is involved in a content dispute on the article. This is not the first time he has done this and has done on other articles as well, and been warned before for doing so.--Padraig (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user R. fiends was involved in some edit warring (on the same article) back at the end of December. I don't think it is acceptable for admins to edit a page freely, if it is fully protected, unless they visit the talk page and reach consensus for changes they wish to make; just like the rest of us. Also, User:R. fiend has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend definitely is an involved user, if the edit at 21:38, 19 December 2007 and his edit summary of "restoring FASCIST CENSORSHIP or REFERENCED MATERIAL. This has a FOOTNOTE. Therefore it CANNIT be removed or altered by ANYONE, ever. To do so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!111!!11oneone1!!!" is any indication. He shouldn't be acting as an admin here at all and should revert himself back. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow is right. Somehow I didn't even notice that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear R. Fiend's side of the story here as well before coming to any conclusions. 1 != 2 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, it was an error. Admin priviledges shouldn't be used here. Lawrence Cohen 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can everyone please bear in mind that the article was actually broken in the protected state and that no one objected to a message by an uninvolved editor that it needed fixing whatever. Aatomic1 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)