Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:David Tombe and User:FyzixFighter

User:David Tombe has been trying to insert a specific viewpoint in centrifugal force (fictitious) and related articles (Coriolis effect, reactive centrifugal force). Several users, including myself, have reverted him since his edits do not agree with modern physics textbooks. This has led to a continuous stream of reverts and counter reverts, bordering on, in my opinion, tendentious editing on David's part. However David has recently gone beyond this, and is now wikistalking those editors who disagree with him, reverting minor, non-controversial edits:

• reverting a vandalism correction
• reverting a removal of self-linking
• reverting a removal of linkspam
• reverting again a vandalism correction
• reverting removal of a non-sequitur

--FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: David Tombe was warned that this behavior is considered vandalism [1]. He responded to the warning on an article talk page [2], and then went on to state that he will continue, unless we "stop deleting his edits", and that he'd like to see an administrator brought in. [3]. (I agree with him on that last point.) The last three of the above edits are from a after he received the warning. --PeR (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that PeR and FyzixFighter are the wikistalkers. If you check the facts , you will see that they are engaged in a systematic team effort to delete every single edit of mine.

FyzixFighter has misrepresented the situtaion above. The issue in question at the moment is that the description of centrifugal force as it currently appears in the article is limited to circular motion involving centripetal forces that arise from pressure from a contact object.

I have been trying to generalize the description to "When an object moves in a curved path, it experiences a centrifugal force directed outwards from the radius of curvature".

FyzixFighter and PeR systematically replace this every time which a much less accurate clause which talks about centrifugal force as being a reaction to centripetal force.

FyzixFighter's claim that he is advocating a textbook based position is false.

The true reason for the edit war is because there is a team which includes these two and extends to Henning Makholm, RRacecarr and Wolfkeeper. This team have actively decided to ensure that they are the only ones to be allowed to edit the centrifugal force page. And clearly their knowledge of the subject is very limited. David Tombe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is very rich irony that PeR in particular should decide to report me for wikistalking. If you check on PeR's recent contributions to wikipedia you will notice that a large percentage of them have been reversions of my edits and the rest have been to argue with me on the talk pages, usually totally illogically. Often the arguments and the reversions are not even directly connected. He is systematically deleting everything that I put in and now he has accused me of wikistalking him. There was another case again today. It's very hard for me to wikistalk PeR considering that most of his contributions are aimed negatively at mine. David Tombe (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the content dispute is irrelevant, and will be resolved through the proper dispute resolution process. That's not why I made this report. David Tombe's edits that I listed above appear to be simply an attempt to get back at those editors that revert his edits. David's own comments on the talk page mentioned above by PeR seem to corroborate this. If that was not the intent, then I invite David to share his reasoning for those edits here. I would also request an administrator quickly look into this, and even PeR's and my edit histories too, to determine if there is any wikistalking/vandalism going on and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we have some personal attacks: [4]. Would an administrator please step in and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack. Please stop whining and do something constructive. John Reaves 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross accusations of disruptive editing

While checking out who exactly is wikistalking who and who started it, could you please have a look at user:Rracecarr. It would be interesting to see how many of his recent edits have been reversions of my edits. I would guess quite a high percentage.David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"You started, no you started it!" Shutup already... John Reaves 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful with your accusations of wikistalking. I have been editing every page where I've reverted you since far before your account existed, whereas you clearly followed me to volleyball. Rracecarr (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

The things people will get in a huff about... I'm tempted to enter this in WP:LAME. The Coriolis force is an apparent force, as a check with standard references will show. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly the place to discuss this, but since you brought the subject up, how can we see the cyclones from outer space if the Coriolis force is only an apparent force?David Tombe (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the word "apparent" means that you can "see" it. Yes, hardly the place. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The proverbial "uninvolved admin" speaks

I hate these he-said/she-said bickerfests, but in the interests of seeing this thread shut down and archived, I've overcome my natural tendency to let someone else sort it out, and looked at the dispute. Here's what I think:

1. The content dispute should be resolved thru WP:DR, not thru name calling and edit warring on ANI threads.
2. FyzixFighter's complaint about wikistalking by David Tombe seems valid. David Tombe, stop reverting people's unrelated, valid edits because there is a consensus going against you at a particular article. Restoring vandalism to make a point is vandalism, and you can be blocked for it if it happens again. I assume this happened because you were frustrated, but now understand that it isn't acceptable.
3. Accusations of wikistalking by David Tombe against Rracecarr do not appear to be valid; he is not following you to previously unedited articles to revert you. He (evidently) disagrees with you about the content of your edits. Please follow WP:DR.
4. Complaining by everyone that everyone else is being uncivil, and airing your dirty laundry with long conversations between yourselves on ANI is annoying, makes everyone's eyes glaze over, and makes everyone not care about your actual, legitimate problems.
5. I mentioned dispute resolution already, right?

I'm going back to be productive in the real world now, so do what you see fit. But you all wanted an uninvolved admin opinion, and now you have one. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia for class project

New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Wikipedia as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Wikipedia articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Wikipedia for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Wikipedia is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma ^message 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Wikipedia and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? Aleta ^Sing 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another update: There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Wikipedia, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Wikipedia is not a free web host. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Are you sure the professor is from Brock University? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, Paul V. Hamilton is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at Marshall University. Observe this comment in AfD discussion: Global censorship of Youth's books:

• Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found here. I notice that User talk:Globalecon also has "email this user" enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't sure. That was just my best guess from an Internet search. Apparently, I was wrong. Enigma ^message 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Wikipedia tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. Globalecon (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Wikipedia administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their user pages or their user subpages and only contemplate publishing them in the mainspace once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hersfold said above, El Señor Presidente came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: one of the batch of five articles promote as the 2,000th. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/Dispatches. And not a typical educational experiment, because they were accessorized by the FA-Team, comprising many of Wiki's prolific FA writers, who did a good deal of the kind of tweaking and fine-tuning needed to achieve FA status. My past experiences with these educational projects has been more along the lines of what I'm reading here: a most frustrating time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that we had the invaluable help of the FA-Team, but that's not why we avoided this problem. I'd say that the three errors made in this case are:

• that the professor has no history on Wikipedia
• that the professor shows no sign of wanting to edit actively to support his students
• that the students are asked to pick their own article topics, rather than improve existing articles or fill clear gaps
• that the students are writing the articles off-line and then uploading them in what is inevitably a non-Wikipedia format
• that the students are writing the articles off-line, in a genre more suitable to term papers than encyclopedia articles
• that the class has no clear goal beyond uploading content, any content

WP:MMM avoided all these errors. And it's in large part because we did avoid them, that we were, I believe, an attractive prospect for the FA-Team, and the collaboration could get off to a good start. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. User:Globalecon/Article title here, User:Globalecon/Another article, etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be moved out to mainspace. —Travis^talk 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to Wikipedia:School and university projects on Globalecon’s talk page. —Travis^talk 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are now 17 articles listed at User:Globalecon/Global Economics (although some have already been deleted). If there are really going to be about a hundred of these, and if no one can persuade the teacher to get his students to do something other than what they've been doing, AfD is going to be severely clogged up for some time to come. Deor (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• People are now using that page as a source for articles to PROD or send to AFD. :P I looked through the pages listed there, and most of them have received that treatment. Enigma ^message 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Enigmaman, you mean that wasn't what it was there for? How far do they have to go before we can rangeblock Marshall until May 10th? The prof doesn't seem to want to work within the rules here so this entire project doesn't seem much different concerted vandalism attack. One Hundred articles to be deleted, redirected, or merged? Woof...I'm sure we've all got better things to do than to be this guy's unpaid TAs. (sorry to sound so BITEY, but he appears unwilling to work with us, why should we allow him to swamp WP?) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I was actually considering recommending that myself. I think any administrator would be hesitant to rangeblock a university, even temporarily, but that seems to be where this is headed. The pages keep coming, and the professor isn't stepping in and informing the students of policy. He created a monster that is gaining strength. Enigma ^message 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is real merit in what the academic in question is trying to do here, but only if he'd take the advice of others and have his students create their articles in userspace, after which any worthy offerings can be transported to mainspace or merged into existing articles. I can see this becoming very disruptive in a very short space of time. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really pretty sure that we don't rangeblock a university to prevent people from attempting to contribute articles in good faith. I don't have the whole blocking policy memorized or anything, but I'm really pretty sure about that. I also very seriously doubt I skipped over the part of WP:VANDAL where people honestly attempting to contribute articles, the best they can, with mixed success, are treated with contempt and dirision, and have their contributions called vandalism. With all the pure crap we get every day, with all the POV pushing and vandalism and egotistical ANI dramafests and editors drummed out of wikipedia by assholes, this is the way we treat people honestly trying to create something? We have 2 million someodd articles; these are automatically the 100 worst? AfD if you must, redirect if you must, try to convince the professor to alter his system if you must, or (God forbid) try to improve the articles if you must. I could care less if the professor's plan works or not, but let's show at least the students, the ones contributing articles the best they can, the ones who don't really have much of a choice in the matter, a tiny bit of respect. --barneca (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't consider it vandalism, but this is without question disruption. I agree that the professor is responsible more than the students, but no one said these were the 100 worst articles. Rather, it's an individual coordinating the mass addition of articles that don't belong in the mainspace. That's disruption, especially since he and many of the students have been informed of this and have not taken any steps to rectify the situation. Enigma ^message 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would anyone have any objection to my creating a bright shiny banner at that listing page with links to helpful policies (like YFA/SYNTH/OR/NPOV) and a note that articles/essays that don't comply with those policies will probably be deleted in short order? Not to phrase it in a bitey way, but more along the line of the pragmatic tone of WP:OUTCOMES? After all, if the students aren't learning policies in class, someone needs to point them out. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• That would be helpful, thanks. Enigma ^message 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Hopefully not too bitey. Feel free to reword/recolor as needed. (I ended up deciding against invoking blink tags). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this part of the professor's note above especially troubling: "so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week." That sort of obvious arrogance, in the face of all this talk about how out of sorts with our policies he is, seems to say he knows that he's abusing the webhosting aspect of WP, but that he's somehow better than us, arrogating rights beyond our admins' power to assure us that he'll sort this all out for us later. It's a clear attitude that our policies don't matter to him. I would support a full university-wide rangeblock, if contacting his department head, or the dean of academics office doesn't yield satisfactory results. But go up the chain of command, then rangeblock the university. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the range to block if need be? Nakon 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a bold admin might ignore all rules and unilaterally move the respective articles to the relevant place in userspace, namely the good professor's userspace? Granted some of these essays seem to have been added to existing articles in the mainspace. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the coordinator of WP:MMM, I've started writing up some advice about how to use Wikipedia in educational assignments, and how not to. This does seem like a textbook example of how not to. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Up above, it was noted that the students' real and full names appeared in the User:Globalecon/Global Economics page. This has since been reduced to just initials, but their full names still appear in the page's history. Can/Should we get an administrator to purge a few history versions to protect their privacy? It seems like the proper thing to do given the situation. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tachyonbursts

Further information: Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks § VegitaU_is_inserting_POV_and_he.27s_acting_against_consensus

Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: [5] [6] This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself: ([7]) -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's pretty clear that Tachyonbursts is the returning NuclearUmpf and before that Zer0faults...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. RxS (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that his account is recently created and has almost singularly focused on the September 11 attacks article or users editing that article. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of banned 9/11 editors that might create a sock to edit this article. But that's sort of beside the point. It's this user's contribs that matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing he's a sock; RxS is welcome to present any evidence he has. I'm just remarking this user has focused exclusively on this and it might be useful to topic ban this user for a short while. See if he moves on to something else (besides accusations of government propaganda). -- VegitaU (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, I don't think it's beside the point at all...when an editor is blocked for disruption it's relevant if he just comes back with another account. I'd add Quantumentanglement to the list as well. Note the themed usernames, editing style and POV....also blocked for disruption on these articles (which are under an Arbcom resolution as you know). RxS (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comparison doesn't show an obvious correspondence between Tachyonbursts and NuclearUmpf. At the moment I find more concern with Tachyonburst's conduct as such. Edits like this[8] seem awfully WP:POINTy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formally notified him of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which I believe were intended to curb things like disruptive single-purpose accounts on these articles. If he continues to behave problematically, then it can go to WP:AE or you can ask an admin to look at it under the umbrella of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admin: I believe this issue has been resolved. If you could put the proper template on this discussion, I can get this page off my watchlist. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, do you fellows honestly believe that fueling decent discussion, demanding citations and seeking answers to unanswered questions is violation of policies? You're playing with your own freedom here, how free would you folks like to be? Seriously. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User adding thousands of many improper possibly incorrect year of birth cats

I take exception to this title. I highly doubt I have added thousands of year of birth categories period. Most of these have been added based on information that previously was in the article. Another large chunk are based on information from project vote smart. Others come from Who's Who in America.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did an analysis of my last 2000 edits. This takes us back to March 28th. Several of these are repetitions of editing the same article. Many involve issues such as placing people in religion categories, placing people in from Sterling Heights or other location categories or placing people in a category based on what university they are an alumni from.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got a problem with User:Johnpacklambert, who has been, for at least 2-3 weeks, at an edit count of up to 100 or more per day, adding birth year cats to biographical articles formerly in the category "Year of birth unknown." While this ordinarly would be the type of thankless, tedious work we're always glad to have editors do, in this case what flagged my attention a week or so ago was that this editor is, about 25-30 percent of the time, adding dates of birth that are unknown; he is apparently guessing by their date of graduation, or the age they were in a given year (without taking into account that most people are not the same age for all 365 days of a given year. About a week ago, I reverted 80+ articles yet the editor continued to do the same thing. Today I noticed that he was still going strong so I made several comments to his talk page, letting him know that adding cats for estimated birth years is highly improper and unencyclopedic--one of the things that undermines Wikipedia's credibility. After three notes, he refuses to stop, saying that putting in a discrete birth year cat based on an estimated birth year is better than "cluttering" the "Year of birth unknown" category. Perhaps an admin could ask him not to continue to add unsourced birth year cats, or at least to use cats such as "1950s births" where the decade of birth is known (though this proves difficult if someone may have been born late in one decade or early in the next). Thank you for your time. Badagnani (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. I'll keep watch. This is concerning as there are serious WP:BLP considerations with putting private information about people, especially based on guesses. If there are no sources as to the birth years, I would suggest reverting per WP:V. -- 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year. If the information can be specified to a given month, the percentage can be proven to be higher than 50%. If the age is based on the year of high school graduation, this is even a more likely thing. I think you people do not properly appreciate people's editing at all. These are based on well reasoned estimates. You have also severally under estimated how much of a behomoth the year of birth missing category is. you also continue to ignore the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to base year of death on estimates, and have provided no convincing argument against doing the same for year of birth.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia here. We deal in verifiable facts, not educated guesses. --Carnildo (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not address the question. If your statement was true, than deaths would have to be absolte years, however death years allow estimates, which contradicts your statement. The question is why is the standard for deaths and births different, not why either standard exists.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert: please put your points at the bottom of the section. This usually results in a discussion that is in a more logical order, and makes more sense. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year - So you're saying that there's a 50% chance of your information being WRONG? That's not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And either way, it is still WP:OR, violating the core principle of WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the policy as it stands, I don't agree with adding death year categories for discrete death years if they are unknown, whatever the categories say (I checked, and they do each say "for people born in approximately X year). I recommend removing that qualification in each death year cat. The top-level death year cat page and its discussion page don't have any information about the policy regarding this, but I think it's clear we shouldn't be adding cats for discrete death or birth years unless those are sourced. That's what cats such as "1850s births" or "19th century births" are for. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I still hold that this section is listed under a false title.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather it just be called User:Johnpacklambert editing? Might as well be NPOV in titles as well. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There, I've changed the title to make it NPOV. Or something like that. Perhaps more accurate.

On the charge of OR, a lot of this may not be. If a source said someone was born at 12 minutes after noon, would it be OR to say that they were born during the daytime? I think not. It is a well-known fact that "noon" and times near it occur during the daytime, it should require no OR to derive that. Likewise if it says that someone was 18 in 1988, it should not be OR to be able to do first year college math and subtract 18 from 1988 and get a specific year.

Now, as noted, the specific year may be wrong by +-1 year or so. Encyclopedias (at least the EB, to my knowledge) have a way of handling unknown but estimated dates. They put a little "c" in front of the estimated year. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that a lot of "c1281" birthdates in the EB were computed by EB staffers when they were unable to find a reliable source stating year of birth, and only had age at a particular date.

Sticking in dates is a thankless task, as someone mentioned. It would be ill-advised to supply estimated death years for living people. But if the person has reliable sources asserting they are (or were once) living, then it should require no OR to conclude that they were born, and only simple math to determine a close year if other reliable dates are available. If the final date is shown as "estimated", and can be trivially shown to be no worse that +-1 year, then the estimated date is probably far better than a completely worthless but completely accurate "unknown". After all, one could simply replace the entire article wiht a name and "Facts not reliably known." for the entire article body.

Just my opinion. I think his work is good, as long as verifiable corrleations of years and age can be found, and if the birth dates are shown as estimates. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the work is probably in good faith even if slightly misdirected. If the user has reliable 3rd party sources for the dates (Who's Who I think would probably count) than let him add them (as it is sourced information that can be verified). If however he is guessing (even an educated guess) than a broader guess is better so sourcing to decade is reasonable (especially for mid-decade births). The problem with the high school or other graduation thing though is not everyone graduates at 17,18,19. Some people graduate earlier and some later for a variety of reasons. I think OR in cases like this is probably okay as long as it can be sourced. As long as the user doesn't state his "estimate"/best guess as fact than a born approx with an inclusion in the decade category should be fine. And yes whatever the decision of consensus is it should work both ways for births and deaths.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things. My point was that claiming there were thousands of edits involving year of birth issues was misleading and inaccurate.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Point two, if someone is in the category 1950s births, should this exclude them from the category year of birth missing. I have found people who are in both so I am wondering.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a year of birth unknown (as opposed to missing) category? If so it would be reasonable (IMO) to have people with estimated birth years in that category as well as the decade category. Just my opinion here, I suppose others may differ. If we have an estimated (from fairly reliable numbers) birth year I don't think it can be stated as 'missing' anymore. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm assuming that "year of birth missing" means that there isn't a year of birth listed in the article. I'd say that putting in the decade would remove the "year of birth missing" cat but, a "year of birth unknown" cat if it doesn't exist should probably be created and the subject listed both in the decade and in "year of birth unknown" cat. Saying that discussions of what categories exist and/or should exist probably belongs somewhere else. Perhaps User:Johnpacklambert would be willing to put this particular type of editing on hold for now and we can work on reaching consensus at the new discussion. And perhaps User:Badagnani and he could shake hands and apologise to each other for any misunderstanding as I'm sure they both have very good intentions and no ill will was intended from either side (I hope)Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth dates estimated by an editor are WP:OR and not in any way acceptable. Birth dates estimated in and cited to a reliable source are ok if characterized as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this if reliable dates are present in the article to use to compute a birth date, and if the birth date is clearly marked as estimated or approximate. As I mentioned before, this is no different than asserting that Noon occurs "during the day". To give an exact birth date not supported by available facts would be OR.

(addemdum) Note that we have Template:Birth year and age that computes an approximate age given a birth year. Since the age is a computation and not a quote from a citation, and it is only an approximation of the correct age, it must be OR and not allowed by policy? Then why is this template allowed to exist and be used? I think that it is fairly clear that computations from available facts to establish other useful date approximations do not violate OR, or else IAR must have been applied to the creation and use of these templates. If so, I suport the use of IAR in the specific case under discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Year of birth unknow exists but it is supposed to be used for those born in the distant past whose year of birth is unknown. Year of birth missing and year of birth missing (living people) are supposed to be used for those in the recent past or present whose year of birth could be determined with more searching of information. The line between year of birth missing and year of birth unknown has not been followed well, and living people are in all three categories. There were also until recently, and probably are still, people in the year of birth missing (living people) for whom a death date is given and others who were head coaches of football teams in the 1920s for whom no information is given since who probably should be moved to possibly living in not year of death missing categories. We could make a category "exact year of birth missing", which might be a good thing, however I will let someone else do that.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales article, there was a minor dispute regarding the inclusion of a section refering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace princess diana institute of peace.

I and other editors were of the opinion that it was not notable. It was removed/reverted a few times.

In an attempt to stop an edit war, I created a dedicated article devoted to the princess diana institute of peace. This was actually suggested in the talk page, by one of the editors who opposed its removal

I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So consensus seemed to be obvious, create the new article, cut/paste from the old section, remove the old section.

I did the above, I explained the removal in my edit summary, I also explained and linked to the new article in the original article's talk page. I requested that someone go to the new article, add some citations and try to improve it.

Problem solved? well that would be nice, but I wouldnt be here if the problem was solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bermudatriangle has constantly reverted on the princess diana article, in the past they reverted me with the summary "‎ (→Marriage: Normally women are virgins since their birth until they consumate. So provide she consumated with someone before her marriage, if you want to challenge with her virginity.)" which I found laughable.

It seems to be a single purpose account, and despite only having made 12 edits since registering, they are very familiar with wikipedia terms and protocol. draw your own conclusions.

In short I followed consensus, I made a dedicated article, and removed the original statement, fully complying with consensus and common sense. This editor is not respecting consensus, has a dubious single purpose account and their edits are disruptive. I dont think protection of the article is required, however someone informing this user that their actions are not acceptable, might be a good idea. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your intention to create a new article for the Institute is only politically motivated on your part. Neither you are interested on Diana or the Institute or even the wikipedia.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, what can I say, do I need to say anything or does the above comment say it all? I have been editing wikipedia for 8 months, I have over 1000 edits, and I have no political interests relating to the Princess Diana Insitute of Peace, neither do I have any interests in Sri Lanka. I find the above comment to be not only absurd, but also to display a blatant lack of good faith.

I think I should also post the last statement by the above editor, that was place on the talk page of the Princess Diana article.

You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want nothing more than the disruption on that article to cease, I have already left a message on the above editors talk page, stating that if they revert the edit, then I will consider this finished, I am not looking for blocks or protection, just a little good faith and common sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need beautiful words to attract others, but the sequences to make others belive wether we are right or not. Not you 1000 edits that matters, then anyone with editcount can be here as administrators.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I have made over 1000 edits, was mentioned in order to respond to your claim that I was not interested in wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then do you think those who are with more than 1000 edits and indefinitely blocked are not interested on wikipedia?Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly relevant, but I will entertain your question. I think some users with more than 1000 edits are still highly interested in wikipedia, because they ask to be unblocked and come back with new accounts. But as I said, that is not relevant, please deal with the current situation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, add to the above, blatant disregard for 3RR. I made an edit on the princess diana artlce, that did not remove anything, infact I added a link to the article that I created, the above user not only reverted my edit, but made his 4th revert within 24 hours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My last revert is nothing to do with my previous edits. "See also" link to where? To your uncited article? Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made you fully aware that different reverts are just as unacceptable as identical reverts, there is a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29

Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have discussed on the talk page of Diana, Princess of Wales before you bring here the whole issue. Now you are adding citations to your newly created Institute. I think your too keen interest to remove the Institute sub section from the article Diana that quickly is clearly very "political". Can you elaborate your other edits on Diana's page other than your tad virginity issue.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did put this on the Diana talk page, before bringing it here. This report was made 6:17 You reverted me at 6:01 (and again at 7:16 after I made this report) I stated on the talk page that I had made a new article at 5:51, you replied to me on the talk page at 5:59. The talk page was first, your reverts were second, my ANI report was third.

My edits are not political, as far as I am aware the only political interest would be to someone from Sri Lanka or of Sri Lankan origin, I am a white Englishman, who lives in Japan and has no knowledge of Sri Lanka, neither do I have an edit history relating to Sri Lanka, so please take your bad faith accusations elsewhere. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no idea what is going on here. I resent having my name bandied about by either side, and still have queries over the article's notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts have started after User:Lahiru k reverts here. User:Lahiru k contributions and the article 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers indicate WP:COI and WP:POV. So how we believe you are a white Englishman. Your initial edit on Diana's page about her virginity doesn't substantiate your claim that you are white Englishman as well. You should remember Diana is third popular among British people and the interest of the "White English" will very much differ on their first edit on her page. Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace is very much differ from the name Princess Diana Institute of Peace and raise serious doubt over the name alteration.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rename the article. Why would my edits about Diana's virginity say anything about if I was or was not English? I don't display bias in my edits, I edit with a NPOV, if you don't think I am English then you are displaying bad faith, and without being too rude, that is your problem not mine.

Gareth, I apologise for you being brought into this mess, I tried to solve a minor problem, in a manner that would reflect the interests of all parties, I thought it would not be a problem, until one editor starts making disruptive edits, this was a simple problem, with a simple solution. One editor has stood in the way of the simple solution, with his bad faith claims and absurd assumptions regarding what edits an Englishman should and should not make. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

People use often bad faith for their escape on others. Here you are the one misleading others. You displayed you live in Japan and you hav't edited on issues related to Japan(and was critisised by another editor) and claiming yourself now you are a "White Englishman" live in Japan. I think you have created this account to mislead others.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As this issue turns into a new direction, I have refered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation for their comments.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So now you are canvassing ? how many wikipedia guidelines are you going to ignore? And if you don't think I am actually living in Japan, born in England or whatever, that is your problem not mine. And once more, assume good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please to both User:Sennen goroshi and User:Bermudatriangle. I ask that you both take some time away from making further comment on this page. Give the rest of us a chance to read the articles and the associated talk pages on their own merits. If the article shouldn't have been created than taking it to AfD is the proper place for that. AN/I is not the place for some of the comments above and I ask both of you again to please step away for a little bit. Cool off. Then come back and discuss things in a civil manner in the appropriate places. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment now that I've read everything. I'm of the opinion that the information doesn't belong in the Princess Diana article and that the creation of a separate article was reasonable. If User:Bermudatriangle wishes to contribute constructively to wikipedia on this issue I'd suggest helping to expand the article on the Institute instead of going against the consensus that seems to exist about the information not belonging in the main article. I'd also suggest that renaming the separate article to Princess Diana Institute of Peace (Sri Lanka) may be appropriate (in case future Princess Diana Institutes of Peace are created). Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[9] and this diff[10], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [11][12] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what any of the last statement(s) has/have to do with the current discussion or if they area all input from the same user. The Princess Diana Institute of Peace information was removed from the Princess Diana article through concensus. If the resulting article should be "deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible" than someone should nominate it at AfD. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Colin4C

Colin dedicates all his time on the anti-Americanism article to obstructing editors who disagree with him. He’s demonstrating ownership issues, as well as obstruction of any attempt to reach consensus.

This user was previously warned for personal attacks regarding me and this article by User:VirtualSteve. [13] .

After the warning, he mostly just changed tactics, from attacks to word games. This is a typical example of an exchange between us on the Talk page, which I think shows more interest in word games than consensus:

Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality.

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Life.temp (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, make an effort. Wikipedia's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. Life.temp (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact or an opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lately, he’s resumed more dismissive, attacking comments. Here he sums up my ideas as “playing politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room.” [14]

Here he dismisses my comments as “bar-room pronuncimentios” [15]

Here he characterizes my concerns & edits as “butcherings…personal POV original research agenda…off the cuff lubrications.” This comment of his also goes on at great length about his important credentials, and demonstrates an attitude of ownership. [16]

Here he calls me a “person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside” for the way I want to shorten the article. [17]

Here he says the article is "being butchered by one highly persistent individual" (that would be me). [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could go on. The main other aspect of this is his sarcastic caricatures of everything I say. Every rebuttal is a strawman argument. I won't document that here, but anyone perusing the Talk page will, I believe, see it.

This attitude has been going on for weeks. Even before he was warned, he made edits like “Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it” [19]

I don't really want to use this board as a dumping ground for every problem, but I don't know what else to do. I've made every effort to use the tools of dispute resolution. I proposed a policy for cases like this at the Village Pump [20]. I requested an opinion at the NPOV Noticeboard [21]. I requested informal mediation (completely disrupted by Colin) [22]. I requested Editor Assistance [23]. I requested a Third Opinion [24] (in my opinion, that editor is now being sucked into Colin's whirlwind of aggression). Nothing is going to work as long as Colin doesn't care about dispute resolution. Life.temp (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should both spend some time away from Anti-Americanism. That's what I did (I was involved in this article for a time). Everyone who spends an extended period of time there seems to have a slanted agenda over which they get exceedingly emotional. I don't see any actual civility violations (at least not by these particular two users) -- just people getting huffy over a difference of opinion. Give it up and go edit one of the other 2-point-something-million articles on Wikipedia where you won't run into your arch-nemesis. Let others worry about this particular article for a while. Chances are the article will benefit from that. No offense. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:52, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I don't actually see myself as contributing to a problem here. I've been very conscientious in following the steps of dispute resolution, and only been cross a few times. Colin isn't going to do this to just me; he is going to do it to everyone he disgarees with. This was his attitude when you were editing; it is the attitude he's starting to bring to User:HelloAnnyong (the Third Opinion editor). He needs some (sharp) feedback about his behavior. Life.temp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this when Colin4c was being given some good advice, by another admin, to cool it in the mediation process. Equazcion also gives good advice to the two of you to avoid each other and let it lie. A brief look at your edit history shows a great preoccupation both with this one subject and the disputes that have circled round it. You'd both benefit from a holiday from each other. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I take a break, and after the break the same issues continue, what should I do? Cut and paste this back into a new complaint on the same board? Why not address the problems now? I appreciate different perspectives. I don't agree that this is a case of mutual antognists needing a mutual break. Colin is acting like he owns the article. It's a problem for anyone who thinks the article has a lot of neutrality problems--which it obviously does. Life.temp (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] See Are you in the right place? and What these pages are not (above). If you post a problem here, people are happy to take a look at it, but generally this is not the place for content or dispute resolution. As these are complex and lengthy disputes involving a number of editors - who also don't necessarily agree with either of you, the advice (above) is to present a case at a forum where the matter can be examined in depth and all parties can comment at length. My opinion is that Colin4c was given advice to calm down a short time ago in one of those forums and it seems to me his later posts have reflected that advice.

While I understand that these matters can get heated, the best advice we can ever give is to allow things to cool down and for the editors concerned to deal with each other civilly. The best way to achieve that is for both of you to take a break and reflect on what it is you can agree on. I hope you don't find that frustrating, but we can't manage your relationships. If behaviour ever becomes unacceptable, then there will be an intervention - and I believe that that was what happened when circumstances warranted it.

Both yourself and Colin4c need to develop consensus for changes to the article and avoid disputes with each other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice doesn't address my concerns. It only takes one person to refuse dispute resolution, to refuse to work toward consensus, to disrupt editing. Suggesting that both parties "cool down" and "deal with each other civilly" is good advice when both parties are heated and uncivil. Why do you think that's the case here? I wonder if you've read through the Talk page and seen Colin's behavior in context, or if you're assuming a middle-of-the-road approach is best. I've tried almost every item in Wikipedia's list of dispute resolution steps, from 3rd opinions to mediation. I agree, this is not the place for dispute resolution. Is it the place for dealing with someone who refuses to participate in dispute resolution? Life.temp (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most dispute resolution processes on wiki rely on voluntary participation. There's no compulsion, as the dispute is only resolved when both parties freely accept the outcome. Non-participation will only be considered material when there's subsequent action - say at ArbCom. As far as I understand, previous mediation was actually between yourself and a third party, and Colin4c presented evidence there - some, as to your own behaviour was (quite properly) rejected.

Article content is developed through consensus and the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article. This forum doesn't make determinations on either content or behaviour - unless it blatantly requires intervention. My feeling is that there are enough admins watching Anti-Americanism to ensure that incivility doesn't go unremarked - and if necessary dealt with.

Maybe someone else has a better suggestion for you on how to proceed, but my personal advice to both of you is take your time and don't edit precipitately. Discuss the changes on the talk page and obtain consensus from others. Leave space for others to be involved. Kbthompson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Last comment on this particular exchange, just in case I wasn't clear. I made this complaint because I think Colin is disrupting the process. I think admins deal with that. I didn't request content and dispute resolution. I don't know what to do with "the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article." I've been doing that for a month, with the results I excerpted above. (P.S. Thank you for the volunteer time you put in on this; I appreciate it even though I don't agree with you.) Life.temp (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald

Resolved

 – User:Dank55 has contacted Ed. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is sort of a strange request, but I'm requesting an intervention with Ed Fitzgerald. I feel that he is trying to get himself deliberately blocked by continuing to engage in disruptive editing behavior during his RFC. Would an admin who is friends with him have a talk with him? The last thing I want to see is Ed blocked. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon at Savant syndrome

I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants Savant syndrome to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the anon's talk page. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm really unhappy about yesterday's talk page vandalism, which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP that has been all over the Savant pages; blocking won't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one, WhatamIdoing. OK, this has had a couple of AN/I threads, Jfdwolff has intervened several times, but this altering of past editor comments for deceptive purposes takes it to another level. There are two editors (who are friends) and two IPs, one Comcast, the other Utah Educational Network, one edits during Utah daytime, the other in the evening, they're also working on Kim Peek who is a Mormon savant. This has gone on long enough and has been disruptive enough that it now needs a checkuser. I've never done one before, and will be out all afternoon, but I'll muddle my way through the instructions at checkuser later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Egyptzo copyright violations

This user has created a number of new articles and edited others, and in almost every case is copying text from other websites into these articles. I've found copyvio in Chan Chak K'ak'nal Ajaw, Battle of Carchemish, Epulon, Battle of Grobnik field, Battle of Tikal and Battle of Kadesh and there are a number I haven't even looked at. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, he was warned about this before. It really looks like he copy & pastes everything from other websites. Even just 3 sentences in a row from some forum. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep finding more and more.Doug Weller (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital Audio Broadcasting

The Digital Audio Broadcasting article has been in a terrible state for a long time. Multiple users are doing extreme POV pushing, both on that article, and anywhere else DAB is mentioned (such as HD Radio). You can see the DAB talk page for a good long history of the POV pushing, ownership issues, edit wars, etc. For reference, my changes, which corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted. [25] It is without question the most horrendously biased article I've seen on WP. User:Digitalradiotech even goes so far as to support his anti-DAB statements by citing articles that he has written, published on his own website. The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors, and left the article to stagnate. I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law, such as it is. I'm certainly not going to keep spitting into the wind, having my cited changes reverted, and risk getting blocked for 3RR myself, trying to hold off a gang of rabid POV-pushers (at least I assume it's a gang, and not just sock puppeting, even though the timing is suspicious). Rcooley (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what are you asking administrators to do?

A few minutes of poking around seems to indicate that (a) you have only edited the article and its Talk page a handful of times and (b) this appears to be a content dispute. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try dispute resolution. Admins don't have any ability to decide who is "right" in a content dispute, so even if an admin did get involved, they would have no more say over it than any other editor. If there are behavioral problems, we can intervene there, but it does take two sides to make an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not refer only to my edits. The page has had problems for a long time before I became involved. I've seen just how time consuming and useless dispute resolution is... I'll pass. If no-one will intervene, it will remain in it's current, sorry state. (ie. Not my problem.) Rcooley (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After one quick scan I tagged the page with {{advert}} since it pretty clearly is at the moment. There is a basic problem here in that the article is describing Digital Audio Broadcasting as some copyrighted specific broadcast technology, and not in fact "digital" "audio broadcasting" in the general form as one might expect. Having just returned from the NAB conference I can state with some authority that there is more than one way to broadcast audio digitally. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I view what's gone on (which hasn't been a major issue, because there's only been a couple of exchanges between us so far [26]): RCooley suggested the following issues that need to be addressed on 31st March: [27] Admittedly, I didn't see his suggestions on the Talk page. Then on 23rd April, he removed a large chunk of the intro: [28]. Since then I have edited the intro to rectify all of the issues he had with it, and now I see that he's even reported the "issue" on here. As ElKevbo rightly points out, RCooley has hardly edited the DAB page at all (I'm unaware of him editing it before 23rd April), and yet RCooley said that the DAB page has "been in a terrible state for a long time". He also claims that the changes he made "corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted". I don't see where he gets the "several citations" from, because there is only one reference in his preferred version of the intro [29], which was already present, and his edit removed five citations. He has not "corrected inumerable factual errors", because all he has done is to simply delete a large chunk of text.

His usage of language above is highly questionable as well, such as "extreme POV pushing", "most horrendously biased article", "The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors", "a gang of rabid POV-pushers". The intro has been the subject of a large amount of discussion on the Talk pages for a long time, and we had finally reached a consensus view that both sides were happy with, and it's been stable for a few months now. And he has simply come along and deleted a large chunk of it. He also says "I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law". That is clearly an attempt to get me banned without me having done anything wrong here.

And on the Talk page he accuses me of "ownership" and then in the next sentence says "So far, you're the only one who has shown a tendency to ownership and edit waring. I must decline your ultimatum. Here's a better one... BEFORE you revert ALL my changes (fully supported by citations) you'd better have a very good reason to do so." [30]. I don't know if it's possible for you to see this, but I have written most of the text in the sections describing the technological aspects on the DAB page, so at least I have contributed a lot to the page, whereas all RCooley has done is to come along and delete a big chunk of it.

I've edited the intro just before I started writing this entry, and I've described the changes I've made here [31]. Personally, I think the intro is fine as it is now. Digitalradiotech (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, the heading and first sentence of the next to last section (currently) on the talk page definitely shows proprietorship issues at the article.

That's referring to a separate issue to the current one about DAB, because it's referring to RCooley's deletion of a large chunk of the into of the HD Radio page, see [32] - he's deleted large chunks of text on both articles! I can't comment on whether RCooley was or wasn't justified in deleting so much text, though, because I haven't read the HD Radio article. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But perhaps we are past that now, and it can be ignored. The recent editing I see there has been good, and has improved the article. Note: my opinion is completely seprate from RCooley's, and in fact I know nothing about him, and have not read what it was he was complaining about. But my reading of the article itself (not the talk page) showed some issues, and I believe they are being corrected, and the article is benefitting from it. Loren.wilton (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great. I see you've added some comments on the DAB Talk page - I'll try and do some editing tonight for that. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Son of Daniel Case

Resolved

Blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block this vandal indefinitely for WP:User name violation (User:Daniel Case). --David Shankbone 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, I am a homosexual. But if I wanted that to be the only information on my user page, repeated over and over again, I'd have formatted it that way myself. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked User:Daniel Case 2 Nakon 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He used a bunch of IPs earlier today (and for the record, I'm straight, but he's attacking Wikipedia editors of all sexual orientations apparently). Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At least the ex-user did not discriminate. An equal opportunity slanderer.

In the spirit of the above statements, I am copying here a statement previously displayed on my user page.

"Rumours that I am bi are greatly exaggerated. I am a bit near-sighted." - Anonymous

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters, but I see the user page says they are a sock of JJonz, but their talk page says they are a sock of Seancarlin84. Can they be both at once? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page sock id was added by the blocked user, so I took the liberty of removing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A Pat on the Back

It seems that it is almost every day that there is some blowback about admins stepping out of line - either for outright questionable use of the buttons, or for simple incivility. Some of these complaints are entirely infounded, unfortunately, some of them have a basis in reality. That said, this afd is an excellent example of what works here at wikipedia. Kudos to Sandstein and Lar, who ec'd with opposite closes, and chose to relist it rather than create more drama over the close. Pastordavid (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just gave them each a half barnstar. I saw that earlier today, but was in too short on time to say anything about it then. Well done for avoiding more wikidrama, something we already have far too much of. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please unblock User:Pamlico 140?

I would suggest that this block is inappropriate. The editor appears to be a kayaking enthusiast who, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, takes his/her username from a favorite model of kayak. This may not be the best choice, but there are any number of other editors who take their usernames from favored books, movies, albums, songs, etc without complaint. The user who quite aggressively proposed the block also falsely accused the editor of spamming after he/she wrote an article about the kayak model; it is quite a stretch, to say the least, to characterize an article which describes a product as "obsolete" and "discontinued" as promotional spam. I asked the original blocking admin to reverse the action more than 24 hours ago, without any reply yet. Thank you. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was username violation. There is a notice on the page of exactly what they need to do. Unblocking would still leave the username violation. If the user really wanted to be unblocked, they are free to do so. I don't see an issue here; if someone cannot help get themselves umblocked, there is nothing more to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not a violation of the username policy as written. It is not the name of a company or group. It is not being used promotionally -- the item it supposedly promotes is a discontinued model of a kayak that the editor enjoys using. If this username is to be banned, why not User:RattleandHum, a name taken from a still for sale commercial item? User:AppleII? User:Han Solo54, promoting a cinematic franchise? User:Spider-Man 8888? User:Metallica is cool? User:RonPaul1234? User:Conan the Barbarian? There seem to be hordes of users whose names relate in some way to commercial products/services. Do you mean to block all of them? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On careful review of WP:UN I have to agree with Minos here. UN explicitly refuses to prohibit the use of corporate names, though it does discourage them. However, nowhere in WP:UN is there any mention of product names, either current or retired. If I wanted to register as PepsiCola I can see nothing in UN that would prohibit that, and UN would only tangentially suggest that it might not be a good idea. Thus, I think the username violation charge against Pamlico 140 should be withdrawn, and they should be unblocked, possibly with an apology. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock with definite apology. Making the user aware of possible problems is one thing but, automatically blocking seems a bit extreme. Yes some user names are inappropriate but, people should be judged on merit not simply on what they chose to call themselves when they register. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur, an unblock is probably warranted in this case. I will note, though, that product names - while permissible under the username policy - might telegraph conflicts of interest, if the user edits exclusively to promote a particular product. I'm thinking particularly of software, where I see quite a few developers take the name of their software and then write about that software. In this case, even if the user writes about this specific kayak, there is no conflict of interest as there is nothing to promote - though they should still remain in NPOV mode. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

← While it may not fall afoul of the letter of the guideline, I believe it violates the spirit of it. Given as an example above, a username of "PepsiCola" is pretty much guaranteed a block as either promotional or an abuse of a product/corporate name. The only difference in this case is that it's a lesser-known product. That said, in the spirit of WP:BITE, we should probably unblock but encourage the user to change their name, then work on the Talk page of WP:UN to find a consensus on the matter. -- Kesh (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this will help clarify things or not, but the user Pamlico 140 may have made two requests here and here to unblock on the Pamlico 140 article page. I removed both edits, as they were requests to unblock the article rather than the user, even if they had been requests for the user they were in the wrong location, and I wasn't aware that the requests came from the user concerned until I noticed this comment in their edit history. I did leave a comment in the IP's talk page to let them know why I had removed the edits, but at that point I didn't suspect they were the same person. At any rate, it occurs to me that there may have been no request to unblock the account simply because the user isn't aware of how to go about it. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Range block needed?

Resolved

 – Anon blocked 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255.

Sorry if this doesn't really belong here, but as three of these are already blocked, the helperbot deleted them from WP:AIV when I put them there. These IPs have identical edits, all vandalism. I've blocked three of them but each time I do this, another pops up with the same edits, the same articles. Looks like a block on a range may be needed? - eo (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 189.192.60.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.153.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.56.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.159.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking into it. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really loath to block the full 65,536 IPs, but I cannot find where MegaCable of Mexico subdivides the 189.192/16 section any further. Let's start with the range from 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255, which is only 26,624 IPs, for now. -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility Issues with User:CSHunt68 & User:Jéské Couriano

I'm getting a tad frustrated at CSHunt68 (talk · contribs), who's crying foul aver what's been happening at Yuan-ti. After I reverted to a version with Primary-source and Notability tags two days ago, I asked for full-protection to head off the impending edit-war. It was granted, and when he brought up that there were third-party sources (which I had initially overlooked due to the lack of citing), I removed the Primary-sources tag. However, that's not what he's complaining about: He's complaining about what I wrote in my edit summary immediately prior to the prot ("Did you even read the page?"). He's now accusing me of making personal attacks due to that, and is crying administrative abuse because I reverted before going and asking for protection. Please advise; I fear this situation may deteriorate further. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to send him a message on his talk page to let him know about this thread. I have seen your work around here tons before, and I know you often Assume Good Faith and have never made a personal attack, to my knowledge. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He knows - I linked to here on my talk page (just not the specific thread), where he and I are discussing things. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I objected to your personal attack on the edit. "I have to ask, CS, do you even read the article?" There's no need for such statements in Wikipedia. I also object to the fact that you reverted to your version before requesting the page protection, but that's a minor issue. I will ask you to refrain from such inflammatory, baiting statements in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

You were making as large an issue of the reversion before the WP:RPP request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

That's not a personal attack. Why are you needlessly escalating the issue? seicer | talk | contribs 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly baiting, by any reasonable interpretation of Internet protocol. I have taken no action, except to indicate to JC that he should not do so again. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Talk:Yuan-ti seems to indicate otherwise; you were making mountains from molehills. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does, and I maintain that your comment was both factually incorrect, as you later admitted, and totally uncalled-for - a clear violation of WP:CIV. You could apologize even for your admitted "incivillity", but I notice you haven't. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Don't you feel like you should both apologize for incivil remarks and just move on? Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the history (briefly) and so far I don't see a problem that couldn't be solved by both parties taking a break to calm down. Seriously. Jeske, you know the edit summary was slightly over the top and you didn't need to phrase it that way. CSHunt, you know there really no reasonable way to characterize that as a personal attack...it was a very mild insult meade in the heat of obvious frustration. Time to let go of this and move on, both of you. Doc Tropics 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully concur with the above. Apologise, shake hands, and come out editing constructively. Edit summaries are supposed to summarise the edits. We shouldn't be using them to address other users in a non-constructive manner. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 and Personal Attacks, 3RR, etc.

Personal Attacks: [33] [34] [35] [36] 3RR: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

I found this user after he responded to a dispute on User talk:Scorpion0422. I found out about the dispute by going to User talk:ChrisP2K5 and wrote a note pointing out some of the things he is saying could be personal attacks, and trying to help him understand the Verifability Policy. However after then reviewing his talk page some more, he has made several personal attacks. I also found a 3RR Warning that he deleted. [42] I feel that his personal attacks are unhelpful and are making matters worse. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some space for a rebuttal here. First of all, I don't believe that anything that I edited was wrong. I also believe the user in question was lying in wait for me to post, just so he could revert without taking the time to check himself if he was doing it hastily, thus exercising good faith. His edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking, so I went ahead and denied recognition. I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary. I also believe the "attacks", as they were, were justified due to the out-and-out stalking and trolling by this member, as well as the fact that his response to my calling him out for his trolling enabled a notorious Internet troll to spread garbage on my page. If user in question would have assumed good faith, then nothing would have been said or done. Instead, the user chose to be spiteful and trollish. That's my story. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The first edit of his I reverted was here. The part I was concerned about was the second part, which didn't have a source and because the page is an FL, I figured stuff should be sourced before it's added, before it's removed. At the same time, I partially reverted this edit because while he was correct about part of it, the second part of the sentence was accurate. About an hour later, the user reverted me with the message "You're kidding, right? Check here, stupid!" He was completely ignoring the WP:V and WP:RS policies, so I reverted him again. I figured it was the first part he cared about, which was partially sourced, so I fixed it. After that, he decided to add two references to TV.com which I reverted because TV.com is not useable on FLs. At this point, he accused me of trolling, and was then reverted by another user. He reverted the other user once, then gave up. A day later, he added a big section of unsourced stuff to Treehouse of Horror III, which is a GA. I reverted him and explained why. He did not like that, and again took to calling me a troll.

While I admit that I have been a tad uncivil in this dispute, I have not been stalking the user, he just happens to have edited some Simpsons pages, which I keep an eye on. His claim of "edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking" is untrue because all I have been doing is following policy. "I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary" The three articles in question were either GAs or FLs, so stuff should be sourced as its added, not added in hopes that someone may eventually add a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether ChrisP2K5 was correct, his use of language like "You're a scumbag, plain and simple", "watch the episode, troll" and "Click here, stupid" is highly inappropriate. I would suggest a change in tone immediately or you will find yourself blocked. The policy just says you are expected to be civil, not you are expected to be civil, unless you are correct. I'll also add that in all this Chris, I don't see a single edit to the article talk page from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the edit warring and the personal attacks are serious, but a bit stale at this point, so I don't know that there's much to do now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit uncouth in what I said, but it doesn't take away that he failed to assume good faith in my edits. Everything I edited could have been crossreferenced. The fact that he didn't assume good faith, combined with the fact that he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post (which is what it looked like to me), says to me that he was bordering on stalking. All this started over an edit that noted that two shows were airing at the same time on the same network, where one of the characters from one appeared on the other.

In addition, in the case of the "Treehouse of Horror" edits, the information I cited was factual, and the removal of factual information from a page is trolling. All he had to do was watch the episode in questio, which is easily accessible. Instead of doing that, he chose to edit blindly. The fact that he has done this suggests to me a pattern of unnecessary edits and an egregious violation of the assumption of good faith. The fact that I resorted to a personal attack, while regrettable, should be trumped by his continued violation of the 3RR. I have never had a ridiculous amount of trouble and have been civil to most users. However, I will not tolerate spiteful reverts, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't believe it's fair that I am the only one who's bearing the brunt of any punishment here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Scorpion did not violate the 3RR. WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. And I don't see anything that says he failed to assume good faith. He left you a polite warning on your talk page. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Scorpion0422, he edits mostly Simpsons articles, and often reverts vandalism and unneeded info on all of them. He always has a valid reason for a revert. The removal of what you added to Treehouse of Horror III may have been factual, but how is one supposed to know without a reference? Another minor note is that the information you added can seem a little trivial. The way I look at it is, if one were to make an AGF edit [43], and a user makes an AGF revert [44], then don't take it personal and possibly learn from it [45]. That is the best way I can put it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While Treehouse of Horror III does mention Cullen, Rayburn, Narz and Trebek", does it say that they are all game show hosts? I'll answer for you: no. Which is why verification is needed and since the page is a GA, sources should be added first. Editting blindly? No, I am aware of the reference, and I am also aware that none of the sources we use mention it and I did cite the relevant policies when I reverted you. "continued violation of the 3RR", actually, neither of us violated it. "he failed to assume good faith in my edits" Assuming good faith does not mean leaving unsourced edits. Of course I assumed good faith, but your edits still went against policy. "he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post" I have reverted your edits on three pages, all of which I had on which before you editted them. This is hardly "laying in wait". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Chris is a long standing problem on this site, check out User talk:TPIRFanSteve. Somebody with an arrest warrant has nothing to do with Wikipedia! That user is certainly not a celebrity, and it was unsourced anyhow. I removed it. I think Chris is very uncivil and assumes bad faith, just look at his edit history! Is there really anything constructive from him? I think not. 70.210.82.149 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you User:Hdayejr2008/User:Hdayejr, who is the troll I discussed earlier. He harasses me every time I post something that he doesn't agree with and takes extreme offense to my posting here. If you look at the user talk page that he cites and its history, as well as his own posting history, you'll realize that his discussion has no merit here.

As for you, Scorpion, being aware of the reference means that IT IS VERIFIABLE, and that gave you no reason to revert it. Just because YOU don't like where it's coming from doesn't mean anything (a violation of WP:OWN). As for what I said about 3RR, anyone who looks at your block history- which I did before I came here- will see what I'm talking about. You did NOT assume good faith, your edits crossed the line of trolling, and I don't see how you weren't bordering on stalking with the edits. Anyone with common sense knows who Bill Cullen, Gene Rayburn, Jack Narz, and Alex Trebek are (or what they are), and if not they can just click on the links to their pages...where the info would be in big bold print.

You were wrong, you didn't want to admit it, and as a result of your unwillingness to admit it you are an accessory to Hdayejr's trolling of my talk page. I will continue to deny you recognition until you admit you were wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone is going to know who they are (I only know Trebek) and not everyone is has easy access to the episode in question. If you feel that it is that important to the article, find a source for it. It may get reverted again even with a source. In the case of it getting reverted, take it to the article's talk page to get other's opinions on it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Denying recognition is for obvious vandals and for banned users, not for people with whom you disagree. If your form of denying recognition is to repeatedly revert non-vandal edits, you're likely to get blocked for edit warring, regardless of how right you are. That's just the way things work at Wikipedia. (And yes, it appears to me that both sides were guilty of at least some degree of edit warring. But as I've already said, that incident is stale.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material on high school article

A new editor, Monkeyking123 is continually replacing a pretty inflammatory section on controversy on the Mountain Pointe High School‎. When I reverted and explained it was unsourced, they responded that it didn't need a source [46]. He has since reverted again, and I don't want to edit war over this one so I brought it here. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits were reverted (quite properly) by someone else. Of the three edits, two of them are very clearly vandalism, which in my mind makes the third edit equally suspicious. Some digging on the web seems to show that in fact the incident quoted is in fact a complete fabrication. However there was an actual cheating incident at this school that made national news a few years ago, and if someone wanted to add it they could, as there are decent citations available. I've left a comment on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Disurptive edits by User:98.203.11.142

This IP has been making disruptive edits to pages relating to Arab Christians. First he was simply changing references to "Arab Christian" to "Arab Muslim", as in this edit and this edit, so I warned him on his talk page. But he ignored me, and soon was making edits like this, adding "faget" to pages about Arab Christians. I warned him again, but again to no avail, and now he's making these sorts of edits. I don't know what to do; he isn't responding to my warnings, and he hasn't made a single edit summary.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. If he does it again, let me know and I'll block him for longer. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SunCreator‎

Since this report against me was first filed on April 19th, User:SunCreator has not been able to let go of the issue, and is still pursuing it on WikiProject Notability, in effect ignoring all the editors and admins who have given him advice. Unfortunately, SunCreator has also become obsessed with me and is now stalking my contributions. Today, SunCreator showed up at Talk:History of Hawaii to restore off-topic attacks and trolling made by User:67.169.127.166 against User:Hokulani78. Article talk pages aren't used to attack editors, criticize their spelling, and rant about political beliefs. I removed the comments as off-topic per WP:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article") and SunCreator reverted them each time.[47], [48] Now, SunCreator has become obsessed with my talk page, adding no less than six messages [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], while I have asked him three times to avoid using my talk page. [55], [56], [57]. Could someone ask SunCreator to stop wikistalking me and to avoid harassing users on their talk page when they have asked him to stop? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on his talk page. --MPerel 07:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre Changing

Resolved

 – socks blocked

Right. I am getting fed up with this user Special:Contributions/82.38.65.47. They are persistently changing genres on hundreds of articles without any discussion. As we all know, this is highly disruptive and can lead to edit wars. The user has been repeatedly warned, asked to engage in discussion and blocked in the past. They have not changed their ways, may I suggest a longer term block? This user also operates Special:Contributions/Thrice34. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe they're violating WP:SOCK (multiple accounts), you can raise this at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU as appropriate. For straightforward vandalism, WP:AIV. Otherwise, an admin looking here may take action. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I went ahead and hard blocked the ip for a month. The same kind of vandalism dates to at least September 2007 and the ip has been the subject of many blocks previously. No comment on the named account. I suggest Nouse4aname file a sockpuppet complaint or checkuser request for that. -JodyB _talk 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's plain that the IP is the non-logged in identity of User:Thrice34 (who is now blocked indef), who in turn is a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked User:Matt 14. In the circumstances I consider a one-month block lenient as this is a static IP address, and was about to block it for three months. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. I don't think this user is violating WP:SOCK as they aren't trying to form a consensus or change opinion anywhere. Also I wasn't sure as to whether to post here or AIV as the vandalism isn't persistent, but rather sporadic, so not requiring immediate attention as I thought AIV was for. Anyway, it seems sorted now, though I doubt the block will bring about any change in their actions when it expires. Cheers all. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This user actually was violating WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy, as they were evading an indefinite block. However, account is being watched and any resumption will result in a longer block. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Ban this user User:Chocho123 with Immediate effect. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. WP:AIV is probably a better venue for this in the future however. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A blatant vandal claiming to be an administrator

Resolved

Spherea (talk · contribs) returned from a 24 hour block for vandalism and decided to dub him/herself as an administrator and added an {admin} template to their userpage. Edit history show this account made a few postitive edits at first but then turned to adding false information to articles as well as userpage vandalism. It may be a compromised account that someone accidently left logged in at an internet cafe? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The addition was reverted by someone else and I left a note on the talk page. -JodyB _talk 11:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet account continuing to edit war

Can somebody please look at this checkuser report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso? Robertert (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet account and he continues to engage in multiple article edit-warring at Gilo, Ramot, Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Ze'ev. As the disruption is ongoing, the need for admin intervention seems obvious. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. The supposed 'confirmed sockpuppets' edited entirely different entries and never violated any policy. At the same time, the editor above supports a specific content version which happens to introduce original synthesis against the consensus expressed by the majority of the editors (Noon, Amoruso, Gilabrand, myself, and others previously such as Slimvirgin). Rather than replying to my discussion or presenting sources Tiamut is improperly attempting to force a change in content and support an editor who has disruptively been reverting the four others. --Robertert (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "improper" about trying to change content. At Wikipedia, everyone who abides by the community's guidelines and policies is welcome to edit. The checkuser report said it was "likely" that User:Amoruso and you were the same account. You reverted to Amoruso's version of the text on what would have been his fourth revert. Using sockpuppets to edit-war and avoid breaking 3RR is not allowed. That is the primary issue here. The content issue is one that will eventually be worked out by good faith editors at the pages in question. Tiamut^talk 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I might also point out that your claim that your other confirmed accounts (i.e. Arzkibar (talk · contribs) and Onthedunes (talk · contribs)) edit other articles is false. Arzkibar has indeed been involved in the edit wars affecting Pisgat Ze'ev. Tiamut^talk 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all the socks indef, and the main account (Amoruso) for two months. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of the serial vandal Komodo Lover

Resolved

 – indef blocked

The new user user: Total Ignorent boy is the latest sockpuppet of Komodo Lover (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Komodo_lover#Suspected_usernames). This new puppet is making the same edits as the blocked sockpuppet Mr Loner (now indefiniately blocked), see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_with_Beasts&oldid=209209725. The picture on his front page is the same one he had with the Puncharoo puppet. He has also deleted mentions of him people's talk page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=209198133). Mark t young (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous player sections

Copied from WP:AN:

User: Fasach Nua began tagging the notable/famous player section of every national football team article as OR. As he began doing so, many editors, including myself, asked him to bring the issue to WT:FOOTY before an edit war spread across 50 articles. The discussion is ongoing as we attempt to develop a criteria for inclusion in these sections. In the mean time since these sections have existed uncontested on WP for several years, it is my position that they should remain untagged until the discussion at the project talk page has run its course and a consensus is reached. Rather than start an edit war over this I would appreciate a neutral 3rd party weighing in at either my or Fasach's talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If he believes the sections are OR in good faith, and has in any case stopped tagging them as such hours ago, and you have reverted everything he's done, and there is currently discussion going on at WP:FOOTY, what more exactly do you want? There is the matter of you edit warring on his talk page, but that seems to have resolved itself as well. I don't see any need for admin attention here. --barneca (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of this has worked itself out in the last few minutes. All I want is for him to acknowledge that the process has to run its course. I've tried to make a peace offering, but it went "unread." Maybe just a message from a third party to try to get him to see that I've actually made a peace offering, rather than have him ignoring my attempts to bury the hatchet. I wasn't trolling his talk page, just trying to get him to recognize the process. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if someone doesn't want to talk, it's hard to force them. If he was still adding tags now, and refusing to discuss, that would be one thing. But I think trying to force him to bury the hatchet with you, or even suggesting he do so, might have the opposite effect right now. Let's see how the discussion turns out; I have to admit, I've often sort of wondered how those sections meet WP:V myself. Tagging 50 articles was disruptive, but it's over, and reverted, so I'd call it water under the bridge, and move on with the discussion. --barneca (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your attention. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment you left on his page. That was exactly what I was hoping for. Hopefully he will take a look at my comments and realize I wasn't trying to be a troll or a dick and was just a concerned editor. Again, thanks for your attention and have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I notified Fasach Nua of this thread, but they seem to be on a brief wikibreak, and hopefully their participation in this thread is no longer needed. I'm marking it (optimistically) as resolved. --barneca (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem has started again as Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has begun mass tagging again. Please help keep this from getting out of hand again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: leave them tagged for now and try for discussion. Whether he is correct or not I suspect it is an area where discussion could be useful. What exactly makes a particular player notable and another not? I'm sure there isn't a hard cutoff, but perhaps a somewhat open-ended enumeration of things that might count as notability could be useful. OR seems like strange tag to me rather than Notability, but it can't hurt to leave the tags there for a few days while talking about it. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, our normal policy is to leave things at the status quo while contentious discussion is being conducted. There is currently a dicussion at WT:FOOTY about developing a criteria for these sections, and most there are of the opinion that FN has conducted this campaign in such a way as to violate WP:POINT (i.e. he selected a list of 50 articles mostly comprised of the most prominant teams like England, Italy, Spain, United States, Mexico, etc.) and has repeatedly rejected an attempt at dialogue (with me specifically even though I was one of a group of editors) on the issue at his talk page. I think that engaging in disruptive behavior and ignoring attempts to discuss this issue in a productive way is grounds for a block, and would like such action to take place to prevent an edit war over 50 articles while discussion is ongoing. I fear FN will not acknowledge the importance of process and policy without some time to think about it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(copy of my response from earlier today, on WP:AN, after it was moved here. i just closed the thread on AN to prevent a forked conversation)

I tried to help (a tiny bit) yesterday, but it evidently didn't take. I can't deal with this until the evening, so if any admin wants to take a look, feel free to jump in. I just left some advice for Grant on his user talk page; if anyone thinks they can add to that, or alter it, feel free. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent only because I can't count the colons right) I agree with Loren. It doesn't matter whether the tags are there while the discussion in going on or not. Try not to let FN's admittedly semi-disruptive way of going about this blind you to the fact that he may actually have a point. I don't think blocking FN at this point makes sense. I'll leave another message on his talk page. Please, both sides, don't edit war over the tags. Wait for consensus. If you're still unhappy, go to WP:DR. --barneca (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that he might have a point, otherwise I wouldn't be attempting to come up with criteria at WT:FOOTY. The problem is that this isn't like tagging something that has a verifiable source someone just hasn't found yet. In that case leaving the tags up makes some passerby aware that this information needs a cite so take it with a grain of salt or if you have it please provide it. In this case everyone is aware that there is no source that is going to pop up from the FA or US Soccer or wherever saying "here are the former players we deem notable or famous," so given the nature of section (which I think is inherently subjective to the point of not needing to be enumerated) and the fact that we literally have to create from scratch a criteria, it would be better for these sections to remain as is until the discussion is allowed to run its course. Either way, the repeated adding of tags despite at least three users (other than me) making it clear on his talk page or the relevant discussions pointing out to him that he is being disruptive, coupled with the unwillingness to communicate in order to resolve the situation and build consensus deserves at least a warning. I agree that a block would leave him unable to contribute to the discussion at the project talk page, but something has to be done to get the point across. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether it would be better to have the tag or not while discussion is going on. I'm saying that the incremental benefit to either temporarily having them or not having them (depending on your point of view), pending resolution, is very small compared to the cost of continued arguing and edit warring and admin action. Don't sweat the samll stuff. --barneca (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

User:Onorem raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 [58] at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 [59].

The reason User:Onorem was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also."[60].

This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article Diana, Princess of Wales.

User:Onorem justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the Diana, Princess of Wales without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the Diana, Princess of Wales. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard.

Wikipedia Merge criteria says,

“ 3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there. ”

Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country Sri Lanka where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations.

For the question why it is something to do with the Diana, Princess of Wales is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities.

My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article Diana, Princess of Wales until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.

Though I can revert User:Onorem's revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar.

“ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. ”

I am leaving this information here for your opinion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing lack of good faith in me and my edits. I created the new article in an attempt to solve the dispute. I did not copy the HTML code, because I have never created a new article before. There were no hidden agendas behind the simple cut/paste. If you don't like the format of the article, instead of complaining about it here, and making assumptions/accusations regarding my motives, you might want to spend your time improving the article. Put the HTML in, add some images, turn it into a top quality article. When I created the article, I mentioned that it needed work, and I requested that people help improve it, so once more, please show a little good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One more comment/question. Why is this on ANI? surely the article's talk page would be more suitable.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I brought to ANI is you a few people don't know even how to create a page on wikipedia but taking very interest on Princess Diana Institute of Peace and other tad issues like Diana's virginity.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but....1 ANI does not seem like the correct place for this. 2. I don't really understand what you are saying. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is inappropriate. Use the talk page to discuss content issues and controversial merges, if a consensus cannot be reached consider dispute resolution such as using a third party or request for comment. Also consider helping inexperienced editors with creating a page. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Don't get blocked for edit warring. --neonwhite user page talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with you, ANI is not the right place. But the above User is taking extra interest over this issue, but don't know how to create an article on wikipedia. Now turning her stand that he is English and asking me who am I? I will have to ask my ancestors who are from the Nordwestblock region same as Diana, Princess of Wales who am I?. A Gaelic or Celtic stock?Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel that the information about the institute belonged in a biography about the person. Instead of simply removing it, I asked for input on the talk page. Instead of an explanation about why this institute should have its own section on an article about the person, there was a bunch of bad faith accusations about why people wanted the information removed. I'm sorry if you felt that the 20+ hours wasn't long enough for discussion, but there's no reason why that discussion can't still continue. AN/I seems very premature at this point. --Onorem♠Dil 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Really 20+ hours is not enough for discussion.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was. In any case, it's now been 48+ hours, and I still don't see an argument justifying why this institute deserves its own section on a page that is supposed to be a biography about Princess Diana. --Onorem♠Dil 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• If Onorem hadn't removed the section I would have. I was on my way to do precisely that when I noted he had already done it. It was decided by consensus that the material did not belong in that particular article. The information is still on wikipedia and has "pride of place" in it's own article. As I said at the previous discussion on the matter if Bermudatriangle wants to be constructive he can help improve the new article (it is in drastic need). Otherwise the action he is taking is highly disruptive and not beneficial to the project. The "content" dispute was solved by consensus both on the talk page and at the previous discussion on this very page. If Bermudatriangle doesn't like what the new article says than he should help edit it constructively or nominate it for deletion under the appropriate criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What disruptive actions are you referring to? As far as i can see two users, Bermudatriangle and Sennen goroshi are guilty of edit warring. Continue the discussion until a consensus is reached or go to dispute resolution, that's my advice. Remember that consensus can change and claiming a false consensus is not civil. --neonwhite user page talk 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neon, though I agree with Jasynnash2 on "pride of place", still I have doubt whether the info available is enough for creating a new article for the institute.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree that such an article would unlikely survive an afd on grounds of notability. I can't find much evidence of it's existance considering the high profile but thats something that should be taken to an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why it can't be merged with Legacy section with thin content until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I've fixed the content on the new article so it is using the exact html coding that Bermudatriangle was using in "his" section on the section in the Diana, Princess of WalesJasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not "my" section. Then what about these[61][62][63].Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds, if I were to be totally objective, I would suggest deleting the new article, and not having the reference in the old article. It is a stub at the moment, and is unlikely to grow. It is not notable, and is not relevant to the Diana article. It should not go back into the Diana article, that seems clear, it is a very minor organisation, named after her, with no involvement from her. It is unlikely to grow. But I do think that it might be nice to give it a chance, leave it where it is, let people hunt down some more information, and see if it can grow. If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit Summary shows why you are so keen it should not go back to Diana article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and refusing to see the point

I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding WP:RS citations from User:Naadapriya. The user raised questions about jurisdiction of a Hogenakkal falls as well as removing details about a certain project which is proposed in the falls area. Anyways, leaving details of the dispute aside, to solve the dispute itself I had first asked the user to provide WP:RS material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his beating around the bush attitude on his talk page here. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner[64]. But, Naadapriya sought help of User:Skbhat [65] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my major concern is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (User:Skbhat). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also know if I will be breaching WP:Canvas if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:

• SHEFFIELDSTEEL
• John Carter and
• Renee
  

as well as the other frustrated editor like me @ the $un$hine .. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)

1. Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls
2. Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the WP:RS citations based on Govt sites and Google map
3. Those recent ones presented by user:JeremyMcCracken and user:skbhat were also refused by above group of editors.
4. Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments.
5. Naadapriya did not invite user:skbhat to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page.
6. Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide WP:RS about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state.
7. Most responses by above group of editors except User:SheffieldSteel included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations.
8. All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors.
9. During my tenure in Wikipedia this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information.

It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed NPOV statement that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn.

Naadapriya (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting another administrator's opinion over WP:RFP

I requested semi protection for Egyptian pyramids, which was soon turned down by User:Ryan Postlethwaite, with him noting "there's not much vandalism considering how high profile the topic is"

I am requesting another administrator, with WP:PROT and WP:ROUGH in mind, take a look. As I pointed out on Ryan's talk page, the article went on to be vandalized more than a dozen times, from six seperate IP's, just since last night after he turned down the request.

The page history shows hundreds of incidents of vandalism, almost all of them from anonymous IP's, and indeed there is so much vandalism and reverting that you have to hunt to find a constructive edit buried in the history list. You have to go back three pages just to get to the first of the month, and its all vandalism. I don't know what he means by "not much vandalism" but if another administrator could weigh-in with an opinion, I would appreciate it. I will be content to take "no" for an answer, but my view is that the article meets all the requirements for semi-protection and then some, and offering the page that protection would decrease the number of edits to the article at least five-fold, as well as haulting almost all of the vandalism. Brando130 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a week; more than two dozen or so IP vandal edits in the last day is outside my definition of "not much." We'll see what happens after the protection wears off. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even bother to check the diffs? This protection is just blocking IPs out of an editing dispute. I declined because most of the IP edits weren't vandalism. Semi-protection is not the way to deal with contect disputes with IPs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be borderline, because like Ryan stated some of the edits look more like a content dispute while others appear to be vandalism. I guess what I would have liked to have seen here would have been Tony leaving a note on Ryan's talk inquiring as to why he did not protect before he just went ahead and prot'd it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Block request for personal attacker.

Resolved

James265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making personal attacks against multiple editors. He also claims to have not used Twinkle, even though no mention was made (I smell sockpuppet). User has gone past a level 4 warning, but I don't know where this should go. Soxred93 (u t) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he saw 'using twinkle' in an edit summary, and he's almost certainly a sock (checkuser?)...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From the contributions, looks like it's a sock of Dan689. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked @ 16:42, 30 April 2008 By User:Nick. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

civility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chessy999 has been making constant references to vandalism regarding my edits.

We had a content dispute, which I think has come close to being resolved.

However when the above user reverted me, he used RVV or vandalism in the edit summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey-baiting&action=history

Despite "dont template the regulars" he placed a vandalism template on my talk page, when I explained to him that it was just a content dispute, he replied with "you are a vandal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chessy999#civility

I have tried to deal with this content dispute in a civil and adult fashion, however these comments are trying my patience a little.

I find the vandalism and vandal comments to be rude, and a deliberate act of provocation. The editor has been here long enough to know what is, and what is not vandalism.

This is a minor issue, I won't lose sleep over being called a vandal, however I think there are three issues here.

1. The attitude of an editor who wishes to label anything that disagrees with them as vandalism, even when consensus is against them. 2. The attitude of an editor who is abusing the templates and edit summaries to make a series of minor personal attacks 3. The attitude of an editor who is continuing to make personal attacks, after requests not to, even when the actual dispute is over.

thanks.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I advised this editor to discontinue deleting cited information from the monkey-baiting article. He continued, I advised him to stop vandalizing the article. I stand by my statement. Please advise this editor to stop posting nonsense on my talk page, including profanity. Thank you. Chessy999 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "I don't mean to be an asshole" [66] might be profanity, but it shouldn't be considered to be a provoking statement either. You were engaged in a content dispute with Sennen goroshi. As I said on the VP (assistance) thread, in a perfect world you should have both taken it to the talk page earlier. But that doesn't make SG's contributions vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If I wish to say "nice fucking edit" then that is fine. If I direct profanity towards you, in a negative manner then feel free to complain. The profanity was directed towards myself, and it seems rather strange that you only picked up on that profanity once there is an ANI report with your name on it.

I removed and changed your edits, due to general consensus - that is not vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Cited information is removed on a daily basis, it can be removed for all manner of reasons, yet again - it is not vandalism.

I think that you might be best to rethink your attitude towards editing, comments that you don't agree with are not automatically vandalism, neither are they automatically nonsense. Perhaps a slightly more open mind and a slightly less aggressive attitude would be more suited to a wikipedia editor.

Final note, please don't call me a vandal unless you catch me putting goatse on your talk page or something similar that is actually vandalism. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chessy999, you might want to read what vandalism is not, paying special attention to sections on NPOV violations and Stubbornness and you will see that you are incorrect in labelling Sennen goroshi's edits as vandalism. According to the official vandalism policy, his edits cannot be considered vandalism unless the information in question was introduced in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which is clearly not the case. At the same time, I would like to caution the editors in this dispute that both of you are well over your 3 revert limit within the past 24 hours so please come to some sort of consensus before making any further changes to the article and stop revert warring. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have accused Chessy999 of being the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. The case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (3rd). I think it's pretty conclusive evidence. Chessy999 should get indef blocked--the user is the sockpuppet of a banned user and, looking at his talk page, has a history of civility complaints and tendentious editing. Darkspots (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history of this editor nor the alleged sockpupeteer but WP:CheckUser might be appropriate for this case. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, recommending an RFCU is an indication that, while there's something there, the evidence isn't obvious. In this case, I feel like it's pretty obvious. Darkspots (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban

Mccready (talk · contribs) has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban. He is banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Mccready has been notified.[67] Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IP permanent block from editing

The IP address belonging to this messages' ('this' being the current message/complaint) author belongs to that of an Australian High School, and is reccommended that it should be blocked from editing permanently. My understanding is that you have been recieving many edits which are not of proper standards, and it makes logical sense that those who are familiar with the process would create edits that are satisfactory. Since users who regularly edit can use an account or alternative IP address, it would prevent student misbehaviour in school, and within wikipedia, as well as save time on giving warnings and temporary bannings.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.173.116 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You will need your network administrator, or school to official contact OTRS. Tiptoety ^talk 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistant Spam Accounts

Resolved

Both users blocked by admin. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The following accounts have been warned, and also previously briefly blocked, for inserting external link spam into articles about Rihanna:

• 76.16.61.141
• Skymurphyski

It's becoming rather tedious to have to revert the same material - specifically, information along the line of "...the new video can be seen at her official website, www.rihannaupdate.com - multiple times each day. Also, the website in question is not the artist's official website, as the information claims, it is a fan blog.

Can we investigate a blocking for these disruptive users? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The IP appears to be static, so after its previous week-long block, I have blocked it for a month. The registered account is currently on a 72-hour block. Black Kite 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve

I think his edit history speaks for itself. Continually reverting and, in some cases, trolling different pages, but namely the One Bid page for The Price Is Right, along with the "Retired Pricing Games" page. He seems to revert almost any edit made by anybody else. [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, some background here. I warned the user above, Dennyg2007, about respecting the user page of TPIRFanSteve after he re-removed content that had been taken down by an anon IP editor here [69] [70]. This IP editor, as well as the others that have been attacking TPIRFanSteve's page today, could very well be this same user, as he also commented on at least one of their pages here [71]. All of these attacks on TPIRFanSteve have led to his page being protected. From an outsider's perspective, TPIRFanSteve seems to be convinced this user (and the anon IP editors) are all socks of banned user User:Hdayejr, who he has quite a history with. Based on the contributions, I'd say that theory is worth discussing.

Following my request he not delete other editor's comments from someone else's talk page, he left these messages on my page [72] [73], which I took as vaguely threatening (especially since we're discussing socks of a banned user who apparently has a history of being legally prohibited from certain websites). After I commented, I was attacked by one of the anon IP's here [74].

I guess, based on the fact that I'm also being attacked, that I'm involved here. I would suggest a CheckUser to sort out what's going on. Redrocket (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: After another editor tagged one of the anon IPs as a probable sock of Hdayejr here [75], he responded with a deletion notice on their homepage here [76]. Redrocket (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redrocket, you must be a friend of this user? You sure have taken interest in defending a person that has a long standing history of problems as far as civility and assuming good faith editing. TPIR's contribs above should speak volumes. I don't see any recent edits that would assume good faith, furthermore, any page associated with The Price Is Right appears to be his property, and not Wikipedia's. Check his edits first before you make half cocked assumptions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never met this user, I only found his page reverting vandalism from hdayejr once upon a time, I'm sure you remember. I found it again reverting vandalism from you.

And I appreciate your concern (and the vague threats on my talk page), but I think you'll find my assumptions come fully cocked. Redrocket (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats? Explain where I threatened you.....????? I merely suggested you not get into a situation that you didn't have a whole knowledge about. And you still don't. Let me know when you are finished reviewing his edit history, and then we'll talk. Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done above. And I checked his history, he's never had a block, even in the face of overwhelming harassment from a banned user that still continues right now. You however, seem compelled to once again remove content from a user page, as you've done here yet again [77]. Please stop. Redrocket (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, do you realize that could be a liability for this site? Do you even care? Of course not, you don't have a dog in this race and it's all gravy to you. That revert is valid and has nothing to do with any article on this site. If he wants a message board, there are other sites, not this one. Oh, and here's some more history for your enjoyment(since I know you won't dig that far back) [78]Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you're so intent on maligning my image, you might want to find something that actually paints me in a negative light. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done that well enough, yourself. Who do you have the connection with at Wikipedia? Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, that edit is two years old and there's not a single ounce of context behind it. You've only been here for six weeks, explain how you have a "dog in that race" with this comment?

This board isn't for arguments, it's for discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it to the talk page so as not to clutter this board please. Redrocket (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

I'm becoming very concerned about this user's contributions. Since he was blocked a week ago (for reasons I fully stand behind), he's been going on a crusade of borderline harassment against me. In particular, he's been posting annoying and condescending posts on my talk page and demanding an apology ([79] [80] [81] [82]). This behaviour has mutated into accusations that I am being more disruptive than he is within the fiction scope, citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2's "inflaming the dispute" ruling (the irony is ninety!). Despite being asked to disengage from the situation by Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who intervened because she has my talk page on watchlist), he's ignored her request (because me and SW both like the same band and talk to each other regularly) and is still being disruptive, bringing up his block (which was endorsed by at least three admins) as an excuse for his disruption, including removing a legitimate (and appropriate) comment from WT:NOT. I really want something to be done about this, because it's seriously disenchanting me from productive editing. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And apologies if my post is really badly worded - it is 2:10am and I'm staying up to make sure I write an article before its DYK closes (which I've put behind because of said disenchantment). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn’t you be in bed, young man? :P Anyway, I just blocked him for another 24 hours. —Travis^talk 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Magicmusicfan

Appears to be at best a single purpose account, created only to create Durwin Dean (which is currently the subject of an AFD), at worst WP:SOCK.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with it. Probably 50% of all the users here started out by creating a poor-quality article on their favourite celebrity (I know I did). — iridescent 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say the problem is more with you, Rtphokie. I notice you havn't even asked this user about anything on their talk page, and came straight here. Jtrainor (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Neither welcomed nor notified of the AfD. The first article I created got speedily deleted. I prefer to nurture new editors if I can. You can't expect anyone's first article to be a shining example of how to create an article. Nor can you expect new user's to be familiar with the intricacies of AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I've been looking at poor quality articles on non-notable DJs for weeks (I didn't nominate this one for the record). Sock puppets are not uncommon with the radio station articles. I'd just finished commenting on an AFD on an article created by a sock puppet that was blocked indefinately because of it. This one smelled like that as well. DJs seem to have moved from promoting themselves and their shows via MySpace to promotion via Wikipedia. Conflict of interest, POV, unreferenced, peacock and also sock puppet problems are becoming more and more common. I was looking for some comment on the user and his/her activity not an attack.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The intention of this noticeboard is to highlight a currently active incident that requires immediate administrator attention. If you're having trouble working with another editor, or have some problems with their conduct, you should discuss it with them first, then seek dispute resolution. As stated in the header above, this isn't the complaints department, and there are plenty of other venues that should be sought out before coming here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)