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:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked & ban discussion

Unresolved

 – emergency split (131kb) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion per WP:SIZE and WP:ACCESS and consensus clearly established for long AN/ANI threads. --slakr^\ talk / 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Emergency split? The whole reason the thread is so long is because it started as one thing (a discussion about a previous AN thread and Kurt's contribution there) and then segued into the predictable ban discussion. The ban discussion should have been at AN, where the size wouldn't have been a problem. Now someone can try and work out what to do with my comment when they put the subpage back here. Taking it off people's watchlists and putting a ban discussion on a subpage is not acceptable. I will note that the last three comments were opposes, so yanking it off ANI and onto a subpage looks even worse. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Full agreement - This discussion really shouldn't be shuffled back and forth between an unwatched subpage and ANI. It should stay put, and preferably here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just brilliant for people with a slow internet connection. Also, brilliant for people who love multiple edit conflicts. Majorly ^talk 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right..let's just keep going back and forth. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the sarcasm link. All joking aside, why not move the active bits of the thread out here, leave the inactive bits there (mark with archive tabs and links to here), and also provide links here, back to there. Then archive as a whole when finished. See, a constructive comment. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As has been discussed multiple times before, threads are split when they become large. Consensus is that we usually split threads >= 50kb, especially if they look like they're gonna keep growing; this one was 131kb. The discussion page for AN* boards is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Please discuss the current splitting/archiving consensus there if you feel it should change. Otherwise, please continue the discussion on the subpage and update the {{Unresolved}} tag to {{Resolved}} or similar when things are settled. --slakr^\ talk / 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was there for those discussions at WT:AN before, and I disagreed with automatic use of subpages due to size then, and I object now. Ban discussions are a clear example of a case where exceptions need to be made. Discussions on subpages do receive less attention, and the minimum standards for a ban discussion require it to be conducted openly. And as I've said several times now, ANI is more active than AN, so ban discussions should, for that reasons if nothing else, be held at AN where there is a less pressing need to split off to subpages. Even if a ban discussion results from an ANI thread, the time, space and decorum needed for a ban discussion are better suited to AN than ANI. But certainly not a subpage. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split. It won't load in my iPhone. Also, it is slagging my Firefox implementation. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It won't load in your iPhone? I'm speechless. Is that really the most important consideration here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish a sucky internet connection on some of you. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. My browser was slowing down, too, which is why I also did the same to several other threads. We have an entire encyclopedia to run. If one action's discussion that affects only one user, however perceivably unjust the action may be, is preventing people from reporting/responding to problems here, it needs to be fixed so that the other 99% of the encyclopedia can be covered. I'm sorry if you feel this action is unjust, but it is firmly grounded in our accessibility and article size guidelines due to technical and readability issues. --slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And my suggestions to bring the ban part out here and leave the other stuff in there? Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split FFS. It's linked from AN/I. This page is already absurdly long and it is nice to get a permanent link to it. It isn't some nefarious plot to hide the secret admin goings on from the regular drama boards. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Split- I have a very slow internet connection and it's hard to load AN/I, plus edit conflicts crash firefox. So I'd really like to see this kept on a subpage. It's easier to watchlist anyway... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support split - these are not the most important issues to discuss, admins come to AN/I looking to find out what is happening and of late the size of AN/I has been manifestly ridiculous. Slow user connections are not the only problem - sometimes WP itself has been extremely slow too. This gives people a factor of choice re the more dramatic topics attracting a lot of discussion. Orderinchaos 02:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Possible split - erase all the contributions made while the sub-thread was on the main noticeboard, start with the actual sub-thread itself. The inevitable consequence of sub-threading is a dropoff in comments, which inevitably gives the volume of main-thread comments weight of numbers. Sub-threading offloads the main board, but emasculates the thread. Alternatively per Carcharoth, make the active sub-threads visible. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion may have ended - doesn't look like anyone new is saying anything there. Whether that is because the discussion is reaching a natural end, or because no-one bothers to go and look at or edit subpages, it is impossible to say. The only way to have been sure would have been to do this right from the beginning. The initial subpage creation I can understand, but I still struggle to understand the need to yank the discussion back and forwards. Subpage warring? And no-one has commented on my point that ban discussions should happen at AN, not ANI. WP:BAN says: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in a certain area of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard" (my emphasis). Also, many of the size arguments about ANI don't apply at AN, which gets less traffic and is smaller (currently 141 vs 233 Kb). I've said this before, but it seems no-one is listening. See also Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard which says that new issues should be raised at ANI. That is just contradicting WP:BAN, so I've changed that to AN. The MfD discussion for CSN mentions both AN and ANI. On the basis that we need to be consistent, I'm going to change the AN/ANI header to point ban discussions towards AN, and start a new section on both boards announcing that, citing WP:BAN as my reasoning. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change and think it should be undone promptly for the reasons left at the AN discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [title corrected 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Wikipedia toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Wikipedia; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were no rules. I boldly corrected an error. I was informed that were i to continue in my correction of errors i would "very likely be accused of vandalism", to which i replied with cites of previous complaints about the abuse of the [:Category:Pseudoscience]. I could also have made mention of the 2 previous CfD for the entire category itself. I have already explained my support for the category's restrained usage primarily in its non-pejorative significance. The characterization of "tendentious" is false, because i was correcting toward the neutral point of view. I was correcting tendentious use of a misused category tag. That i did so a single time with numerous tags also contradicts this characterization, which could mean "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Once i was resisted then i stopped that method of correction and sought another method, engaging more people. This indicates to the contrary regarding 'disruptive' editing style, which is "persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." In the case of the former, i wasn't persistently editing a single page. The latter (undue weight) was what i was attempting to restrict from perturbing the topics i observed as under contention. I saw the opportunity to improve Wikipedia, and so may have ignored some rules, as charged. Which ones? I'm not actually sure.

• I thought my strategies for addressing the error was inventive, creative, and gradually focussed. First it followed after a specific user suggestion by MartinPhi by removing the poorly-related subcategories. When this was opposed, i recommended a complement category tag which i agree was indeed making a POINT. I accepted this ruling and decided that i was not likely to produce a change in the overall trends and dynamics in Wikipedia (as i set about exploring other Wikis and began to notice how they looked and behaved like MUDs) and, during observation of certain cultural struggles in the topical areas of my interest, provided my observations on the whole as a basis for attempting to redress the problem from another tack: the restraint on the abuse of the pejorative Pseudoscience category.

• The CfD ruling was that this (correcting the Pseudoscience category) was my apparent point, and some of those who contributed seemed to agree that the pejorative tag was problematic. Where better to address the problem than on the Talk page of that category? So i began engaging conversation there and following out both pro (usage) and con (abuse) discussion there clarifying rational examining of its employment. I think i have addressed the relevant portions of your commentary.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" [1]?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Wikipedia policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Wikipedia) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question Massive POV push? and request for "some help on understanding what the heck is going on". Rather than answer the question, you attack the messenger and instead of giving your own explanation, attack my attempt at giving a concise answer. You object to my description of "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem", but that seems to me to be a fair description of the massive amount of impenetrable prose at Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis and Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Helpfully, Self-ref has given an "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" of the former post –

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If my translation is correct, that means that he doesn't like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR being applied to non-notable subjects. As shown at #Summing up above, the latter discussion suggests that he doesn't like WP:NPOV/FAQ much either. I've also commented there on Cat's objectives. By the way, you will note that today's featured article, Anekantavada, is fully supported by citations to reliable third party sources. Think about it. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi dave. Could you give specific quotes from me that indicate that i don't like those things? I would appreciate it.

• In regard to WP:V, i like it very much, and i would prefer not to see it abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong.

• WP:NPOV informs my motivation for correcting the POV-intrusion of pejorative category tagging. By its very characterization it is obvious that this type of category is easily abused. There have been adequate explanations for this in the Pseudoscience category Talk page (arguably justifying its complete removal). I have explained why it ought remain, as comparable to Category:Hoaxes or Category:Fallacies, which are helpfully explained as to how and why these are conventionally so regarded. In general, the error that is being committed is in consideration of a topic and where its borders extend. To the extent that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" topic intrusion inserts hyper-skeptical and opposing topical matter into the main article. This is disruptive of encyclopedic content, and should be curtailed as a form of POV-pushing. I am taking both specific steps and broad-ranging explanatory means of correcting this. I am open myself to correction, and since i am a new editor at Wikipedia am continually taking cues from my elder editors (and especially writers). It is my aim "to present each of the significant views [within a topic] fairly and not [to] assert any one of them as correct." I think that until a topic is generally evaluated as a hoax, or as a fallacy, or as a pseudoscience, it is POV-pushing to apply such a blatantly pejorative categorization to it, and especially to ambiguous referents which these pseudosciences may study. With that in mind, i do dispute that a proper treatment has been given to Pseudoscience categorization in this arbitration, and have explained why in the Pseudoscience category's Talk page as seems appropriate (there are several sections challenging it). I am still waiting for rational arguments against me in any of those sections. Perhaps it is a convention that cites are necessary for Category Talk pages? I haven't noticed this.

• WP:NOR seems completely common-sense to me. I don't think that i have ever edited an article in Wikipedia and failed to support it with proper sources. If you know of an instance, please point it out. I don't think that this applies to User_pages, Talk_pages, or Village_pump_pages which have been my primary contribution thusfar in Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia i have of course constructed many pages with variable citation, since they weren't all encyclopedias. Surely i have much to learn as regards this principle of Wikipedia, but i am neither opposed to its application on non-notable subjects (examples?) nor do i think that the notability guideline has as much weight as do the editing principles (in fact i think notability guidelines are too heavily emphasized and should be moderated against an unlimited data holdings so as not to treat Wikipedia as if it were a paper encyclopedia).

• With regard to WP:NPOV/FAQ, i very strongly agree that "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." I also like the rest of the page very much except the presented Pseudoscience arbitration, which i dispute is illogical, should not apply to an expansive use of the Pseudoscience category, and contains four decisions by 8 people on the category, 2 of which are not even unanimous. I am not out of line to dispute it, especially as i am helping to clarify the referents of its application -- something which is barely touched on in the arbitration because its focus is elsewhere.

Dave, you maintain that i have a "tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump", and yet i don't think i've contributed more than a single extended essay there and, when asked to provide an 'executive summary' did so without complaint, answering all questions put to me for clarification. You also state that i made "proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy." I think i clarified that above. I agree with the policy, and agree that the arbitration produced that result, but i dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification, thinking that it extended a ridiculous expansion to the support for applying this pejorative category tag. I support its restriction to nouns only, and have made this penatrably clear both on Category talk:Pseudoscience and in the couple of essays that i wrote explaining why the category's misuse is a problem and why i think that it is being misused (an extension of cultural struggles into Wikipedia, sullying its content).

Therefore, in brief, dave, your contentions about my positions are extreme, unfounded (you don't provide pointers to where i dispute these principles), and for all but one exception in the last, which i answer to above, are 180 degrees off-base. Can you explain how you got such an incorrect impression of me? Is there something i can do to help you penetrate my prose, see my support of Wiki editing principles, and allow me to object to the Weapon of Effacement in pursuit of a healthier Wikipedia? In Good Faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, hopefully you're getting the hang of WP:TLDR. Apologies for the extent to which my quick attempt at translation fell short, however you still don't seem to like "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The notability guideline gives a basis for working, subject to common sense and consensus on any particular article, and there's rightly no exemption clause for "esoteric topics" unsupported by third party reliable sources. Some New Thought related articles have been improved a bit by being stripped of some peacock language and wording completely unsupported by sources, but even a reasonably notable subject such as the Christian D. Larson bio is supported only by passing references in a couple of modern books, a 1919 history, and a history published by Optimist International – an article supported only by self-published sources, and so another article needing improvement to meet the threshold of WP:V. The other core content policies all have a bearing on how "esoteric topics" are presented, if at all, and have to apply. If you wish to dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy then you've got to persuade a lot of people before you start implementing your own ideas about it. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. I consider WP:TLDR to be a hostile means of addressing communication problems that would be better and more faithfully resolved by clear, thoughtful questions. Thank you for your apology, accepted.

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:V, just repeated your contention that i still "don't seem to like it". Where dave? Does some part of "i would prefer not to see it (WP:V) abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong." mean this to you? I can tell you that the practice to which i refer has me writing elsewhere than Wikipedia. I know others for whom this is true, and some who seem to be about to transit to that activity also. I don't think driving away writers is what is best for Wikipedia, do you?

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:NOR, with which you appear to be associating notability. I thought ANIs were supposed to be more thorough and specific than that. Since i'm just now learning about the details of administration and negotiations in Wikipedia i'll watch for what standards should be engaged in an ANI. So far it appears to me a distraction from conversations better had elsewhere about the actual categories and their use and abuse. Making it personal seems to me the wrong way to handle such discussions, because it assumes bad faith rather than addressing the issues proper in a polite and clear way in the context of the topic, category, and page of the dispute.

I will now no longer respond to your accusations without substantiation referring to my writing. I have adequately refuted your contentions about what principles you think i "seem to dislike". I will now proceed to address only what i regard as substance in your comments.

Your point about WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy seems very sound, and i like it very much. Can you give me some advice here? If nobody discusses the implementation of that policy on the Talk page of the Pseudoscience category, then where will it be discussed? I don't see anyone arguing that i am incorrect on that page, only (at least recently) a silence, allowing me to make the first (possibly unpracticed and misguided) attempt to do what was already agreed: discuss each of the subcategories and consider them for inclusion or exclusion. If anything, i offer an intermediary position between those who demand the category's deletion and those who seem to be abusing it. I don't accept the legitimacy or wisdom of that policy's implementation, and so of course i proceed from that basis, explaining what i think is logical and rational (and most conservative). Others may argue to the contrary regarding each of the subcategories' inclusion/exclusion in response. If they do not, and if people just remain silent, does this mean that there is a consensus, or that the category has been abandoned, or what? I hear your direction to "persuade a lot of people" before i start implementing my ideas of it. I thought the best course was to have a conversation about the implementation, and then implement what was hammered out in the Talk page. How long should i wait in silence unopposed to my arguments for these subcategories' exclusion before i begin implementing that? Should i wait 3 weeks and then begin implementing those which aren't covered by the policy arbitration first, referring to those who object to my edits to engage discussion on the category page instead of engaging in an edit war with me? You're an admin here, dave, surely you know the best procedure. Thank you for your assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question..." Ah, Dave souza, since when do users bring complaints to AN/I because they assume good faith? I would have thought that, by now, you would have figured out that this is where users come when they have run out of good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably not relevant. What would seem to me to be relevant would be Cat and Self-ref's flouting of WP's policies regarding verifiable, reliable content, vis-a-vis the persistent use of the word "hostile", to paint said policies as "evil". Let's try to stick with that point, and leave the digressions on user talk pages. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? It is a comment exactly on the accusation (disguised as a question) originally made by Zero1328. If you can't remember, take a look at Dave souza's edit just above, and at the top of this section on the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But, how does it address the real issue? It doesn't. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and came back to find this. I've seen ANI discussions before, and this one is certainly atypical. Normally the complaining party supplies diffs, examples, a desired outcome, and such, but this is just a lot of opinionating and fake mind-reading. The complaining party has failed to bring forth (dare i say it?) verifiable evidence that i don't support verifiability, NPOV or other Wikipedia policies -- because i DO support those policies.

My concern has been that editors with an agenda (political and/or religious, primarily) are misusing deletion selectively against topics that fall into their pet peeve categories. I gave stated (and supported with diffs and examples) my belief that at least one editor deleted rather than upgraded older and less-well-sourced articles on spirituality, self-help, New Thought, Creationism, Christianity, Spiritualism, divination, folklore, et al. I write in many categories (e.g dog breeds, collectibles, celebrities, music, science, religion, folklore, etc.), but only in religious and magical categories have i seem articles targeted for stubbing and deletion by editors who show great disrespect for the writers who created and/or upgraded the articles in the past.

We all know that Wikipedia standards are changing, and that old articles with no citations as well as last year's articles with end-of-article footnotes are getting tagged. It would not be difficult for the taggers to play fair and notify the writers who have worked on the articles that inline citations are being sought -- because getting the refs will be easiest for the writers who wrote the pages, since they were working from material they have in print or know how to find online.

My record of writing, copy editing, and cite-tagging for veriifiability is clear. I am not interested in low gossip, name-calling, or baiting. Since no "incidents" have been mentioned in this supposed incident report, i shall now take my leave, thanking those kind souls who supported me, and leaving what remains of this gossipy thread to the mind-readers and mentalists who prefer Wikidrama to writing encyclopedia entries.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, glad you could join in. Unfortunately your confidence in your mind-reading powers seems undiminished, and again your argument is based on your presumption that an editor acting properly in accordance with policies, working through related articles in a normal way, had an "agenda". Your belief in his "agenda" is unfounded and irrelevant, and again you don't seem to realise that the editor was never in a position to delete any articles – that's an admin decision. You do seem to have learnt the idea of requesting references, though an unreferenced tag with the edit summary (entirely void of sourcing)[2] is rather POINTy on an article with two inline cites to BBC articles, and external links including the Guardian and The Times. However, your next edit is fine,[3] and you are of course free to delete any completely unsupported text. As always, it's up to those wanting to keep the information to provide verification. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero, so does this ANI have a resolution, or a point, or a director, or a facilitator, an authority, or what? I'm curious. Is there a massive POV push? Has it been determined? By whom? I thought i was attempting to restrain one. Seems to be a matter of perspective.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

self-ref, it is all just a farce. As far as I know, POV pushing applies only to material editors put into articles, and Zero1328's question was about discussion on various talk pages. For instance his question mentions:

I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

Obviously Zero1328 is referring to discussion on talk pages and not to material in articles that violate NPOV. Even if Zero1328 did not understand that, it is beyond comprehension why Dave souza (who is an administrator) never explained that in any of his many answers. A purpose of talk pages is to resolve POV issues, but such discussion is not POV pushing. (If my understanding of this is incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone would explain.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I had thought it was self-evident by by post at the top.

  But before trying to further to clarify, may I ask if you looked at the diffs (both, before and now), and to share your opinion of them. - jc37 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diffs, and I must say I'm afraid I can't see what this thread is about. Unless there are deleted contribs that only admins can see, other than this uncivil post, this editor's contributions don't even seem particularly problematic to me. If there are allegations of socking, where are the diffs please, where is the related SSP or checkuser case? Oppose ban. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question i ran trough the history of his talk page, and i noticed the absence of both warning templates or even an explanation before he was blocked the first time. Unless discussion took place somewhere else or there has been some form of grave misconduct i am unaware of, it is customary to warn a user before blocking him or her. Besides, i ran trough his recent edits and i fail to see any PoV pushing that bad it warrants an instant block. At the same time the diff above is unfriendly, but if it is the only misconduct i would say like to note that if that offense was a reason for an instant ban, we would have to do so for quite some people. Pure vandals must receive four warnings before being eligible for a block, so i fail to see why this case should warrant one without warning? So for now Oppose Ban. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Arrr, he can walk the plank. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, all that is visible to me is small amounts of POV-pushing followed by an excessive block, and no attempts to discuss the issue with the user. There is nothing here yet that supports a formal ban. If there is more, please show it. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Kusma and auburnpilot. No to a ban on the basis of the "evidence" presented here. I don't see what the diff jc37 posted is supposed to prove. And where's the checkuser case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The diff posted is only one example of the trolling and POV pushing exhibited by this user. The fact that he came back right after an extended block to wave an edit in Raul's face is simply childish. We don't need editors like this here, who are not only unwilling to learn from their mistakes, but persist in acts of seeming "revenge" against those who opposed them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  This is a fair part of the concern. That and the edit history (and gaps thereof) suggest that they are using socks to achieve this (on the articles noted, and presumably elsewhere). - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would not characterize a 1 week block (and unblocked the next day) as an "extended block", and have difficulty understanding how anyone else could. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the block log for some reason. Either way, he hasn't improved any, and we don't need this level of immaturity here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - a "long time missing" is surely not grounds for any administrative action at all, let alone a ban. I'll just add that I have informed the editor in question of this thread, as no-one else appears to have bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. An editor who has made but 45 edits, very few of which highlight behaviour arising from anything other than a poor understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are expected to conduct themselves, does not deserve a formal slamming-of-the-door. I would suggest instead an experienced and uninvolved administrator sit down with this editor and give some serious tuition about how we behave on a collaborative encyclopedia, and make clear the consequences if s/he does not conform to the communal standards of conduct we hold here. (My message at User talk:Dpmuk#Skin Hunters may be a useful example.) However, on the proposal to ban this user, I do not believe this to be a move that facilitates the improvement of the encyclopedia; and, if the worst comes to the worst and Boondocks37 disrupts in the future, an administrator can simply issue a preventive block. Now, let's get back to some article writing. Anthøny ✉ 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you would like to be that person, please feel free. (Though after using this account to POV push, they seem to have gone "inactive" again, so I'm not sure you'll get through, but please, feel free to make the attempt.) - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nah ah, definetly premature for a community ban, a good way to the solve the issue is not always the right way. Also theres something wrong with the diff you provided and that is he said it against Raul.......seriously its Raul so im not to fussed about him trolling a troll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pot, meet kettle. Black Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Would solve the "perceived" problem sure..but I just don't see it. Inappropriately dealt with in the past..no warnings..just a strange (possibly immature attitude) with a few troublesome diffs. I'm just not seeing the appropriateness of issuing the ban. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't use the nuclear option on people out of pique. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to deal with the consequences of controversial actions the same way as us lesser beings. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the attention. Just so we're clear, I am not getting banned. This jc37 character has something against me, and can't stand losing. Which he did, when he tried, unsuccessfuly, to remove an edit of mine, which I provided with a valid reference, for no other reason than it didn't agree with his personal POV. It is sad really. But, once again, I do appreciate the attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, jc37, not sure how going "inactive" for periods of time can be used as part of the justification to ban anybody. Is having a life a bad thing, in your books? Also, can anybody tell me what "using socks" is? Again, my life outside of computers and this website limits me to only knowing one use for socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I opposed your ban, but Wikipedia is not about "winning" or "losing" (see WP:WINNER). If that is what you most care about, you are probably at the wrong place here, where we do sometimes try to build a free encyclopedia. Are you trying to prove that those who supported your ban were right about you? Kusma (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [4], [5], and this [6] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:

• Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
• [7][8][9][10][11] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
• On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...

• Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.

Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)

• Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny ✉ 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I met him only as a mediator, and he shown himself to be a good one. I was later surprised to learn of the drama surround him, but I cannot support an argument for blocking that is framed like that one ("Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban, but I would support a topic ban from the noticeboards (except for matters directly concerning his own conduct) for a period of time to be determined. Prom needs to refocus on what it is we are here to do. I would also be willing to resume adoption/mentoring of Prom, as I had ended that relationship when he entered admin coaching. –xeno (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Saw this on IRC earlier, I would Strongly Oppose a community ban, but I would Support mentoring. Can I just add that one of the blocks (the incivility one) was defending me after the whole Chemistrygeek incident. He, like many, believed I was innocent (which a CU showed I was) and his incivility was because he was "taking on the system" so to speak, saying that it was all ridiculous. (Or at least that's how I saw it). I do not endorse incivility (and I know I myself have been) but surely when it is for the good of the encyclopedia (ie not losing me as an editor) I think we can let it pass. Thanks, BG7even 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the user causes disruption, please go ahead and post some examples of it. The reasons adduced above are blah. I especially despise the notion that "hostility and bitterness towards administrators" is a good reason to cut somebody off from contributing to the project. No, we're supposed to put up with stuff like that. We're admins, not royalty. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Statement

I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

• In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
• I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
• The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
• The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
• My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
• The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
• In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
• In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
• The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, where to from here?

Given a community ban appears to have been rejected, what should take place? I think for Prom3th3an's sake, there needs to be clarity, so that he can move on in the appropriate manner without this hanging over him in an unresolved fashion. My own idea of a solution would be some form of enforced mentorship, with recourse to blocks (not indefinite - enough to stop the behaviour without being punitive) if we see repeats of the personal commentary incidents.

I talked to the user at length last night on IRC and I think it's a reasonable conclusion he is good faith and means well, that the eruptions are more stemming from a lack of control/forethought than any genuine ill will, and that an area of concern is priorities. The priority of an encyclopaedia should always, first and foremost, be building its content and providing the means for content to be built, and anything else (drama, social networking, who's saying what at Jimbo's talk page, adminship etc) comes a distant second. He is an intelligent and capable user who is in the top classes at school, and I feel he could become a highly useful contributor with appropriate guidance and direction as long as he is willing to cooperate.

The level of mainspace contributions in recent weeks is something I have already raised with him, and seeing just two more in the eight days hence (both of which could be classed as technical or minor), I really hope to see an improvement in that as well. Orderinchaos 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, concerns and direction Orderinchaos. I totally agree with the "priorities" statement and I have one thing to add and that is, I dropped all the work I had to do this weekend (including Year 11 assignments, 3 of them) to attend to this ANI thread, more particularly the community ban thread that another user has described as "self-perpetuating wikidrama" (Whether or not I personally agree with that statement is irrelevant), I would hope that what ever method/outcome the community decides is swift (without being hasty), free of unnecessary drama and stress for all. In self reflection the community ban thread achieved something it may not have intended, that being it made me realise that I've been walking a misleadingly fine line for some time. My thanks go to those who have shown faith that I can change, it is a moral booster that will help.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalled?

Im starting to get concerned that this (what would have seemed as productive) discussion has stalled. Theres still the matter of wether we accept the proposal above, or weather the community wants a RFC/U. I would like to get this dealt with (and over and done with) sooner rathor than latter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a willing mentor who the community would trust, I'd be happy to vote for its closure. I have a few people in mind but it would be unfair to name them without asking their permission. Orderinchaos 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb

• WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have just reblocked WordBomb with email disabled due to email abuse. Predictable enough, under the circumstances, I guess. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You unblocked and immediately reblocked with email disabled. Now I understand what you are saying. I don't think there is anything to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no discussion necessary, I was just letting people know. Disabling email is a fairly unusual step, but WordBomb knows how to contact the foundation should the need arise so there should be no issues arising from it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems unclear...I gather that he was sending you unwelcome e-mails? Or is this something he has been doing to others? In what sense was the use of the e-mail function abusive? Everyking (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity

Seems to be a long-standing and heated edit war both in the article and on its talk page. Really could use some sorting out. JNW (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would request to please look into this issue. The editor Goingoveredge is choking other editors and not letting any discussion to take place on article talkpage. Additionally he is using tags and wikipedia policy keywords against other editors unwarranted. He seems adamant on pursuing his own POV and deleting everything else on the article talkpage. All my attempts to have civil discussion with him have failed. Please also see the RFC on Goingoveredge for some more information on his activities. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked Roadahead and Goingoveredge both for edit warring, but beyond their accusations and bad blood there may be some actual shenanigans that could use sorting out, or at least extra eyes.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, is about a book that takes a strong POV, so it's not a complete surprise that extremely partisan editors are working on the article. Due to the edit warring, the article has been full-protected twice in the last few weeks. I suggest that the article subject might not meet the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books), and an AfD of the article might be a reasonable solution. (We have no article on the book's author, G. B. Singh, and it's not common for a book to be notable while its author is not). EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

subtracting all the vitriol, this is about a crappy book that is pushed by one ideological group and vilified by another. Goingoveredge is right in stating that the book is crap, but he is wrong in prolongued rants about it. It is enough to cite the issues raised in the reviews cited. As EdJohnston states, it may be worth an AfD to look into whether the book satisfies WP:BK in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article asserts notability with some scholarly reaction. The book has issues, and the editors probably need to be squeezed through dispute resolution, not to mention it looks like there is still edit warring going on. I'm watching the page now, and considering a loud, unsubtle general warning against edit warring, lest there be escalating blocks.--Tznkai (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogger3140

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm coming here because I don't really know what to think in regards to this user.

Frogger had joined awhile back, he's been here for at least a few months to my knowledge, and while I have, in the beginning at least, tried to help him learn what not to do here, per his recent edits, it still seems that he doesn't quite understand.

His first few edits are mainly to userpages, which could be said are mistakes, where he adds a cabal template to various users' userpages, as seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4. In later edits, he continues to edit others' userspaces: 1, and 2. He even claims that the user in question(for the last edit) has said it was okay. When searching through, I found no such thing(you can check if you don't believe me). He made this claim to me, and an admin I believe, as can be seen here as the admin responds, telling him he cannot.

His editing from thereon(and I mean for the amount of time starting around the time of the above edits, and the most recent stream of edits) appeared to be normal, however his most recent edits have vastly deviated from any kind of constructive editing. Even though he was warned in the past about editing userpages that are not in his his one userspace, he has done so here, and again here, even when told not to several times by the user who's userspace the page was under. This happened several times. The user in question has also created several POV categories, which of course have been deleted. Last but not least, the recent edit found here, of which the user has yet to explain.

In the past I have suggested this user apply for mentoring. I don't know if they have, but it doesn't appear they have, according to his history.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to the belief that this account is on a mission to see how much and for how long they can get away with. I only skimmed the contrib history, so perhaps someone can point to any constructive edits - I certainly missed them. I also have the suspicion that they are GHawPgger wannabe (without the suss). I would not missed them if they were indeff'd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, hoping that someone will clarify, I have no idea what gwa p means, or is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some good edits in here: removes "needs-photo = yes" when the article has a photo, and improving license tagging and stub-sorting. this is another good edit. this edit is understandable, but was undone. this edit was acceptable, as "neurological soft signs" was a red link.

The user should be blocked unless they can provide a good explanation for the deleted contribs, and explain how they intend to improve. Hersfold & I have left requests to this effect on the user's talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat being dealt with

Resolved

 – authorities contacted; no further action needed. --slakr^\ talk / 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have noticed the suicide threat at [12]. This is just a note to say that I did the checkuser and am following this one up with the relevant authorities - and to ask please don't delete the edit, I've referred to it in emails so they can see what I'm talking about :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do things my way or I will kill myself"??? That reminds me of this part of an intro from a Tom Lehrer song. He said he had received a letter that read, "Darling, I love you. Please marry me or I will kill myself." He was rather disturbed at that, until he looked closer and noticed the letter was addressed to "Occupant". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bum; I didn't even think to look here (not having super dooper admin powers these pages slip my mind) before I reported it myself. I am suitably embarrassed. David, I have a URN number if you want to know it to help them merge it please drop me an email. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it's all good :-) You should forward details to Mike Godwin, the WMF lawyer - mgodwin at wikimedia.org. I mean, it's probably not a serious threat, but just in case ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Noroton's disruptive editing has made work on various presidential election-related articles just about impossible (see Talk pages of Bill Ayers for a start). This has gone on for months, and instead of improving with experience and coaching, his work has deteriorated. He has shown no interest in encyclopedic facts, structure, style or wording. Instead, he has a clear personal agenda and searches for 'sources' that support his virulent anti-Obama attack mode, no matter how fringe (or second- or third- or fourth-hand 'quotes') they may be. He completely ignores the spirit of Wikipedia and instead looks for 'loopholes' to justify his POV edits. This simply can't continue. We're getting to the end of September and he's diverting editors who could be doing work elsewhere into constantly reverting his edits and discussing with him (for the umpteenth time) variations on the theme of what 'encyclopedic' means. Other editors have simply given up in disgust and left. If he's blocked until mid-November, it's possible he will come to his senses after the election is over. Right now, he seems to believe he's on some mission to save the world from encyclopedic editing. I think we're at the end of the road right now, and blocking is the only thing left. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this thread, although I don't have much time today, I'll be back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning (that is, about 8 hours or 18 hours from now). I'd like administrators to look at Flatterworld's comments at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and Violence (this diff [13]) and Talk:Bill Ayers#First paragraph (this diff [14]) and see if Flatterworld is not acting more like a troll than a constructive contributor. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about information previously not considered (which is what I'm also trying to do at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC) and Flatterworld, on the Bill Ayers talk page, is immediately trying to turn a civil discussion into a mudwrestling match. I've certainly let Flatterworld get under my skin in the past, but I'm really trying to avoid responding in kind to impolite comments. Please help me to do so. Please remind Flatterworld that working with others in a civil way, discussing new facts and how they may be helpful in developing articles is what talk pages are supposed to do, and working together to reach consensus is what we're supposed to be doing to build the encyclopedia. And please tell him that if he can't work that way, he will be banned from Bill Ayers and related topics. Because, really, he's being a pest and he seems to think it's proper behavior.[15] I asked MastCell for help here, but he seems to be away from the keyboard. This kind of abuse is depressing. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll be making new proposals soon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC with information previously not considered by editors on that page. Some editors interested in shutting down discussion now while their own POV is reflected on the pages of Weatherman (organization)-related articles might find it useful to review WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if no administrator is willing to do so on their own it is time for a community topic ban. For my part, after trying for months I am more or less giving up on interacting with this tendentious editor. At the same time he is mangling some important articles, and I do not want to let him bully me into letting him have his way with the encyclopedia. I took a bad faith report he had filed against me here as an occasion to file the content-oriented Obama/Weathermen/terrorism RfC here where we conclude conclude once and for all in an orderly way whether his content position has consensus (it obviously does not), reach a result, and stick with it. But he is gumming up the process with procedural game-playing on the RfC. After utterly failing to get consensus for calling various living people terrorists and murderers, he refuses to accept the result, announces he has won, forks the discussion to re-propose the exact same thing again and again edit wars BLP vios on the affected articles in the middle of the RfC discussion to the point where one is protected and another currently in a state of edit warring. This continues a months-long campaign of BLP vios, edit warring, game playing to the point of bad faith, personal attacks, incivilities, fabricated complaints against other editors, and dozens and dozens of rejected proposals all on a single POV point. It may not be too late to simply close the RfC as no consensus, revert the edits he has warred into place, and start an RfC or other behavioral process from there if he does not comply. But he obviously is not complying with consensus or our behavioral policies, and he is demonstrating a propensity for messing up RfCs, so that time is probably now. There are 2-3 other editors of dubious legitimacy and an equal number of new SPAs making the same point who will probably show up here or anywhere else we try to deal with them, and who themselves probably should be dealt with as well. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't think an AN/I report at this time could lead to a lot of argument but is unlikely to lead to any administrative action. We should probably conclude the RfC and if the results aren't respected, file a new AN/I report, behavioral RfC, and if all other recourse fails, an arbitration case over editing abuse. I note that some of the parties seem to be planning (another) arbitration case against me(!). Hmmm. Anyway, for the sake of Wikipedia tranquility and so that this board can concentrate on easier problems it's probably best to withdraw or conclude this one unless any administrator is ready to deal with Noroton and some of the other editors at this time. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize all the hard work editors like Wikidemon, Scjessy, and Flatterworld have out into editing them and scrubbing them of any content they dont deem appropriate, and I realize with all that time and effort that you would certainly feel that these articles belong to you, but they don’t. The sooner you realize that other editors are entitled to edit these articles, the sooner this conflict will end. CENSEI (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really wish to debate this editor, but when the many established editors from throughout the project reach a stable view on article content it is called consensus, not ownership. Further, when there is consensus against including material in an article disputed as non-neutral, BLP violating, etc., at some point those advancing the material have to realize they do not have support to include it. Creating a "conflict" when they cannot get their way can become a behavioral problem eventually if it disrupts the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over at the Bill Ayers article. I saw that Noroton is definitely interested in seeing some content and wording included. I do not see tendentious editing. I do not see abusive POV pushing. I see zealous, but legitimate advocacy and patience on all parts, and see no need for a community ban of any scale, topic to WP -wide. I did note at that talk page some personal attacks against Noroton, and some POV pushing by another editor, tangential to what's discussed here. ThuranX (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you did not look very carefully. Nobody has bothered to compile a real incident report here, and I do not think this is the time or place right now. However, there is a months-long pattern of POV, abuse, insults, edit warring, etc. that has been a rather significant problem on several Obama-related articles and shows no sign of abating. Noroton has been here at AN/I quite a few times. At one time when he was being particularly tendentious I compiled a brief 2-day slice of his editing problems, over at the article probation page here (he also filed a dubious complaint against one of the editors he was having trouple with). That is all stale now but it might begin to give an uninvolved editor a sense of what is going on.Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So people who don't agree with you are blind. Lovely. If you don't like the report, fix it. The request was to look at Ayers' article, I did, i saw nothing rising to the level of a ban of any sort. You don't like it, file a better report. I read through that page for about 20, 25 minutes, and all I saw were a personal attack against him, and the unrelated POV push. Further, I don't see why you all can't agree to classify Ayers' plans and actions as violent, instead of label the man, and let readers draw the conclusions? No one can deny that blowing up a building full of police wouldn't be 'violent'. ThuranX (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "people" in general, only that you are mistaken if you do not see the editing problems with Noroton. I am not going to fix the report - if you read the above, I did not file it, and I am counseling the person who did that this is not the time. The content issue is being discussed at RfC, but the latest issue was a behavioral problem - an edit war that got this second article long-term protected. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you; I'm uninvolved and don't see it, you're on the 'other side' and are making hay while the sun's up. ThuranX (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around without many diffs. So far, Noroton is the only user to provide any diffs detailing misbehavior. So I guess what I'm saying is: you need to back up your claims of poor behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And now that I take a look at Talk:Bill Ayers, I suggest that Flatterworld (talk · contribs) start communicating in a more civil manner. The following edits are uncivil: [16], [17], [18]. Regarding that last one, caps locking and bolding is generally considered to be rude. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Resolved

 – article indefinitely protected by User:Slakr

[19] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, could an admin please take a look at the Bill Ayers article, in view of calming an edit war over there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war that you and Scjessey have provoked and participated in. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A misleading non-sequitur attack from one of the problem editors I refer to above. I'm fully expecting plenty of tit-for-tat counterattacks - I've been subjected to them as long as I've been trying to keep peace on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Obama yet my check political inclinations at the door while I Wikiedit Wikipedia. Still, in this totally whacked out and silly political season, it would be great if we could wait until the first Tuesday of November has gone by before we tackle Flatterworld's complaint. However, if it's decided to go ahead now, let me say that I am familiar with the diffs Noroton provides in the section above and understand his frustration with Flatterworld. Doesn't Flatterworld's modus in this very report mimic hi/r talkpage style: to eschew actual discussion of precise citations from sources and exact language of WP guidelines and instead make simple pronouncements in the tone of Trust My Words? As is best on an article's Talk page -- also, here. With the exception of open-and-shut cases, the best protocol while alleging another contributor's problematic behavior is to provide diffs thought to plainly back it up.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're using a resolved section on an edit war for complaining about other editors. Flatterworld has been just fine. Noroton's calling Flatterworld a troll, above, is par for the course. Noroton is getting worse, and is vexing quite a few long-term, serious, legitimate contributors like Flatterworld, a 2-year editor with 10,000+ mainspace contributions to 3,800+ articles. We are growing tired of discussion and citations, which have been provided again and again in response to Noroton's many dozen attempts to upset consensus to avoid calling Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn terrorists or murderers, and to avoid linking them and terrorism to Obama. Chronicling his behavior problems would involve several megabytes of differences, something best done should there be a need to explain this to the uninitiated in a serious discussion of a topic ban. Noroton is also a prolific editor who makes uncontroversial contributions in other parts of the encyclopedia. In the meanwhile, a pause in the game playing, edit warring, incivilities, etc., would be most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a multitude of sources that "described Ayers as terrorist"? A compromise solution may be that rather than calling Ayers a terrorist in his article, the article should note that he was "described as a terrorist" or "described as a member of a domestic terrorist organization" didn't look that much into this to know which would fit better but I seem to recall a long list of sources that was presented at an Rfc about this issue. Hobartimus (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article:Critisms of Facebook

Something's happening on there which is not yet a proper edit war, but at least two IPs are constantly removing well-referenced material with controversial views of Facebook, despite of reverts by registered users. I've reverted two such deletions including citations of The Guardian (which were called "unreliable"). I'm not going to call that Facebook is trying to clean their slate here, but the whole affair smells bad. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <- For reference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think semi-protection, requested at WP:RFPP, should take care of the problem, as we can expect that anyone trying to clean their slate will have countless IPs to try with. SoWhy 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I requested semi-protection for that one. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am one of the IPs who is not yet involved in a proper edit war. A semi protect would be improper here as I am not vandalizing the page. I am simple removing factually inaccurate, misleading information sourced from one Opinion piece that does not claim where its information comes from. Just because someone chooses not to register an account does not mean they are not making GFE. --24.98.5.45 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have declined the protection for now. I am going to keep an eye on the article. Further edit warring is going to result in blocks and full protection of the article. Take your dispute to the talk page and try and work towards some consensus. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant POV/soapboxing by an IP

Per this diff, the IP 86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has openly stated his intention to edit war on a number of articles. Assistance would be greatly appreciated to resolve the situation. MSJapan (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• must... stop... thinking... "architect sketch"... Guy (Help!) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist.' HalfShadow 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fennessy

Resolved

 – No admin action seems necessary at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Last year Setanta747 was blocked over a dispute surrounding a deleted userbox. The polar opposite of this userbox still exists on User:Fennessy's userpage. I removed it per consensus and president. He reverted and told me where to go. I have pointed to the president and reverted, he has ignored this. Can an administrator please enforce consensus with this user as happened with Setanta.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The userbox is a modifed version that was added after(and without knowledge of) the discussion that is being used as an excuse to edit war by the above user. By the way what gives User:Traditional unionist the right to completley ignore WP:Civility? ʄ!•¿talk? 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not start another MfD considering the outcome of the last one? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the last XFD still stands. There is no need to have the same discussion twice, a decision was arrived at my consensus and it should be enforced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of citing a year-old discussion in the most inflammatory way possible, I suggest you (a) start a new MfD or (b) let sleeping dogs lie. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SO you believe that consensus expires and must be renewed? That is a new one on me.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I do believe the prior discussion is relevant, but I'm not entirely sure applying a small handful of comments about one specific userbox to some other situation -- a year after the fact, and without any assurance that the users commenting previously had any idea their words be interpreted as enduring precedent to cover all cases -- is prudent without at least some discussion of whether doing so is appropriate. If the box is as obviously and totally problematic as you seem to say, then I don't see what you have to fear from reasonable discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That userbox has been dealt with. Consensus was reached and there is no reason whatever to go through a bureaucratic box ticking exercise in order to reach the same conclusion. The community has deemed that userbox unacceptable and that should be respected no matter how long after the event it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't DRV be the place for that? ;-) —Animum (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is the breach of WP:CIVIL? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "Engaging in incivility" section alone I can count rudeness and Lies(deliberately asserting false information). ʄ!•¿talk? 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lies? Where?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha so you admit rudeness! Not even gonna fight that one eh? Seriously though you are misrepresenting an old discussion that I had never even seen before today. That userbox has been on my userpage for... months on end. If you were editing in good faith the least you could have done was bring it up in a polite manner. But no you had to edit in an aggressive way. It's not on really, come on now. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! So you can't stand over your claim of lies! I did bring it to your attention, and you have chosen to ignore it. You cannot bypass consensus by claiming emotional stress.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting an old discussion is lying. And from what I can makeout from skimming through that discussion, my modified one actually bypasses any of the claimed "offensiveness". And this has nothing to do with stress, it has to do with basic wikipedia policies. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an inverted version of the same info box. It is even of the same style.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? The userbox isn't offensive. All the wikipedia issues with N Ireland have been ironed out, is it necessary for you to find people you don't like to argue with, and post your own self-created drama on the admin notice board? Kind of reminds me of WP:POINT. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we take that as a withdrawal of your civility objections? If one userbox is unacceptable, its inverse is likewise. That is self evident.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] It doesn't look like admin intervention is necessary at this time, although you two could probably stand to be a little more civil to each other. Traditional Unionist: if you don't like the userbox, take it to MfD and let the community decide, but don't edit war on someone else's userpage... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There has already been a MFD on this and the community has decided. I was attempting to enforce consensus.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this userbox falls under the jurisdiction of the old mfd: the deleted userbox had extremely charged and divisive wording. I really don't see any differences between the current userbox in question, and, say this: User:Angr/User_no_fair_use , this: User:Xiaphias/Userboxes/ProAds, or this: Template:User_pro-anon, all popular userboxes that have been largely accepted by the community. (Precident, for you...) Expressing an opinion about a wikipedia controversy isn't against the rules, it's all about how you present your opinion.

How many people have told you now to take it to MfD? Three or four at least. AN/I isn't the place. Let it go, dude. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 06:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ANd only one has actually addressed the old MFD. The discussion around the userbox in the old MFD did not centre on the working, many users voted to delete based on the subject matter, making that the basis for the consensus. That consensus has been respected, and if not enforced with blocks, by those of us who had the MFD'd userbox on display, and inverted userboxes should be treated likewise.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously when someone tells you to "Let it go, dude", you should take the hint. An admin just needs to put a resolved marker here and end this WP:NONSENSE. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, someone needs to engage in the actual topic, rather than be dismissive. Fennessy is in breech of consensus, that is very clear from the debate and result of last years MFD.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, when numerous editors and admins here, in this thread, tell you they do not see it the same way you do, you ignore them. let's be clear. The last UB failed for its highly charged political message, whereas this one speaks to the way Wikipedia is handling a confluence of politics and editing policy, making it, at the least arguably, about something different than Irish politics. Further, edit warring as you were over another's User Page is a breach of Civility. Your obstinate unwillingness to listen regarding the old MfD implies that while at first you may have been acting in good faith regarding your understanding of the MfD, but now you're just lying in an effort to preserve your own ego, and not admit you were wrong. ThuranX (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Only two comments on this thread have actually addressed the first MFD. Yours only does so fleetingly in a wider effort to have a go at me. Perhaps you would like to tell the two editors who removed the userbox from Setanta747's userpage last year several times what you have just told me? The MFD debate was around the same issues as this userbox, the conclusion was that it is unacceptable because of the subject matter, NOT because it was disruptive. That applies conversely also and therefore consensus is that this userbox is unacceptable. If you don't like that then YOU should begin the bureaucratic form filling to have it overturned, otherwise Fennessy's userbox is contrary to a year old consensus. We are at least getting somewhere, in the sense that people are being less dismissive of the subject at hand, even if this is together with a dismissive attitude to me.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just stating outright flasehoods. The old userbox in the discussion you have linked to was deleted precisely because it was disruptive and broke numerous wikipedia policies. You clearly don't even understand the out-come of the discussion you are citing as an excuse to start all this trouble. And regardless, whereas the offensive userbox reffered to a conspiracy theory about a non-existent campaign to remove the ulster banner from wikipedia, my one simply expresses a wish for the Ulster banner to not be misused and to raise awareness of this difficult issue. By the way the 3 revert rule does not apply to vandalism on user pages, as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule says in the "exceptions" section, "Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons[is acceptable]". ʄ!•¿talk? 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

TU seems unwilling to budge on this. I'm left with the distinct impressions that no matter how many people tell him he's wrong, his personal hatred of Ulster, based in wartime thinking, makes it clear that he's pursuing this for political reasons unrelated to wikipedia. He will not relent on this, and is entering the territory of the Tendentious Editing area of disruption. As such, I think it's time to talk about a block against TU. With the energy he's spent here and there, an MfD about this UB, linking to the old discussion, could have been filed. This isn't about resolving the UB, but persecuting someone on the 'other side' of the Troubles. Block him till he's willing to prepare an MfD, which he can demonstrate by putting up all the raw text on his talk page, and then referring his behaviors to the The Troubles ArbCom, for further restrictions on his editing. ThuranX (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that TU took it upon himself to reverse an admins decision to declare this issue resolved(see here[20]). TU is now without a shadow of a doubt being disruptive and action should be taken. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that diff is here: [21] since I have archived my userpage. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 21:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note, this is a case of sour grapes for TU, as he supported the userbox previously deleted. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, TU has stopped editing this thread apparently, and I have offered to protect Fennessy's userpage if he so desires, so I think we can let this thread die a much-deserved death. Thanks for everyone's input. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

An editor on a number of occasions has made accusations against me, however, when I ask for diff's to support this they ignore me. This is the latest here. I can accept I was edit-warring as indicated on my talk page, but edit-warring to get your POV across. I don't think so. How can I get an editor to support their accusations when all they do is refuse to answer? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) might not be seeing your posts on your talk page, since she's usually pretty busy and may not have watchlisted your talk page (and thus didn't check for your responses/inquiries). Try posting to her talk page requesting clarification. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison it has got very tired now this constant accusation of tag teaming. Could you please stop with it now. I have stayed away from this article and The Thunderer on the advice of Rockpocket an admin I admire for his neutrallity and honest advice for a long time now popping in very rarely to make small edits with the help and advice from RP. It seems now that I am prohibited from editing any article that Thunderer is on, is that the case? I have had private emails with him and IMO have come to an understanding about were we both stand. If me and Domer are a tag team then surely TU is a tag team partner of Thunderer as can be seen with the edit war that took place on the USC article. And before anyone jumps up I am not saying they are. They have similiar opinions so will both edit in a similar way like Domer and myself. On a side note and I know it is nothing to do with you but IMO the 2 blocks imposed are a bit harsh. BigDunc^Talk 10:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Domer complaining about me on ANI, but hasn't seen fit to let me know I'm being discussed here? Domer - leave User:The Thunderer alone, and quit with the unfounded accusations of abusive sock-puppetry. There is none - Alison ^❤ 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See also #Ulster Special Constabulary below. I'm largely off-WP for the moment due to personal and work commitments, so if I don't respond immediately, don't worry. Busyyyy :) - Alison ^❤ 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Right here, Right Now...Yet Again

There is an edit war once again brewing at Right Now (Van Halen song) over the use of the song in a political context. There was a previous thread about this on ANI here [22]. The article was being edit warred upon by anon IPs, so it was semi-protected. Now Coberloco (talk · contribs) has come in and is making the exact same edits as the IPs. The editor has no other substantial edits except to this article, and although he is commenting on the talk page, seems intent on reverting to his preferred version regardless of the discussion. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment): as a result of the previous thread here, the page was semi-protected. This prompted a series of responses from an anonymous IP: accusing an editor of vandalism while requesting that the page be unprotected, filing an WP:AIV report against an apparently good faith editor, and again accusing the editor of vandalism while requesting a 3rd opinion. All of this was directed at User:Tbsdy lives, apparently in retaliation for daring to post here.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The user Coberloco is again edit warring. I'm fairly certain that they are the same editor as the anonymous user. They have reverted the article again a few times now. See [23] and then [24]. This is getting a little out of hand and it's taking up my time - time that, with respect, I could be using to do further productive things on Wikipedia. Could someone please assist here? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection has expired, and 69.225.25.152 (talk · contribs) has come right back to the page to edit war again. I've attempted to discuss on the talk page, but the IP reverts without waiting for consensus. Can we please either get the IP blocked for edit warring, or the page re-semiprotected? Right now, only the IP has a differing opinion. Thanks in advance again. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. The edit has been reverted for the 7th time (see here), and then someone has tried to cleanup the bad revision. A massive waste of time! Can we please get someone to block the anon for longer? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 24 hours for edit warring. Editors can let me know if it starts up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks too for blocking the second anon IP! The editor must be resetting their router - they're now on their 3rd IP address. I've requested semi-protection for the page (Edit:) The page is now semi-protected, though to be honest the anon editor seems more concerned with the talk page now, which is fair enough.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problems with the anon discussing on the talk page, except for the simple fact that the amount of abusive comments is ridiculous. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit war was a stupid wste of everyone's time. Most of it revolved around whether or not the political stuff should be in one big lump, or separated into different labelled sections, and how many cite needed tags were needed. I offered a 3O in that section, and did some cleanup editing to find some consensus. Hopefully this will settle off, though I doubt one 3O is enough. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked due to 3RR violations. --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please assist at Ulster Special Constabulary. Domer48 is engaging in an edit war which is threatening to spill into 3RR and is an extension of similar at Ulster Defence Regiment. The user is preventing the formatting of the article and deleting sourced information. The Thunderer (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Troubles ArbCom, is the best way to deal with this. Because I've had it with this sock. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. I beg to differ. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock. I have asked you not to edit war. The Thunderer (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR has now been breached. The Thunderer (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides have violated 3RR; both sides are POV pushing, removing cited materials the other seeks to include. Both sources are questionable, one's to a pro ulster site, the other to an apparent anti-ulster author. I say give both liberal 3RR blocks, neitther seems inclined to stop this. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect don't you think that's a little unfair as I've been tag teamed all day by two editors including this one? I am the one who has brought this to your attention and I'm not the editor who's being abusive. If you consult Alison you'll discover that I've been the subject of contstant harrassment by two particular editors since registering this account. The evidence of continually being called a sock is indicative of what I've had to endure. The Thunderer (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – both editors violated WP:3RR; both are aware of it, as evidenced by prior history. In the future, please report three revert rule violations to the 3RR noticeboard. --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually - what Thunderer says here is largely correct in that he's been repeatedly tag-teamed by two other editors over a period of months now. He's also been repeatedly accused of being an abusive sockpuppeteer, in the complete absence of any evidence and contrary to the findings of Checkuser. I'm getting rather tired of it all, too - Alison ^❤ 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Alison is correct. I almost never doubt her account of things, however, that doesn't ameliorate the responsibility of Thunderer to not sink to their level. There are avenues for him to pursue for getting help. Asking Alison would be one, she's probably one of the most respected admins around. ThuranX (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thunderer has contacted me via email. She acknowledges what I said above; that there are better ways to handle things than to get ramped up by others. As such, the demonstration of a recognition of her problem suggests to me that if her block were to be shortened, I'd be supportive of that. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tasteless image title

Is it possible to move Image:Rachel Stevens holding right boobie.jpg to a title that is a bit more tasteful? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

boobie..... :-/ anyways, this image is from commons. You have to ask there. Anyone knows the correct noticeboard? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer the term that one woman used on live TV on the Fox News morning show? And since when is "boobie" offensive? Juvenile, maybe, but not offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not offensive, but it is needlessly tasteless imo. Aecis·(away) ^talk 10:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it bothers you, you can reupload it to commons with a new name. I do not think image moving is enabled there, but you can ask at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard first. SoWhy 10:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's slang, not encyclopedic but more or less harmless. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You give a fuck? In fact, you give a WP:FUCK! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a bot to rename it. Best to have the "holding right boobie" removed from the image name but can still be added to the description since it's not really offensive. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really offensive, but it doesn't add anything either. And is she really holding it? Is she even touching it? I can't tell from the picture. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? It's just slang. And isn't even offending anyone. The only real problem would be if a kid saw it, and policy clearly states that Wikipedia is not censored.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as well she wasn't holding one of these... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently she's holding the "right" boobie. That blue-footed variety could be the "wrong" boobie, but don't count your boobies until they're hatched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Witty enough to make my day, but unfortunately a mild WP:BLP issue, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, her hand appears to be flat, so it may well just be perspective, as someone suggested earlier; and thus the picture title is improper on factual grounds, even if it were written "clinically" instead of colloquially. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

so... we can't call it "rachel stevens fondlely waving"? how about "Rachel Stevens with hand on chest"? that would be more accurate, barring perspective issues, and avoid any blp? ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Rachel Stevens performing breast cancer detection self-examination". Or is that too long? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Depaulicize

Why was my report archived? The issue is still live, the user continues with the same abusive edits, and the matter has not been resolved, or even apparently looked into? RolandR (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have edited after a 3RR warning, and strictly hadn't hit 3RR anyway. If he reverts again, please take to the 3rr noticeboard. Meanwhile, your previous thread is here and looks too detailed for here; that's what specialist pages like WP:CHU and WP:SSP are for; long-term behaviour isn't an "incident", although it might come under long-term abuse. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)--Rodhullandemu 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not (yet) 3RR. There is a section in long-term abuse on Runtshit. I believe that this vandal, Truthprofessor, Zuminous and Borisyy are also clones of the same vandal, but I don't know where to raise this or how ro approach the problem. So I would appreciate any suggestions. By the way, since most of the edits seem to be via proxies and anonymizers, I don't think Chekk User would help. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User: 208.89.209.153, which repeated both the original suspect attack on the Norman Finkelstein, and the Runtshit pattern of abuse of Roland Rance, prove beyond doubt that this is indeed Runtshit under another name. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Roland knows this inside-out, since he is marked victim of this brand of vandalism, and has frequently reported it, with, as far as I know, little effective response. The violence (which is, by the way, anti-semitic) persists and though we elide, delete and revert, this is an intransigently virulent pattern that we appear stuck with. It's time, after years, to try and get some top admin checkuser, or techie, to run down these patterns, and figure out what is going on, whether it is an individual or an organized group. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber block/ban bump

This is merely a bump thread. Some people were crying foul that the page wasn't visible enough, so I'm creating another section for the purposes of promoting this subpage to further community attention. All kinds of input are requested and appreciated, but piling on at this point isn't really constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the subpage discussing Kmweber's future is here. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 89.240.197.164 WP:ENGVAR Changes

89.240.197.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Decolonization of Africa;. Editor is systematically going from article to article in violation of WP:ENGVAR and changing the English variant from one style to the British style when no strong tie to a specific English speaking country exists. In the Decolonization of Africa article, they even go so far as to edit Winston Churchill's name to precede Franklin D. Roosevelt's (diff). A review of all his edits is necessary to reverse possible vandalism. Some edits he has made appear constructive, but his changing WP:ENGVAR rampantly is the substance of my complaint.«JavierMC»|Talk 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of one of these pages Decolonization of Africa was recently changed from Decolonisation of Africa without explanation, despite strong national ties to the Commonwealth and the EU, and almost no connection to the USA, whose language was being arbitrarily and improperly imposed. You didn't open a discussion on the user who did that. Something similar had previously happened to the Industrialisation page, and yet instead of examining the history of the article to establish the correctness of my action, you rushed in and reverted me, and have been posting patently inappropriate warnings on my talk page, when all I did was correct those earlier, improper alterations to the original language. Churchill takes precedence because his government had executive responsibility for the colonies and more direct influence over their legal and political position.89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

America had remarkably few colonies in Africa, Britain had remarkable many. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And that preponderant influence is reflected in the form of English used in African nations as well as in the EU. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The ENGVAR of Decolonization of Africa was established in 2002 when the first editor wrote the article. It has stood many revisions and additions since that time without a change in ENGVAR. No discussion or consensus was made/reached on the articles talk for a change. You posted today on the article talk page about moving the article from Decolonization of Africa to Decolonisation of Africa and also said that a change in ENGVAR should follow. Then you go ahead and change the ENGVAR of the article prior to any move. Another change you made to Industrialisation (diff) of the ENGVAR to the British variant, I weakly agreed to because the article name was Industrialisation, but in no way can you state that Industrialisation is dependant on the ENGVAR for strong national ties. Industrialisation effects the entire world and should have stood with the first ENGVAR it was written in and moved to Industrilization if your statements above hold validity.--«JavierMC»|Talk 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said Industrialisation had a strong national tie to British English, so once again your complaint is unfounded. I said it was the title of the original page. Systematic and improper changes in the text to US English had made the text inconsistent with the page name, so I corrected these to harmonise the text with the title. As for Decolonization of Africa, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the line in the edit history: “(moved Decolonisation of Africa to Decolonization of Africa over redirect)”. However On the Talk:Decolonization talk page where another user had complained about the topically inappropriate US spellings, he was advised to go ahead and make the changes: “Be bold, especially on such matters”. Since Commonwealth English is the form of English used by almost all African nations (which include many millions of native English speakers), and is also the form of English officially used by the EU, there is no good reason to be using US English in an article which primarily concerns African and European nations, and so there could be no reasonable objection to the change, except from those from a third continent, apparently unaware of local usage, and intent on imposing US English where it simply does not belong, even thought it is jarring and culturally intrusive to the parties directly concerned. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you adhere to Oxford spelling, the -ize variants are correct in BrEng. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both forms are correct in British English anyway... WJBscribe (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except hardly anybody uses Oxford spelling outside of the OUP and Clarendon Press, so that cuts no mustard. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

However other dictionaries list both forms as acceptable so there seems little reason to change the article from one acceptable form to another. Stop edit warring, or you will likely be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. This really is one of the more petty squabbles I have come across on Wikipedia - and trust me, I've seen my fair share of petty squabbles.... WJBscribe (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If people would only observe the guidelines in the Wikipedia Manual of Style respecting national varieties of English, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Better advice would be for people to actually familiarise themselves with the varieties of English used in different nations before they start disrupting legitimate edits.89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I apologize if this appears to be a squabble. During, vandalization patrol of recently changed articles, I noticed the first change, then subsequent changes and did not see an overwhelming need based on ENGVAR for these changes. I brought it here so administrators could make a determination, whether these were within Wikipedia policy/guideline or was an attempt by an editor to press a POV ENGVAR over established article ENGVAR, and perhaps prevent edit warring on these article over the change. It was a good faith attempt and in no way meant to press any personal ENGVAR POV of my own.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that -ise is the correct primary spelling in British English and related variants (except Canadian English, where only -ize is correct), but -ize is an acceptable, allowable and correct alternative spelling. I personally always use -ise except on articles where either American or Canadian variants are in use (in both, -ise is considered a misspelling - Canadian follows the English on almost all other points). Orderinchaos 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be incorporating minority spellings into articles just because there's a partial overlap with another regional variety with next to no relevance to the subject matter, simply in order to appease a linguistic bully from a third country with no knowledge of the local usage. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you (this is not a North American topic; it has close links to the Commonwealth; the original spelling used appears to be Commonwealth/British English) I'd ask that you assume the best of your fellow editors and avoid terms like "bully".

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A rose by any other name. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-ise is hardly a "minority spelling" - due to the proliferation of British usage as well as those who have learned English in French or other Romance language countries, it's actually probably in the majority. That being said, I'm not arguing for or against either use, as we have ENGVAR to decide that. Orderinchaos 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford is a minority spelling regardless. It only coincides with US deviation in the instance of -ize anyway, so imposing it on a text just because a third party doesn't know how Africans and Europeans spell doesn't hold out much hope of avoiding future hostile reversions. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

-ize is nevertheless an acceptable spelling on both sides of the Atlantic; where it represents Greek (as it may not here) it is preferable. For our purposes, it should certainly be allowable, and revert warring over it should be summarily discouraged. The reach by which our provincial anon has extended it to Decolonization - as much about France getting our of Algeria, or the United States out of the Phillipines as the British Empire - shows how readily such self-righteous crusades for The Most Important Things can spread. In the meantime, I commend the least appreciated section of ENGVAR: its encouragement to use language common to the dialects, when (as here) it exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? We've already required the marginalization of American date formatting, why not continue to the logical conclusion of marginalization of American spelling? Corvus cornix_talk 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that they're still a bit peaved about 1776. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yasis is wikistalking me

Resolved

Yasis (talk · contribs) was blocked temporarily for edit warring on several articles and continuing the edit war using several IPs (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis). Recently, he returned and has been posting repeatedly on my talk page from several different IPs (see my talk page for the discussion).

Now (not having gotten enough of a rise from me???) he has resorted to wikistalking me to pages he has never edited to revert my recent edits with the summary "new information added":[25]. NJGW (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not just one article: [26], [27], [28]... NJGW (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this with me stalking you?

I asked you politely on your talkpage for discussion of articles and sources NJGW.

You are making false allegations against me NJGW.

That is unfair and childish. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I politely asked you to write-up your proposal in the sandbox I created, but you have insisted on copy/pasting the same text off the web onto my talk page 5 times, even though I erase it and ask you not to do so. NJGW (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that is very strange NJGW, why you delete my post on questions on sources without commenting? You also like to make false alleagtions against me. Why is that NJGW?Yasis (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for logging in Yasis. Please don't post that stuff a 7th time. Please write up your proposed edit in the sandbox so I can see what you plan on saying and what exact sources you would like to use. NJGW (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So at what point does this become harassment? [29][30][31][32][33] NJGW (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like he's gone for now, but can he still posted that same stuff several times after I asked him to stop. I expect he'll be back either tonight or tomorrow. NJGW (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the promise to return: [34] NJGW (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, please do not delete my posts without permission. Thank You.Yasis (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW is allowed to erase any posts on his talk page at his pleasure, with or without your permission. When he removes it, it is assumed that he has read it. Continuing to post despite multiple removals is considered harassment. —kurykh 03:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about those posts on NJGW's talkpage, but I made an earlier post right here in this thread and it disappeared. It was probably deleted by NJGW.Yasis (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can find no such post, even after trawling through both this page's history and Yasis's contribs. —kurykh 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If anything (and that's a big IF), it was probably an edit conflict. Thanks Tiptoety. I'll see you guys in 48 hours, or a month... which ever floats Yasis's boat. NJGW (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Yasis (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for harassment, this is a ongoing issue. Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber block/ban bump redux

As above... this is also merely a bump thread. Some people were crying foul that the page wasn't visible enough, so I'm creating another section for the purposes of promoting this subpage to further community attention. All kinds of input are requested and appreciated, but piling on at this point isn't really constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the subpage discussing Kmweber's future is here. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove the timestamp and the bot will ignore the section. No need for bumps. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

I made a block I now regret — is its history indelible?

A few days back, I spotted an edit war on Barack Obama. Redrumracer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was inserting clearly non-consensus text, and Thingg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reverting it. Although Redrumracer was acting against clear page consensus, I thought that it was still inappropriate of Thingg to break the 3RR, so I blocked Redrumracer for 3 hours and Thingg for 1 hour.

Subsequently, Thingg's record of useful vandal fighting was pointed out to me, and I thought more about the incident. Upon further reflection, I decided that Redrumracer's edits were close enough to simple vandalism that I shouldn't have blocked Thingg. I was thinking of the letter of the law at 3RR (specifically, that "edits against consensus... are not exempt"), but not its spirit. This wasn't really an edit war — it was vandal fighting that went on a few reverts too long. There's a difference, and I know it. I should have just put {{uw-3rr}} on Thingg's user talk page, instead of blocking him. And a 3-hour block of Redrumracer wasn't sufficient. (Fortunately, Barneca (talk · contribs) was wiser, and subsequently blocked redrumracer indefinitely.)

My question is whether there's any way for the block to be removed from Thingg's record. I'm not aware of such a thing, but perhaps people with bureaucrat or oversight privileges can remove the history of the block? I just don't want an ill-considered block to stand in the way of a promising Wikipedian's future. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Block entries can only be removed by devs, and even they are extremely reluctant to remove it. I haven't seen an instance of them doing so. The best method, if you actually want to make a notice in the block log, would be a 1-second block (with autoblock disabled) and a declaration of error in the block summary. —kurykh 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — I'll do that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happened before, but I doubt it will happen here. John Reaves 08:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Resolved

 – Redirected by section starter to singer's article, nothing more to do. SoWhy 09:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can one of you please remove the speedy delete on The Mean Kitty Song. It is about a song, not a person and it has received coverage in a reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - it wasn't a speedy candidate. Although, be mindful that it may not meet notability criteria and may be subjected to an WP:AFD. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you know that though : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nielson?

Resolved

 – I don't understand the details, but there ya go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the speedy on Category:Television stations in Dallas-Fort Worth about? I deleted a template earlier tonight that is related to the same issue. But a *category*? This isn't making sense to me, but maybe someone can clarify? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The speedy delete with a CSD G12 is a surprise to me. I see no copyvio and like you, what does Nielson have to do with it? Looks like an error to me.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Nielson DMCA Takedown. MER-C 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Due to the ongoing back and forth over an image on the Henry Ford page, see Revision history of Henry Ford, I have protected it until they can figure out what to do. For further information see, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#Can I start reverting things and not discussing things by falsely claiming to have been personally attacked?. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Koavf - requesting a topic ban for a former community banned editor

Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing for so long and has amassed a large number of edits. He's been an asset to Wikipedia in some areas especially with edits dealing with tagging and other technical ones (moves, redirects, etc) though I am not sure if some other editors would agree with me since there have been many editors discussing his moves during different periods (see his talk archives).

However, his history of blocks (with no less than 18 blocks) is more than alarming. He has a history of edit warring and tendentious editing. In fact, he was community banned back on November 2006 for "[his] extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience" as his block log shows. (see indefinite block of 10 November 2006 by user:Dmcdevit). At that time, I opposed an indefinite ban and opted for a topic ban instead (see comments by my former username user:Szvest by following the link above)...

A couple of months later, he filed an unban request and sent it to the ArbCom. And on June 2007 user:Newyorkbrad unblocked him with "implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year" as shown on his block log.

Between June 2007 (his return) and May 2008 (his last block) he was blocked no less then 6 times for the same behavior.

...Now, and after exactly 2 years after his community ban, here we are again. Nothing has changed at all.

I must say that I've had relatively good interactions with him for more than 3 years now but I really regret seeing no change in his edit warrings and behavior. It is really too much and it is more than "exhasting patience". I cannot edit articles with someone who has a long history of edit warring with no signs of restraint.

I have nothing to add. So please comment on this issue because it is really tiring to see someone with a long history of non-stop edit warring still editing Wikipedia never caring about wp:Consensus (he refuses to aknowledge there has been any consensus as long as he's the only one not accepting it - see Morocco's talk page and the archive page N°2 of the talk) or harmonious editing.

I, therefore, see no other option except requesting a topic ban for user:Koavf unless he promisses the community that he'd be respecting WP:Consensus and abide by [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg]] -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow This is seriously ridiculous to me. If you'll look at my contribs, I just complied with Fayssal's request to revert myself on Morocco. The notion of a ban is really offensive considering how I have been the primary contributor to much of the Western Sahara-related material on Wikipedia for a few years now - including several contentious periods - and have had no incidents, provocations, or 3RR problems in the past year. The exceptions are the 1RR restriction I had which was broken twice: once due to a misunderstanding, the other due to an "unclear revert" which was really just me thinking that I didn't save a page properly. Note also that one of the other blocks was undone by that same admin due to another misunderstanding. That amounts to three incidents of what could legitimately be called edit-warring about this content in the past 19 16 months, and only one of them in the past 15 months none of them within a year.

This is a wildly overblown reaction to what is a pretty small incident in which I have already show my good faith by posting on talk and reverting myself. The idea that I have "no signs of restraint" is utterly false as anyone can see from looking at my recent contributions to Morocco, Talk:Morocco, List of cities in Morocco, and User talk:FayssalF.

Fayssal is playing some kind of weird game by which he is contradicting himself and giving me bizarre mixed signals that I cannot understand. He makes the misleading claim that I have not "aknowledge[d] [sic] there has been any consensus," when in reality, he said that "we" had reached consensus, which I took to me him and me as the primary persons related in the conflict. Then, he just changed around what he meant. He also said that a certain map - produced by the CIA - was baised. He followed this up by immediately saying that he wouldn't claim it was biased. Why? I have no idea. He encouraged me to self-revert and post on talk. I did just that, and once I did he posted here on AN/I. Why is all of this happening? Again, I couldn't tell you to save my life. This erratic behavior leaves me perplexed and a little taken aback.

Fayssal claims that he can see no other options, but one he has not explored is being consistent and showing good faith when someone complies with your requests. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following is a summary of the community ban of 2006 for people who won't read the whole detailed link above (copied and pasted from that same thread):

Summary of 2006 community ban poll

• Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*, Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
• Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
• Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
• Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
• Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
• Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*

• • Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)

* indicates non-admins.

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what to do (if anything) here...

I've just been made aware of http://blog. myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=86627490&blogID=434691738 (remove space), which is a blog on MySpace by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs) telling people to go ahead and vandalise my talkpage (and basically every page in my userspace). I've filed an urgent request at WP:RFPP to get my user talkpage semi-protected, apart from that, is there anything else I could do? I could send a message to him via MySpace, but that could open a huge can of worms as that reveals my RL identity etc. D.M.N. (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Send a message to MySpace management asking that the page be taken down. Corvus cornix_talk 07:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully they'll get to it within 24 to 48 hours. D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to feed the trolls. Vandalism can be undone and controlled using normal wikipractice, but by making a fuss over an empty threat you are just setting yourself up for more harassment. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Goingoveredge

Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) was blocked just yesterday for 24 hours for edit warring, and yet he has just come back from his block to continue the edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. Edit warring with minimal use of the talk page (used mainly to call other editors 'trolls'). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And "hatemongers". Corvus cornix_talk 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw "Hindouuuuuuzzzz" and "trolls". You add that to the edit warring after 2 recent blocks within 48 hours and that's it. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to respond to this. D.M.N. (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same sort of stuff Tiptoety told them the last time they were blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 07:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some eyes have to be kept on other editors as well. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP has come back for a third time.

Please see this They previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks, started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. --Enzuru 08:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

abusive COI and admitted sockpupptry from TheRegicider / puppetmaster RyanHoliday

TheRegicider has been editing Wikipedia since early 2006. User:RyanHoliday has been editing since mid-2007. After noting TheRegicider's months of tendentious and abusive editing on Tucker Max, I googled 'theregicider'. The fourth hit is TheRegicider posting on a message board revealing that his AIM screen name is RyanClarkHoliday, which made it obvious that TheRegicider=RyanHoliday. you can see more evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#TheRegicider). Today, TheRegicider admitted to being Ryan Holiday [[35]], yet attempted to play the victim. This is not a new editor, however, so i consider his 'victim' card to be more of an attempt at damage control. And if you look at the severity of TheRegicider/RyanHoliday's COI abuse, he is certainly not a victim. User:RyanHoliday simply should not have been editing Tucker Max surreptitiously under the name 'TheRegicider' since 2007 for any reason - Ryan Holiday is Tucker Max's personal assistant and roommate. Besides his POV editing on Tucker Max, TheRegicider has also been adding links to ryanholiday.net in multiple articles in order to gain traffic for advertisement revenue (evidence of this in the checkuser info.) After I posted the checkuser request, TheRegicider accused me of 'estalking' and 'outing' him, and says he is 'creeped out' by the situation and wishes to delete his account and any reference to this situation, since I've done such a 'terrible' and 'creepy' thing to him, the victim. I believe that his egregious violations of sockpuppetry and COI are so outrageous, so long-term, and so blatantly wrong, that other editors have the right to know about what happened here. The checkuser has not been performed yet, but since he has admitted to being a sock, it might seem like it isn't necessary to run the check. However, he probably has other socks, and is admitting to this one to avoid further scrutiny. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If that CU is done, throw Svernon19 into the mix, as that account's edits are mostly to Tucker Max, and at least once, when Svernon19 was coming on 3RR, TheRegicider stepped in to 'help out'. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review a DRV closure by User:Jerry

DRV of File:AlanShearerBanner.jpg, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 15. I do not believe he is correct to ignore the clear opinions that this was not a proper deletion, and there are clearly enough valid arguments to keep it to take it to IFD as was the consensus, especially when one of the delete voters wasn't even aware of the context of the use of the image (he actually thought the banner was still up). I have no idea what "vast minority" is supposed to mean, I've never seen that rationale used before. "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is not a valid excuse for abuse of the speedy deletion process. MickMacNee (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting at the issue at hand (although I'd say that an IfD wouldn't have hurted anyone), I wonder why you did not take it to Jerry's talk page first and requested him to reconsider his closure first before coming here... SoWhy 10:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tending to agree here, but did you post this on Jerry's talk page? seicer | talk | contribs 13:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where the requester has stated that he/she does not understand what some of the statements that I made in my closing summary meant, it would seem reasonable to come to my talk page and ask me what I meant, wouldn't it? Perhaps it is just easier to assume that whatever those statements mean, they must be part of the rouge admin cabal decree. I would advise that when one finds themselves making a statement that starts with the phrase "there are clearly" to refer to two consecutive discussions in which most participants disagree with one's opinion, that one's concept of clarity might be somewhat awkward. "Vast minority" is perhaps a Jerryism; so I will explain what it means: the vast minority is the portion of the group that is not included in the vast majority. Nobody in the discussion stated that they agreed with the need for the picture, specifically that it was mandatory in order to fully convey any of the following context:

• the banner said "Thanks for 10 great years"
• it hung beneath a picture of the article subject and a specific event
• it was installed outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park
• it was 82 ft high by 100 ft wide
• it was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006

The above details can be easily summarized for the reader to fully appreciate the meaning without a picture: one could try wording it this way: "To commemorate his stint with Newcastle United and his status with the Newcastle fans, the club's main sponsor, Northern Rock, created a giant banner with the message, "Thanks for 10 great years" beneath a picture of Shearer and his signature-goal celebration, and installed it outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park. The banner measured 25 metres (82 ft) high by 32 metres (100 ft) wide, and was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006, the day of his testimonial match against Celtic F.C." Therefore the fair-use rationale was considered to be non-valid, requiring deletion under NFCC. Whether the speedy deletion process was the correct method by which the image was deleted was somewhat of a close call, but the sentiment described by the vast majority of the participants was that it should be deleted. Whether that deletion occurred by CSD or IFD, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", and we don't force processes to occur just to make a point.

Question: would'nt a better location for this discussion be DRV? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we need a place to review DRV closes. How about Deletion Review Review? DRR for short? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• How many more venues is MickMacNee going to have to try to get the image kept? Stifle (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to have achieved by asking Jerry on his talk page why he closed this DRV the way he did? By his closure message he stated this image does not warrant an IFD discussion, despite the fact that is what the DRV shows was wanted. I don't think I am going to change his mind by asking him to on his talk page am I? So I come here for review, there is nothing wrong with that in my mind. What is annoying is that, as seen above, despite saying an IFD discussion was not warranted, he defends his closure by having an IFD discussion. This is what is an abuse of the CSD process. I am truly sorry that Stifle thinks that objection to the abuse of CSD for NFCC is out of order when people don't agree with him, but that is his problem, not mine. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The various statements above describing the banner, namely "it hung beneath a picture of the article subject and a specific event" are completely wrong. If the actual reviewers of the image can so badly misinterpret the meaning of the image, how is a defence of NFCC1 ever going to stand? MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are possible grounds for objecting to a DRV close, mainly on the grounds of the bias of the person who closes or total carelessness. I do not see how they apply. The question of what amounts to sufficient topicality for fair use is not sharply defined, and there will always be a certain range for interpretation. But still we need some finality, some way of saying that this has been discussed enough. There are millions of articles, and millions of images. I've tried to save a large number of articles and other things here, and lost a number of them. That's only to be expected. Just as someone who cannot accept losing should not run in an election, someone who cannot bear to see their work removed should not submit it here. Myself, I think the speedy should not have been done, and the DRV close was wrong. But it isn't perverse enough to discuss further. The question had an open discussion, and we're done with it. DGG (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarry has decided he is not obliged to discuss this matter further so I am removing the closure he applied. I repeat my request for an uninvolved admin to do as I originally asked, and review the consensus in that DRV, and send this image to IFD where it should have gone in the first place. I see no sense in doing what is apparently being requested by him, to open a second DRV, I don't see what that would achieve at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That's just going to lead to an edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what? Object to somebody collapsing a barely half page thread because they find it boring? Object to the thread being closed by the person it is about, who then decides he is immune from any comment about that action? Or just generally ask an admin to review this DRV? MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

removing the closure he applied. Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear conflict in closing an ANI thread raised about your own actions. I would go so far as to say there is never a justification to do so, let alone in this case. MickMacNee (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict when it comes to this image, and your undoing of the DRV close would violate that. You've gotten feedback here, and nobody is going to overturn the close, don't do it yourself, or you may wind up being blocked for disruption. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We have our wires crossed. I am talking about his COI in collapsing of this ANI section as resolved, I was not talking about undoing his DRV closure myself. And I would sincerely hope there is at least one admin here who will see that his statements in closing were wrong, there was not an overwhelming opinion to delete as he states here. There were four delete endorses, which, minus the original deleter, and the person who did not even know the banner no longer exists, that made two endorse opinions versus five people who said it should have been sent to IFD and the delete argument was up for challenge. MickMacNee (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case, I apologize for misunderstanding what it was you were talking about. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) smoke and mirrors will not impress the people who frequent this page, MickMacNee. Your distortion of the facts is a horrible expression of your want to continue to fight for this image no matter what. I did not close or collapse anything on this page. I undid your reopening of this AN/I that was already closed by another admin. All I did was go into the page history and hit the magic little "undo" button next to the edit where you reverted Spartaz's close. It was the right thing to do, and I hope somebody else does it too. Your statement that I "decided he is not obliged to discuss this matter further" is not true, either. What I did do, was to tell you to stop harassing me on my talk page. I was in the middle of editing a new article for Berwick Area Senior High School, which involved some tricky userbox and template manupulation (lots of use of the preview button!!!) and your orange "You have a new message" box was annoying me, especially to see it was just aanother uncivil attack from you. I don't mind discussing it on any other page, and do recommend DRV. That is the place on wikipedia that we review closings of deletion discussions. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hope nobody agrees with you that endorsing the wrapping up of this section by somebody who decided this post was over because he found it "boring" was the right thing to do. You seem awfully sure after less than a day on here that nobody will challenge this decisioin, which is quite surprising given the very first two replies to this post agreed before you replied mis-stating the outcome of the discussion.

I asked you before here if a DRV of a DRV is what you were referring to, you ignored it, and given your subsequent attitude on your talk page (to which my only contribution comprised 1 post in notification of this thread and 1 post stating what I thought of your wrapping up of it, before you replied "Go away and stay away", a great attitude for an admin), I deduced you felt you were above contributing here (apart from attempting to close it).

I frankly don't see that a DRV of a DRV is appropriate or is even normal practice, if you think a review of your actions was appropriate I would expect you yourself to undo your closure yourself. I frankly do not expect you to conduct an IFD discussion here, when you explicitely stated you thought (wrongly as I am pointing out here) that there was no consensus for the case for deletion to be made at IFD.

I make no apologies for continuing the fight to defend content when in this case it can be magiced away at the behest of a couple of people who want to abuse the CSD, especially when unike some, I am fully aware of the significance and importance of that image in the article, and believe that it meets the non free use policy as it is worded, and when many have expressed the image is a valid use. One boilerplate delete rationale confidently applied came from someone who didn't even know the basic facts of the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• You asked if you should put in a DRV for a DRV and I said yes. Many times. That's not ignoring the question, its answering it.
• Admins don't have better or worse attitudes than any other editor. They are just regular editors who have been entrusted with a few extra tools. Adminship is no big deal, and does not represent some better class of wikipedian.
• Your deduction that I thought I was above contributing here was an assumption of bad faith.
• DRV for a DRV is fairly rare, but well within the purview of the venue. The last one I recall was on 17 April 2007.
• I do not think a review of my actions is appropriate, but I do think that if YOU want such a review, then you should start a DRV.
• I don't think that the good faith participation by reasonable wikipedians who disagree with you is well summed-up as "a couple of people who want to abuse the CSD".

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Location of ban discussions

I've attempted to clarify the documentation about where ban discussions should take place. Please see WP:AN#Location of ban discussions for details and discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted at that location, I oppose these changes, and ask an administrator revert the change made here as the page is full protected, and I don't think the edit should've gone through without arriving at a consensus first. I'd have reverted if possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was updating that page to reflect what has been in WP:BAN and uncontested since October 2007. Recent practice has been to start ban discussions on ANI, but I'm not sure whether this is a change in practice, or just people not realising what WP:BAN said. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy-vio on Operation Speedwell

Resolved

 – Copyvio deleted. Contributor warned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, an anon added a large amount of text to the atricle which appears to be copied from The Daily Telegraph's obituary of one of the participants in the operation, Harold Challenor. Is it possible to just delete this revision. I subsequently added a couple of references to the article, without immediately realising its provenance, and these and the previously existing stub do not require deleting. None of the standard tags quite seemed to fit the case, so I thought it best to raise the issue here. David Underdown (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need a revision purged from history, you should consider filing a request at WP:RFO. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't ened purging to that extent, standard deletion would be sufficient, or maybe just undoing. I'm not sure what the best approach would be. David Underdown (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no substantial text contributions after the introduction of the violation, I deleted the copyvio and warned the IP contributor. I did incorporate your references, and though there was no GFDL concern credited you for them in edit summary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

User:Levine2112 reverted my explained removal of an off-handed comment without substantive explanation. Another editor shares my concerns that he is being tendentious and obstructionist. He has stated that he thinks people pointing out that he is edit warring are "lying". He's also on a weird harassment campaign of editors who resist his alt medicine POV-pushing. Please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note previous run-ins with this character: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has been placed on 0rr for the article based on his/her threat [36] to edit war. Any reverts by said user to that page will result in a block. User has been notified. Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User warned as requested below. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a sec... I'm not opposed to a 0RR restriction, if needed, but let's make sure that we have proper authority for it. There's a requirement that the editor be formally notified ahead of time, with a template or formal warning to their talkpage which informs them of the ArbCom case, so they have an option to avoid the restrictions if they wish. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also, there should be a time limit specified. Lastly, these bans need to be logged at the appropriate ArbCom case page. But no matter what, it's the same as when blocking an established user, we have to warn them first, and give them the opportunity to modify their own behavior, before imposing a sanction on them. --Elonka 19:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say said user is aware of the Arbcom case - so it seems the legalese stuff is a bit redundant. Duration of restriction - how about a month. Will amend my notification to said user's talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended notice. User has the option of avoiding the consequences of the restriction - simply don't revert. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of general sanctions is to bring an area into good conduct that's been a persistent problem. To do that, administrators need, and use, a wide range of restrictions which they apply at reasonable discretion, and that is backed by the Arbitration Committee's decision. So yes, for an editor who is engaging in revert warring, 0RR is a completely appropriate answer and uses the remedy exactly as intended, to achieve the goal.

However you're slightly misunderstanding the practicalities. Such sanctions are usually intended to deal with actual disruption in most cases, not just that they "might" or "will". Admins and other established users should be aware and take note of others' concerns more than most. Just because a sanction exists does not mean it should be used before its time. You haven't said "please don't edit war", nor warned him that he faces restriction if he reverts in a non-collegial manner, and that's fairly useful to do.

The warning in our decision is not arbitrary, it's not just "he knows sanctions exist" or "legalese". It is so the user knows they themselves specifically will face restriction if they persist in a specific behavior they are doing. It's not optional. The correct use of a sanction like this is to consider if the time's come to restrict their conduct, and if so to tell them that if they repeat you intend to do so. At that point, it's their call. Could you amend your post and make it clear - and perhaps a bit more congenial too.

You might like to try something like this: "This [=LINK] really isn't okay. The topic area is under restrictions [=LINK TO DECISION] to prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. If you have a dispute, please follow communal norms. If you unilaterally revert, whether right or wrong I shall place you under a restriction, since this kind of edit warring has to end." That kind of wording is both firm, but also, explains fairly the concern, and gives a better chance to resolve it amicably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for further clarifying for me. The problem I saw was that the user stated an intent to revert or edit war on a particular point. That threat on such a contested page was going too far. Said user is well aware of the nature of the page and the arbcom case - so it seemed best to nip the threatened behavior in the bud. But, as I seem to be lacking support - I'll amend again. Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. A "recipe" I often find myself ending up using is something like this: be clear what the problem is (disputed article to the point it has had general sanctions approved on it). Be clear what they are doing that's not okay and why (proposing to revert war which is exactly what we're trying to prevent). Say what they should do to solve their problem (dispute resolution, not edit warring). Say what is likely or will happen if they continue (restrictions on reverting, whether right or wrong). That helps a lot in disputes, and also as an admin helps you ensure you stay firmly in a neutral "whats best" stance by being clear what you're trying to achieve.

The reason why an article gets general sanctions in the first place is when its impossible to sort out the content issue until the conduct issues are brought under control, so it's a case of "right or wrong, doesn't matter, this isn't okay". That applies to an awful lot of disputes, and helps users understand you aren't taking sides if you say so. You also want to be careful that if someone's are being provoked, or others are doing stuff too, to note it. It reduces the risk that people see you as being one-sided. It takes a few more words, but it can help avoid confrontation and heated anger and get people who might have disagreed, to understand what you're trying to accomplish and why. Hope this helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Levine is a seasoned edit warrior and proponent of fringe views, a 0RR restriction is reasonable I would say. Levine is fully aware of the contentious nature of these edits and the history and restrictions which apply to the articles, requiring additional explicit warning seems to me to be needless bureaucracy and an invitation to gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am helping to mentor ScienceApologist. Levine2112 cannot credibly claim to be unaware of the sanctions in effect at these articles. They have been involved in the homeopathy disputes since before I set up the community article probation that predated the ArbCom case. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was notification at the talk page.Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 12#Notice Here is evidence Levine2112 is aware of the original probation.User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Homeopathy article probation notification User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Article Probation .28civility.29 QuackGuru 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside

On an aside, would somebody care to explain how the article Quackwatch falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where Elonka said Homeopathy, I guess she should have said Pseudoscience. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the evidence doesn't support that - and even at this very moment in time still doesn't support that. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We used the Homeopathy case before, because its scope is "articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted", and the Quackwatch article is homeopathy-related (the term is right in the article). Though if folks think that the newer Pseudoscience case might be more appropriate to use at this point, I'd have no big problem with switching over. The discretionary sanctions are the same, regardless of which case we use. --Elonka 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your reasonings for how you got to your conclusion. So what you are saying is effectively "If Article X has a word that is mentioned in a RfA then it falls under the broadly interpreted clause"? Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Phil, I think you have two RfA crossed in your warning to Levine (the SA/Martin one and the Pseudoscience one). Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less intentional, the Pseudoscience restrictions require the notifications to be logged on the other ArbCom case page for some reason. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought you may have had a cutnpaste error :-) Shot info (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitations to Merlin Wikia - spam?

User:82.42.175.146 has posted on several users' talk pages an invitation to contribute to http://merlin.wikia.com/wiki/Merlin_Wiki. Is this spamming, and something that ought to be stopped?--212.248.232.249 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsolicited, off-topic and irrelevant to anything the targeted user has done, then I'd call it spam. The editor responsible seems to have stopped of his own accord, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CardinalDan's threats

Besides making false accusations of vandalism against me, CardinalDan wrote on my talk page: "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Boy Scouts of America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." He then repeated this threat. Reverting my edits on false accusations of "commentary and personal analysis" is one thing, but threatening to have me blocked for making edits he doesn't like is quite another.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you were blocked, an uninvolved Admin gave you some advice on your talk page to look at some of our policies. What CardinalDan did is warn you what might happen. This is standard procedure. I note that the Admin that blocked you on the 17th warned you on the 8th. You were then warned 4 more times by 2 different users. Please use the welcome menu at the top of your page and read up on our policies and guidelines, which should help you make edits without being warned or even reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the same person as Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also showed a good deal of interest in the BSA article, he should be quite familiar with WP warning and blocking procedures by now. Deor (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And please note that as Heqwm, this user was actually put on a one-month topic ban two years ago for their edits to the Boy Scout articles. Trying to claim that they don't understand the problem is disingenuous, at best. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on a controversial AfD

I nominated Kaveh Farrokh for deletion earlier today - a biography of a very minor Iranian-Canadian academic with a sideline in amateur history. Some of the editors involved with the article have already been involved in serious disruption of articles on ancient Near Eastern history, including blanking and off-wiki canvassing (see ongoing RfC here). I think there's a fair chance that there will be trouble on this AfD as well, particularly as the article subject seems to have a noisy fan club of Iranian nationalists who like his "unconventional" views on ancient Persian history. I'd be grateful if some uninvolved folks could keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh and look out for the usual IP editors, brand-new SPAs/socks etc. that tend to turn up at times like this. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged the Afd and will keep a watch. Arakunem^Talk 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. These things do blow up from time to time, but hopefully this AfD will go through to closure without too many problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Suicide Threat

Resolved

 – Not a suicide threat.  Sorry for wasting your time.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Title reworded

142.162.184.67 (talk · contribs) Seems to be in REAL problems! We should do something (I dunno what :S) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP seems to be based in Canada.  I have no experience of these situations so I would advise a more experienced admin to deal with it.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do potential threats like this get forwarded to the foundation? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User made this [37] suicide threat, then proceeded to vandalize Suicide further. After V4 he was reported to AIV, where he removed the report [38] stating that it was a joke, done to see what reaction he would get. Well, the reaction was 31 hours for vandalism. Arakunem^Talk 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suicides do not produce edits like this-

19:39, 21 September 2008 142.162.184.67 (Talk | block) (13 bytes) (←Replaced content with 'hehe I farted') (undo)" --Rodhullandemu 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that, but I'm still curious. If somebody, presumably, made such a threat without the subsequent vandalism, what would be the proper way to handle it? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If possible, local or higher authorities would be contacted. Mike Godwin or a different WMF representative could also be contacted in some cases. Other than that, there's not much else WP can do. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions[39] [40] [41], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[42] [43] [44], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[45] [46] [[47] [48] [49]. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Wikipedia as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times [50]. If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to a particular school, maybe someone - preferably local to the area - should contact the school. We had a problem here in Western Australia with what turned out to be a trio of vandals who were wreaking unholy havoc in a range of areas and had gotten well and truly ahead of themselves, and after the school intervened, all problems ceased.

I've blocked the account indef for block evasion per the above but I'm happy for any subsequent resolution of this matter to unblock the account - it's more a case of "this account should not be editing so we'll stop it from doing so". Orderinchaos 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the ranges here with the ones on Simple English, there is one stand out entry but the rest fall under the same ISP/location. 72.28.33.218 does not geolocate near the known location and would likely not match if checked. The ranges needed to shut this down are 70.146.192.0/18, 68.220.160.0/19 and 65.0.160.0/19. I would suggest having a CheckUser look at the ranges for collateral damage as this is taking out a major ISP in a fairly good sized US city. Creol (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone working on this idea? It would really help if he was at least slowed down. Dealing with this almost every day, including new registered accounts, is getting really old. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive since new suggestions had been added

Have another one: Bambiisadinosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have this over on Simple English Wikipedia... obviously, being smaller we can see articles as they come up. He'll often copy and paste stuff from here, along with all the templates. We block/delete on sight. Majorly ^talk 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably explain his creatingthis. I usually spot him when he starts in on one of his usual articles, but by then he's often hit another 10-20. *sigh* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is up with Wikipedia's servers today? Anyways, I thought somewhat interesting to note that I used to teach in the elementary school adjacent to Lincoln Middle. Still live in the area. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive yet again. He is back with yet another named account Bambi the Unicorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and is seeming to thumb his nose at the fact that no one is able to block him by going behind himself to self identify earlier named accounts as being his socks[51] and on this new account[52]. He also came as an IP 65.0.162.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). And for a "kid" he's smart (and annoying) enough to deliberately jump between his IP and his username to make it harder to revert his edits. He has also logged in as some of his blocked users to refactor his talk pages. -- -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin power abuse, illegal activity and sockpuppet- Request for arbitration/action

Resolved

 – Initiator/serial sockpuppeter blocked SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(removed sockpuppet text)

Okay...? Can you provide some specific differences for this alleged "administrator abuse"? Because I don't see it from this single purpose account. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of accusation without much in the way of demonstrable evidence. The only edit from 67.166.201.11 (talk · contribs) was reverting apparent vandalism from 138.202.218.21 (talk · contribs) at TransCanada Corp. back in August; A. B. did revert a similarly unsourced addition from Beckstarr (talk · contribs) nearly a week later. Even ignoring the fact you've provided no evidence linking these two users, even assuming these two users are the same person, I don't see any significant on-wiki "abuse" there. Which ban/block are you referring to? Links to prior discussion, block logs, or diffs would be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting to login once in a while is not sock puppetry. The complaint seems very shrill, and lacking evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Initator is a Serial sockpuppet of blocked User:Webapp.. blocking this one as well. SirFozzie (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(see [53] for the last sock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My PC loses its session data cookie sometimes, and the result is an edit that posts with my current IP instead of my account. If I notice it, I immediately login and make a null edit to get my name on the history. But I bet it happens occasionally where I don't catch it. I am going to assume good faith and say that it is likely that this is what happened. That assumption made, this report seems frivolous. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could whoever deleted that text put it back? I can't check out the initiator for myself because of whoever thought it was a good idea. Be glad I get why you did it; more hysterical people would start screaming about censorship. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See [54] for the initator's post. Not shown: he spammed the same text to his user page (which has been deleted). SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The webapp sockpuppet cited (among other complaints) my retroactive re-titling^[55] of the earlier WP:AN discussion from my original "On.Elpeleg's indefinite ban -- review requested" to "On.Elpeleg's indefinite block -- review requested". No admin can ban any editor -- they can only block an editor. I was correcting this dumb mistake of mine. As for all the other stuff he asserted, here's a partial synopsis of the community's interactions with webapp.net before today. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OP returned as Shoftim (talk · contribs) (already blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is back for a fourth time

IP is back a fourth time again as you can see here

It was also here but Wikipedia took care of it. --Enzuru 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease

Goodone121 (talk · contribs) has listed Huntington's disease as a good article despite inadequate GA review. This issue started on 10 September when he nominated that article on WP:GAN despite no previous involvement and without discussion with the main contributors (the ones who would need to action any recommendations made). In discussion with Leevanjackson (talk · contribs), the main contributor, I did a review anyway which failed. A few weeks later, with most of my recommendations still awaiting implementation, Goodone121 nominated the article again, and again without any discussion. I removed the nomination, because Delldot (talk · contribs) (who had already reviewed the article on a prior occasion) and Leevanjackson agreed that the time wasn't ripe.

Now Goodone121 has started a WP:GAR, which nobody has commented on, and now claims that the Huntington's article therefore meets WP:WIAGA and must therefore be a GA. There has been no review, and there is basically consensus that the article is not ready for prime time.

Delldot and myself have warned Goodone121 that he was being disruptive, yet the behaviour continues. I would very much like an uninvolved admin to review this case with a view of blocking this contributor, who is wasting the time of some very content-heavy editors. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say, I renommed only when progress was made. I also listed as the template said that the initiating editor should close. I am not using this as a "backdoor ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

vitilsky (talk · contribs · count) is in flagrant violation of numerous WP policies, including but not limited to RS, V, COI, POV (forking) and votestacking. He is utterly unable to maintain an objective stance due to his political affiliation (see the boxes in his user page), and has no compunctions about disregarding consensus. Despite numerous warnings (see his personal talk page and that of the article), his behavior continues unabated. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Buspar Sock Puppet Show and User:Onethirtyeightdot Possible Block Evasion

User:138.251.242.2 was blocked for 55 hours for harassment.[56] This means that from 8:47 9/7 to 13:47 9/9, the user was not supposed to create new accounts or edit Wikipedia. However, User:Onethirtyeightdot created his page at 16:20 9/7 [57] and then proceeded to post the same accusations as the blocked IP. Compare: the IP with Onethirtyeightdot's first edit and Onethirtyeightdot's second edit. Also note the cleverness of "Onethirtyeightdot" being 138., the opening numbers of the IP address of the blocked user. Another user also suspects this nick of being the same user.[58] Permanent ban may be appropriate so we can stop this before it turns into "whack-a-troll." Also, run a Checkuser to see if the IP comes from the same source so the school can be notified of the abuse of its network. Buspar (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• An admin has also determined that these two are very likely the same.[59] This is further indication of block evasion by the user. Buspar (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note that Buspar's complaints about being "harrassed" are based on people pointing out that he uses sock puppets extensively for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Buspar Could somebody put a stop to this sock puppeteer? Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Admin's already ruled I'm not a sock puppet. So the matter that needs resolution is whether you evaded your block - which means a well-deserved permanent ban. Buspar (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • An admin has said that "there are a number of strange things going on" and "User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user." So, we have a sock puppeteer crying "harassment" when people point out he's a sock puppeteer. But admins, don't take my word for it, go look for yourselves and see who needs a well-deserved permanent ban for a long history of using several sock puppets for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing.--Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, more than one account are allowed be used in some cases (and in that case, sock puppetry is out of the question). Looking at the similarities, I can see a few connections: Black Kite's comment has given the impression that Buspar and User:Xuanwu are related, but Xuanwu created his/her account over 3 years ago whilest Buspar started out only about a year ago. As for User:Onethirtyeightdot, 138.251.242.2 appears to be the same user as they have both tried to convince people that Buspar is a sockpuppeteer (Buspar is probably not as, again, Xuanwu was around for a while). 138.251.242.2 was blocked only a couple of hours before Onethirtyeightdot created his/her account according to the user log. Keeping that in mind, I should remind you that an indefinite block is not usually given right away as there could be a mistake, in any case. I'd like to see more information on whether Buspar may in fact be involved in any of Onethirtyeightdot's claims, but there is no doubt in my mind that Onethirtyeightdot evaded his block. ~ Troy (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm just making it clear that "Onethirtyeightdot" looks like quite an obvious attempt at evading 138. ...'s block (which was agreed upon here). Unless there's any evidence on the contrary, I don't see why Onethirtyeightdot should be blocked to prevent him from making any further edits that are purely aimed at another user. ~ Troy (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Buspar started out only about a year ago"? User:Buspar's userpage clearly states "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003." Troy, take a look at just one example, this Revision history of Fandub [60] where other editors are "reverting buspar's (who has been hiding under at least 3 different IPs) vandalism" and "finally, Buspar accepts to assume his "true" identity. That doesn't make his edits less vandalistic." Troy, take a look at the articles Xuanwu edited before he "left." He used to write articles about himself and his webcomic, and a few other topics. Then his article about himself was deleted, so he "left." Then Buspar appears, immediately writes an article about Xuanwu and his webcomics, and then writes articles about all the exact same stuff Xuanwu wrote about! It's all there at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Buspar. He's an obvious sock puppet troll, with a long history of using several sock puppets for writing articles about himself, casting multiple votes and "ganging up" while arguing. You should do something about it. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Onethirtyeightdot, you appear to be ignoring me. His account is from August of 2007. Also, I have explained that Xuanwu's account was created before September of 2005—well before Buspar's account was set. Even if it's the same user, that doesn't automatically make it into a form of sock puppetry, especially since the accounts weren't used subsequently and, as Black Kite put it, were apparently explained on Buspar's user page (please don't make such assumptions, they only confuses things). Also, Onethirtyeightdot appears to be editing purely to make a WP:POINT against Buspar while there is evidence on the contrary. So far, there has not been one good reason why anyone should approve of that. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No Troy, I'm not ignoring you at all. I understand completely that this sock puppeteer created his accounts at different times. But do you understand that he has on several occasions used them at the same time? To write articles about himself? To try to win arguments? To rig votes? Again, take a look this Revision history of Fandub [61] where four of Xuanwu/Buspar's sock puppets get into an argument with other editors. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi_-_Strange_Candy where several of the sock puppets like Buspar, GarryKosmos and 130.49.157.75 cast their multiple votes to keep his article he wrote about his webcomic. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Onethirtyeightdot, I don't see why I should waste all of my time on your specific posts when other people should take a look at this. I was aiming at being objective while you are, again, still trying to make a point against Buspar in particular. I have stated that it is impossible for Buspar to be a sockpuppeteer as Xuanwu (who has not been proven to be involved in sock puppetry) was around for a far longer period of time. Xuanwu stopped editing more than a year ago, and also, I have already explained that more than one account does not necessarily equal sock puppetry. Lastly, you don't appear to acknowledge that you evaded your block as "138. ...". As only one direct question itches in my mind, I only have this pondering thought: how is it that Onethirtyeightdot is not related to "138. ..." when the latter was blocked and two hours later, the former created his/her account? Obviously, an argument against that doesn't seem very honest because, for one thing, does the username ring a bell or not??? I'm done with the ranting. I want someone else to look at this. ~ Troy (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Troy, I don't think it's a waste of time to stop Buspar/Xuanwu's sock puppet show. I'm not sure what you mean about "it is impossible for Buspar to be a sockpuppeteer as Xuanwu." It seems you're saying that Xuanwu came first (2005) and Buspar second (2007), so technically Buspar is a sock puppet of Xuanwu rather than Xuanwu being a puppet of Buspar? But Buspar himself says that he's been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003. That is, long before either account was created. But really, does it really matter who edited first? The point is that all these "different" editors are really the same single person, using multiple accounts to rig votes and try to win arguments. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've long suspected that User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are the same. It's good to see some light being shined on this. --Dragonfiend (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User contributions for 203.164.248.178/25

Resolved

 – Yeah, I've done that before too Black Kite 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I accidentaly created the page by clicking on an extra js tab "db (reason)" (I don't know why that should appear when you're browsing contributions). Could someone please delete it? I don't think that happened to me before. ~ Troy (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Moleman 9000

While technically not WP:3RR, this is still an edit war. I'm not reporting at WP:AN3 because he's gaming the system by adding the material once a day. The user keeps adding information about "YouTube Poop" to CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series, and has been continually reverted. Please feel free to check out the article history, and please feel free to look at the last revert here: [62], notice the edit summary? If no 3RR, can we at least get him on WP:CIV? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LISTEN, YOU! I AM ONLY TRYING TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WIKIPEDIA, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS LITTLE "EDIT WAR" IF YOU WOULD JUST LET ME MAKE MY CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SITE. I have given you your "references" and your "formal, neutral tone", yet you still revert it OVER AND OVER AGAIN! So please tell me, Mr. Yngvarr, what else can I do with this edit to make it more "Acceptable" to Wikipedia's "Guidelines"?Moleman 9000 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I should address this, but nothing like pouring salt into the wound. The material which has been added has been reverted, not just by me, but by several other people, under the basic fact that it does not satisfy WP:NOTE guidelines. It is not notable. Have you even looked at the messages placed on your talk page? Considering your dispute is not with me, but with other people, isn't it time you stop and think, maybe the problem is not us, but the material which you insist on adding? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is certainly an unnecessary edit war (on CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series). It looks to me as though Moleman 9000 should hold some more responsibility for adding badly referenced information (and no, I'm not commenting on the contributer—Moleman—I'm talking about his/her contributions). By the time Yngvarr said that youtube is not to be used like that, I would assume that would be when Moleman was supposed to discuss it. When adding youtube or similar references, they are often considered to be link-spammed or are not verifiable. Thus, it is my opinion that Moleman should get into the habit of adding reliable material in order to discontinue breaking the 3rr in the future. ~ Troy (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguing in all caps doesn't win any friends, either. Corvus cornix_talk 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the material is related to a fad on YouTube, called YouTube Poops. Fans basically edit clips of music or cartoons. That's all that it really is. When asked to provide valid references, the only references given were the actual videos, and an insistence that the fad is notable, but no proof of notability was ever given. Unfortunately, there are no references to support the notability of the fad. The name, YouTube Poop, is a meme, which is generally non-notable of its own. The actual articles on YouTube Poop have been repeatedly created and deleted, until it was salted. I've placed a non-templated message on the user talk page requesting discussion. Prior to that, templated edit war warnings were placed. None of these messages were ever addressed by the user. WP:TEND pops into my mind. I am (slightly) sorry to bring this to ANI. As I said, this is not technically 3RR, but given the absolute lack of cooperation from the user, I did not see any other venue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but—uh—why did Moleman remove the French interwiki? I can understand if it isn't very well-written, but it should still remain to be linked. And, how would it work out with Moleman's "references"? I'm pretty sure that should be restored. ~ Troy (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to restore to before Moleman's edits (including the old refs and interwiki) as there was no verifiability towards it. If Moleman has a problem with this, then we'll see what happens, in any case. ~ Troy (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:London Business Company

London Business Company (talk · contribs). Could do with some experienced eyes looking at this user. As well as their username ringing a few alarm bells, their seem to comprise entirely adding the unsourced opinion of one Russ Sandlin to various articles about outsourcing call centres. Self-spamming perhaps, or is it just that Russ is notable enough but as yet articleless. Any thoughts--Jac16888 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The above-named user is definitely adding unreferenced information. I suggest leaving a note on his talk page about verifiability, and then removing his unreferenced additions with an explanation. If there's any problem, then we'll see about it. ~ Troy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done, and all of the users edits have been reverted, pretty much what i expected--Jac16888 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed on British-related geographic articles

I don't actually know which articles need it, since I haven't been editing them, but the editors who have been editing it haven't requested it yet, so here's to getting the ball rolling. The editors complain about an IP86 (who seems to be a POV warrior), to the point of calling for all IPs to register. [63]

IPs that I found: [64], [65], [66], [67] (probably a different person), [68] (dunno if this one's related, but its edits are reverted). --Raijinili (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 86, has been at times disruptive at talk:British Isles (I'll elaborate tommorow). GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IP back for a fifth time

Please see this Also, should I just keep reporting this guy under the same section? --Enzuru 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here too. --Enzuru 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure exactly what's going on. Could you list the prior IP addresses or something to help explain. Would you rather I just semi-protect your talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. This individual previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks (one of which is here), started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. An IP I listed earlier included this one. --Enzuru 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this IP --Enzuru 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the same mistake again........but I swear this time it wasn't my fault

I was logged into Wikipedia when I was doing some editing, but after leaving my computer idle for sometime (I didn't turn off anything) I went back to Wikipdia, assuming I was still logged in and edited a comment I made on the 90210 talk page only to find out via the history page that I was logged out and my IP address is visible. Can somenone please erase it from the history page? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

User:IndependentMedia created an advertisement for a brand new, non-notable website. When it was speedily deleted, he created a new "article" consisting basically of a statement that he's going to sue me and Wikipedia.

"If you have a lawyer, please forward this to him immediately. If your lawyer is involved, than it is unlawful for me to continue to contact you directly. So it is advised that you seek counsel immediately before going any further.

1. I am an attorney in a case against Wikipedia and "Orange Mike".

2. The case opened 25 minutes ago when I realized an article about a non-profit website was deleted as "blatant advertising" when an extremely for-profit site "YouTube" which is a piece of garbage in comparison, is allowed in its Wikipedia "article" to bullshit on its greatness, when it is inarguably the worst website in the world when you consider its resources. BetterStream was started to bring balance to media. If any media gets in the way of this truth mission, they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight. That's right, we will reincarnate and continue the lawsuit over and over again. I hope you don't think I'm being facetious at all. Now this is one-sided. I'm curious to hear your side.

3. I promise not to file a lawsuit, or add Wikipedia to an existing lawsuit against Google, until Wednesday, 9/24. I will give you at least that much time to contact me via phone or email.

4. I spent awhile trying to follow the links to learn what I could do to object or mediate, I have not been fruitful in this search. I always find it easier to file a lawsuit than to be dicked around by some corporate labyrinth disguised as a non-profit. Yeah, I'm not falling for the BS 501(c)(3) huh?

Please contact me at <email & phone redacted>"

Suggestions, anybody? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Slakr (talk · contribs) has the fastest blocking fingers; indef block for legal threats in place. (actually, upon review, the block was done several hours ago.) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight" combined with all that abut their website being the best in the world compared to youtube, the worst, suggests nothing more than a child--Jac16888 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport

• Wikiport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brand new editor Wikiport (talk · contribs) has been engaging in very disturbing conduct over the last few weeks. He has twice made spurious speedy (G11) nominations of Fox News Channel (here and here, and later claimed both were "typos" (note edit summaries). He has removed an admin's comments from a talk page. He got in a rather nasty spat with admin Pedro (talk · contribs), and also accused him of threats. When met with any opposition he accuses established editors of serving agendas. See examples of his snide faux-friendly attitude here, here, and here. He continually refuses to read the appropriate FAQ or archived discussions, which specifically address the issues he's raised. The final straw has come in his baseless accusation of sockpuppetry. He's been amply warned and counseled, administrator assistance appears to be necessary. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)