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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with the exact same wording

I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Wikipedia, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Wikipedia he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Wikipedia policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Wikipedia policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no mandate that we are forced to consider and contemplate one bit of trivia and plot summary differently from another bit of trivia and plot summary. What do you suggest he do? Write an individual summary noting the nuances separating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Gallo from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Van_Horn? Honestly, if people don't like this behavior of nomination they can file an RfC to see the community input, not ask for a bad from An/I because articles that are outside our inclusion criteria are being considered for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to accept the use of BRD and AFD as means to "force" one's views. These are all means to discussion. Now, I will admit that a step that usually is considered (but by no means required) is to discuss a redirect or a possibility of deletion on the article talk page. The problem is that when you deal with fiction you will encounter mini-cabals of editors that will defend such articles, making it impossible to get consensus even if the article fails policies. Bringing such articles to AFD as a first step may seem aggressive, but it also gets the participation of a much larger group of editors involved thus getting better consensus of the issues. Unfortunately, we lack any other type of process that is meant to gain larger input than just those that watch an article's page regularly (which is why AFD is sometimes called Articles for Discussion). There's no required process that TTN is violating here, it just may speak badly of the lack of process that we have for better discussion of such articles. Should TTN be blocked for that? Not unless everyone else that uses them is too. --MASEM 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see this kind of thing coming to ANI, especially being supported an admin that I generally respect. It is not TTN's fault that there are tens of thousands of bad articles on Wikipedia. His AFD nominations are generally on target, and the results of his AFDs are generally to merge, redirect, or delete. If the only way that policy can be formed in this area is by running enought stuff through AFD to generate changes to WP:OUTCOMES, that's sad, but nothing to block an editor for. TTN is not violating any policies or guidelines, and is not deserving of even a short block, much less a ban.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has this board (perhaps others) become tattle boards to try to get TTN in trouble? I've seen many of his video game nominations: and the articles are indeed cruft, clutter, game guide content, etc...in many cases. He can't redirect: because people will just undo it, and then tattle on him. But he can't put them in AFD either apparently, because people have had issues with him in the past. Frankly, I think people need to settle down. Other people nominate numerous articles for deletion, but they don't get tattled on. I believe this is a matter of "TTN has past issues, so let's just report it everytime he nominates things", which is a bit wrong. Also to comment about what Jayron said: I highly doubt TTN is trying to make up policies. There is already policies that back up what he nominates. He states what policies the article violates, and in most cases he is right. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just you at all. I really think that we need to consider establishing some kind of sanction for filing ANI or Arbcom reports on this topic. The block and sanction requests cause more trouble than the AFDs.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my humble opinion, the suggested sanctions in this thread are slightly excessive. If TTN is going to be restricted, it should be to limit the number of AfDs he is allowed to file in any 24 hour period to a reasonable number, perhaps 5 or 6. Similarly, the number of redirects could also be limited, if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that, aside from these AfDs, TTN continues to continue his pattern of willy-nilly, discussion-free merging. [1] (an article he had previously made into a redirect and was specifically named in the last arbcom decision against him) [2] [3] [4] &c. &c. &c. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to waste my time counting any more, but it looks like in the last 24 hours alone, he's redirected over two dozen articles without a word of discussion on any. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A good chuck of which, now that I'm checking, recently went through AfD as kept from lack of consensus. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm having trouble finding the policy that says redirection is a crime. Can you point it out for me? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • TTN has been blocked in the past for disruptive patterns of behavior, which continue unabated. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a crime to redirect, because TTN has had issues in the past. If it was any other editor: it would probably go unnoticed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nearly all of my hundreds (over a thousand?) of bold-mergers and bold-redirects went unnoticed, so it really must be TTN's name that makes bold-mergers and bold-redirects a crime. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a crime, obviously, but the mass removal of content that targets a very narrow range of communities is disruptive--particularly when it is an editor's entire raison d'être. I might feel differently if I had ever seen TTN do the work to provide references for any article or series of articles, anywhere, but he takes advantage of the fact that improving articles is quite a bit harder than blanking it with a redirect template, and keeping up with his redirects and AfDs would be a full time Wiki-job, leaving little left to actually do the work. Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the redirected articles already had a consensus to keep at AfD discussion at AfD with no consensus to delete.Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So one editor imposes his will, and everyone cries, "What shall we do? What shall we do?" This is an all-too familiar theme in wikipedia. Bullies get their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you and I agree on a lot, but you're WAY off base here. I suggest everybody read Thebainer's suggestion of where the fault lies at WP:RfArb, where this issue is currently. This smacks of forum shopping and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest the editors on the eternal crusade stop asking Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? and start working WITH TTN, not against him. 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except TTN's pattern of behavior is essentially one of directing the work of other editors, not even remotely in any way "working with them". As I said, if TTN ever worked to improve an article in a way that wasn't deleting something, or nominating it for deletion, or pointing out that someone (someone else, naturally) needs to come in and provide references, not in time, but NOW, then yeah, there would be grounds for that, but there isn't. Working "with" TTN is essentially agreeing to work "for" him. Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically the Betacommand approach: "I'm following policy, therefore no discussion is needed - nor wanted, as that will slow me down from my appointed deletionist mission." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfDs I spot checked looked ok, didn't see a snowy keep (or more than one or two keep comments throughout), lots of delete comments, sometimes merge comments instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly feel that we would benefit from a RFC/U on TTN. Enough people feel that his behavior (rather than the underlying content dispute) is unacceptable that we should provide a venue for them to give feedback. I'm wholeheartedly against (and so, evidently, are the arbs who commented on the requests for clarification/extension) just using AN/I to thwack TTN for what some editors feel is bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the underlying problems with his methods. the place to sort out a thorny content/conduct dispute is RFC, not Arbcom and not here. I don't want this to turn into an inclusionist/deletionist back and forth, because that benefits NO ONE. But I don't want to dismiss the concerns here as "content dispute". the right answer is an RFC. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that we'll get any new insight into TTN/deletionist/inclusionist conflict, but we can certainly try. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better than coming here and riling up people with the Scarlet "D" on his chest from that arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is finally an effective means to rid wikipedia of bad fiction articles with community consensus (AfD), and people are still badmouthing TTN to arbcom and AN/I in the hope to get him sanctioned again (even the first sanction was not as widely supported as some editors wish to believe). Is there also the possibility that not TTN is the problem, but the unwillingness of editors to collaborate outside of AfD (accept mergers and redirects or improve the articles to justify as a WP:SPINOUT) to prevent TTN's need to take those bad articles to AfD to get them merged/redirected/deleted just the same? Oh, by the way, wikipedia is a voluntary projects, and just like everyone has the right to add content only, all editors have the right to concentrate on removing content that is not inline with policies and guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If TTN has an issue with "bad" articles, he should note his legitimate concerns on the articles' talk pages. If the editors who created the content (or otherwise wish to retain it) don't respond to those legitimate concerns, TTN should be free to nominate for AfD without being sanctioned. On the other hand, if TNN is not attempting to engage the editors of the content he obhects to before mass nominating for AfD, that is a different story...Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal: if TTN is mass-nominating articles for deletion, and most of these are ending up being kept, then he's being disruptive, wasting a lot of editor time, and he should be asked to stop. (I find it a little strange that the community doesn't seem to agree that what he's doing is a problem, yet the proposed solution is to block him. If we aren't agreed, his behavior is marginal, not clearly offensive, and so response should be measured, not abrupt.) On the other hand, if most of these AfDs result in delete, he's serving the project, as long as the AfDs themselves don't show disruptive behavior. I find it a bit refreshing if the nominator sits back and doesn't comment any more, beyond his original reason, letting the community decide. It's tendentious argument at AfD that can be so poisonous. I'll note that if the nominator can mass-nominate with identical reason given, surely !voters can comment with the same comment. Lots of complaints were registered about User:Kmweber for that, but it was always found to be acceptable.

As to redirects, they are less disruptive than AfDs. It's an ordinary editorial decision. Again, his behavior in that process would be the issue: does he edit war (and BRD isn't edit warring)? Is he uncivil? Being "unresponsive," as some charged, is not offensive in itself. He puts his time where he thinks it's important. No response is not an uncivil response. If he reverts repeated without discussion, that's not lack of responsiveness, it's edit warring. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Being unresponsive is uncivil. It's the same as saying "F.U." to the questioner. The non-response says the questioner is inferior and thus unworthy of spending time responding to. "He puts his time where he thinks it's important." Responding to a question thus is "not important" - because the questioner is "not important" - because only TTN's view matters. How is that kind of behavior "civil"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that topics concerning TTN tend to get somewhat lengthy, if not heated. Perhaps a page concerning this should be created and a redirect placed here if only to give everyone more elbow room? HalfShadow 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nowhere near the size of the CENSEI megillah that developed here and stayed on this page.

• I opened some of these AfDs at random. Many are unanimous "delete"s so far (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Roysten Merchant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Tyrell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Beebe). Based on these and on what I have read here, I see no problems with TTN's nominations. If people disagree with them they can say so in the AfDs. I don't understand what all the fuss is about and I am, frankly, most astonished about Baseball Bugs' "Block him immediately" comment.  Sandstein  20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It was stated that he was doing something he had been warned not to do. If that is true, then he should be blocked immediately for misbehavior. If not, then that's another story. The opinion on whether he's behaving properly seems to be mixed. However, if he won't answer fair questions, then he's being uncivil, and a block might effect an attitude adjustment - or at least get him to answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's got a pretty big chain of unrevealed assumptions there. We have to assume that he was actually doing what he was warned not to do. We have to assume the warning came in good faith and from a neutral party. We have to assume that the matter at hand is something worth blocking. And, frankly, I don't agree with the "block because I think he has a 'tude" viewpoint. He isn't 13. We aren't effecting discipline here. I don't think a bold "block him immediately" was the right response to the stated complaint. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, he should be nominated for adminship, since he apparently knows what's best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't make this worse. He doesn't need a nobel prize. I'm just suggesting that coming to AN/I and treating his malfeasance as a certainty isn't the way to go. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that TTN is not only nominating for deletion and redirecting, he's also placing merge tags (example from today) which is hardly unilateral. As Sandstein says above, most of the AfDs seem to be reasonable, and as for the redirects - well, when I see TTN redirecting well-sourced articles with good third-party references and real-world notability, then I'll agree with the editors who repeatedly bring this to the drama boards. Black Kite 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is his exactly samely worded noms suggest that he is just indiscriminately nominating articles on fictional characters and television episodes which clearly he and a few others just do not like and that can/should be merged redirected instead. He is also nominating so many articles that it is overwhelming the deletion debate area. And he is showing no signs of actually checking for sources first. It actually takes some time to search for sources and incorporate them into articles. When he has done that? When he found sources and added them to articles? If people revert his redirects, gee, than maybe it’s because the consensus is that the articles are worthy and hey it seems only a portion of us even know about and find the deletion debates that only seem to last for a few days anyway. How does his cookie cutter nominations followed bye the same handful of others that flock to his discussions who slap down similarly repetitive “delete per TTN” or “delete as fancruft” nonsense rapidly across whatever debates this guy starts actually reflect what the community wants? At least the Protonk has the occasional keep worked in or when he argues to delete shows evidence of having looked for sources, but few of those who agree with him seem to make that effort to be objective and treat these discussions as individuals. What “contribution” do we get from [5], [6], [7], and so on? The same rapid fire posts that show no evidence of actually trying to find sources or offering anything new to the conversation. It’s like that from most of TTN’s defenders. He makes the same copy and paste nomination; a few of his allies show up and make the same copy and paste agreements with him (and what‘s classic is I get warned by someone who himself made a handful of copy and paste deletes not to make copy and paste keeps--what a farce!), maybe someone offers a counterpoint and actually provides sources or makes an effort to improve the article, but otherwise the same big brothers deciding for us is simply not right. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.2 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you forgot that you should be on 63.3.1.130, right? Because there isn't a connection between those two IP's, right?  :) Protonk (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this "vanishing" business is trickier than one would think. Deor (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can prove this particular shitstorm was caused by our vanished friend, I think it's a good argument for a nice long rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Someone was going to raise the issue eventually. Like I said above, if people are pissed about TTN's conduct, then we should have a RFC/U, not a backdoor attempt at a topic ban because he used to edit war over redirects and mergers. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any numbers about how his AFDs shake out? if they are 90% KEEP then he needs to reconsider what he's doing but if they are 90% delete, well.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I looked over the articles he put up for AfD, and they seem to deem that treatment. Most of the articles IMHO fail WP:Notability. What TTN does is another segment of keep WP clean. I, for example hit new articles with speedy delete tags, TTN just catches the articles further along the process, and puts them up for AfD. So, TTN is a cleanup warrior, not a vandal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redact my original proposal for sanctions After spending lots of time reviewing the entire situation, and reading people's comments, I no longer believe that TTN is commiting any real disruption worth sanctions at this time. I find his single-minded obsession with deleting the episode and character articles perplexing, but all of his nominations I agree should probably be deleted or merged into their parent articles. In the end, even though he is on this extensive mission, he has not as yet really done anything that I don't end up agreeing with. I think its easy to, given the history of this conflict, misinterpret the situation, but none of the individual actions he has taken has crossed the line. I apologize for perhaps starting the controversy this time, but I have carefully reconsidered my position. I don't really support his mission, but I also don't see any harm in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're OK with it, then that's the end of it. Leave him unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• No reason to block him. I've taken part in a few AfDs he has nominated. I found the nominations appropriate, and common closure is usually merge/redirect, sometimes delete. Examples:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Doll_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Lackey, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Tan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defensor_(Transformers), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doz, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexadecimal_(character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LarryBoy, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Funkhouser, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ro_Rowen, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tasp. The inclusionists that disagree with him are tying to subvert the AfD process by blocking or banning him, a typical kill the messenger reaction. VG ☎ 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might not see eye to eye with User:TTN, but I feel someone should offer a little balance. Disagree with his content decisions, but he isn't doing anything wrong. It would be different if he were breaking policy, ignoring warnings, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... or abusing the WP:3RR. But he isn't. Moreover, he's using the WP:BRD process as designed. First he boldly merges or boldly redirects. If someone reverts, he starts a merge or deletion discussion. Even if I don't agree with him all of the time, there's usually a consensus for deleting, redirecting, or merging... suggesting that he's not being reckless, let alone malicious. I think we should assume good faith. And there is no damage. People are entirely free to contest his edits, or his suggestions at discussion pages, and they often do. If he's acting in good faith and doing no damage, then what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, this was one of the reasons that I started the original Request for Clarification shortly after his restriction ended. I was concerned that TTN was ramping up activity in the arena of content removal again, and was hoping to get a clear indication from Arbcom on this, as they put the original restriction in place. First let me be clear that each action that TTN does, in isolation, I don't have a problem with. The mechanisms of raising AfDs, suggesting redirects and tagging potential mergis is part of the article peer review that makes WP work as a content development mechanism. Most of his statements are sensible, and most of his AfD suggestions are sound. So where does the trouble lie? Well, as I've always said, it's in the throughput. TTN does a lot of work in the content cleanup space, raising a large number of AfDs (I think it's been 30 in 24 hours, but I could be wrong) doing a lot of tagging and creating large numbers of redirects. It's this large volume of work that causes concern with other editors, and which I'd really encourage him to ease up on. To be clear, I don't see blocking as a solution here, because I don't think it's the appropriate tool. Instead, I'd ask TTN to slow down, to feed his work into the system at a slower rate and to be willing to liase with other editors to ensure that he works at a pace everyone feels comfortable with. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

lolwut? Telling him to slow down the article cleaning process is akin to asking a vandal-guardian to slow down the reverts he/she does, or a new-page patroller to slow down on the db-taging of articles. I know on an average day I tag 20 articles for speedy delete, and revert another 40 changes. Should I slow down? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a like-for-like comparison. Recent changes/New pages patrol is one area, with a high level of continuous edits happening. Merges, reverts and AfDs have a much lower volume. In a WP workday, I can easily raise 30 or 40 CSDs on NPP. I'd be alarmed if I was raising the same volume of AfDs, and I'd be concerned that I was flooding the process if I did. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just would like to see him follow BLD and discuss things more. When someone undoes a redirect of his, he generally just moves to AfD without discussion. When I merged more into an article than he did after a merge AfD result, he undid it without comment. BLD indicates its worth being bold if you think it's not controversial. If you know it's controversial (and undoing a good faith edit likely is) then discussion is the right thing.... Hobit (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • But AFD is a discussion mechanism; it just opens it up to more people than just those who watch the page (which will generally have a bias against deletion). --MASEM 04:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Bingo. To reinforce Masem's point, it's right there in the first ten words of WP:AFD: "AFD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". If the AFD reaches a consensus for deletion, there's no harm because everyone agrees the article doesn't belong here. And if the AFD doesn't reach a consensus, then there's no harm because the article continues to exist. For that reason, AFD is generally a good process, and it generally achieves a good result. Randomran (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So are you all saying that AfD is the right place to bring redirect disputes? Really? I trust you both, but I've seen people dragged through the mud for bringing a redirect discussion (where they want to undo the redirect) to AfD. But I'll try it and point to this discussion if you both think that's how it is supposed to work. Let me know. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You should only bring an article to AFD if you believe in good faith that the article fails our content guidelines and policies. But if you do, remember that it begins a discussion. It doesn't always mean deletion. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
          • So one side of the discussion has a mechanism to involve others, even when their (apparent) prefered outcome isn't to delete. But the other part of this discussion doesn't have that outlet? Ick. Historically not a problem because people don't normally bring a redirect discussion straight to AfD. But TTN is doing it on a massive scale... Hobit (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The nomination reason TTN keeps using is sometimes outright incorrect. Typically, he will state that the article consists of nothing but plot summary and original research. Well, for most of the articles he nominates, the plot summary may make up the majority of the article. But sentences regarding which actor played the character, are neither. An AFD nominator has an obligation to check that the assertions in the nomination are true, and TTN is not doing that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, for the most part, his nominations are decent. If he merges or redirects it just gets reverted, so he needs something to demonstrate a consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to beat the dead horse: Other editorial decisions (to merge, delete, etc.) don't go to AfD. Why does the "I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted" go to AfD? Isn't there something wrong with doing that without any attempt at communication? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Because it's the only avenue available. Generally the people that restore these redirects are anonymous IPs, and, no matter how you feel about anons, they are very difficult to communicate with. It's rarely possible to tell if messages on their talk pages are being read and ignored or simply going to some other cable modem user. Discussing a redirect on the talk page of an article is futile, as the people that read the talk page are generally restricted to those people that think its a worthwhile article. It's unfair to characterize the discussion as I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted. It's generally more like This article is completely lacking in any characteristic that would permit it to be kept, but there is a group of editors that refuses to recognize that. Should there be a better mechanism than AFD for getting a larger group of editors to discuss this? Certainly. Is it fair to criticize TTN for using the only effective mechanism that exists? Certainly not.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's something screwy on the software infoboxes

Resolved

 – _Gb^T/c 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically the dates parts of it. For example Windows 98;

Current version: 4.10.1998 ("Gold"), 4.10.2222A ("SE"), 1998-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 3862 days ago ("Gold"), 1999-Template:MÁNUÐUR-05; 3449 days ago ("SE") info

As you can see there appears to be some attempt to add a template that doesn't actually exist. If you look at .NET Reflector

Latest release 5.1.3 / 2008-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 25 days ago

So that's two different info boxes, but both software related both of which have date weirdness. There appears to be a bunch of transclusions to this non-existent template, but I cannot for the life of me workout where it's being included from. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was all caused by an edit to {{Release date and age}} where the word "month" was replaced with "MÁNUÐUR", which is Icelandic for the word "month". Anyway, that template was fixed, and it the problem has been corrected - you might have to purge your cache to get it to display correctly again. Shereth 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by Baseball Bugs

Resolved

 – no harassment (or harrassment), issue closed Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has a disagreement with me about whether something requires a source in the article E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. It's not the disagreement that concerns me. Based on past experience with him, he tends to want to continue messaging a person long after the issues have been discussed to an extreme. And he's following the same pattern here. I told him I did not care to repeatedly have his messages sent to my talk page, and that he should take up his concerns on Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. I even copied a few exchanges about our differences to that talk page and advised him to discuss the issue there instead of repeatedly making comments on my talk page. He refuses, and since my request has sent me these messages: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I believe he is about to step over the line on policies on WP:HARASS if he has not already done so. Everything will be fine if he will simply confine his comments about the issues of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎ to the article's talk page instead of my talk page. But I don't think he is willing to do that unless an admin discusses this with him. Thanks for any help. Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user has already spent far more time and energy copping an attitude than would have been required to simply answer my questions. He has now deleted three fair questions and comments from his talk page, so I'm done talking to him... hopefully permanently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the "past experience", to which he refers, goes all the way back to yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am now asking the same reasonable question of other users who I suspect have equal knowledge but a less obstinate attitude. The complaining editor clearly has no idea of what real harassment consists of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IF he is sincere about that, that would solve the problem. We'll see. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he'll stop. That's that then. Grsz^X 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harassment - rather I see attempts at discussion and an attempt by Ward3001 to avoid discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shh, you don't tell reporting editors that they were wrong. Grsz^X 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many cases where the complaining editors are the ones that ended up with indef-blocks. I don't think that's called for here, though. What I'm seeing is a guardianship of the E.T. page that borders on ownership. That's understandable, as I am pretty protective of certain pages also. The difference is that I'm always willing to talk to anyone who raises a question, and I don't try to dictate to them where they can ask those questions, as my talk page does not belong to me any more than an article's talk page does. And when I do ask them to refocus on an article's talk page, I actually continue the discussion there, instead of pushing it there so that I can ignore it and not have to see orange "new message" banners. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, I have simply asked for the discussion to occur on the article's talk page so that the entire Wikipedia community can be aware rather than Baseball Bugs repeatedly sending messages to me. I have expressed opinions on the article's talk page, let's see what others have to say. I just want the discussion confined to that talk page, not mine. I'm not avoiding discussion, I just want it in the right place. Ward3001 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages exist so users can send messages to each other. It's not outside his rights to want to contact you directly. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and he didn't ask, he ordered. I am not in the habit of following orders that aren't rule-based. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a kinder soul both answered my question and found a citation: [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not outside anyone rights to send a message. But when the debate pertains to an article, and the recipient of the messages (again and again and again) requests that the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page, then it becomes harrassment. Note as evidence of the proper venue for discussion that once the issue was moved to the article's talk page, the issue was almost immediately resolved. Baseball Bugs wasn't satisfied with addressing the issue pertaining to the artice (on the article's talk page). He had to repeatedly add comments to a user's talk page, long after the user requested that discussion occur on the article's talk page. His purpose wasn't to discuss the issue; that could have been done very easily on the article's talk page. His purpose was to harrass a user with whom he had a disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "ask", you ordered, despite the lack of any rule or authority to issue such an order. You are the one at fault here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a little perspective on the time frame involved. It was only when Baseball Bugs sent five messages to my talk page ([14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]) after I asked him to take it up on the article's talk page that I insisted that he cease harrassing me. I didn't begin the discussion by insisting on anything. I simply told him that I wished to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. It's quite a stretch to call that ordering him to do something. There was absolutely no reason he needed to send those messages to my talk page except harrassment. He could have taken the issue up on the article's talk page very easily because I had copied our entire discussion there and had informed him of such, but discussing the issue on the article's talk page wouldn't have been enough harrassment for me, would it? And he couldn't even stop at that. He had to throw in a personal attack in one of the edits. And speaking of ordering other editors, he didn't have any compunctions in the least about ordering me to put something on the article's talk page if I moved the discussion there in this edit. And I wish someone would explain how I was trying to "take ownership" of the article based on two edits in which I properly asked for a source. The last time I checked WP:OWN, asking for sources is not assuming ownership. This is not me "taking ownership" or "ordering" or any of the other descriptors that Baseball Bugs conveniently came up with after the fact. Once I moved the issue to the article's talk page, it was pure and simple harrassment. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also find it interesting that Baseball Bugs has had a couple of blocks for ... (take a guess: not simple vandalism, not 3RR, not those thing that don't directly involve other editors ... no he was blocked for) ... harrassing users. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 10 months ago. And it was for something more like actual harassment, not for asking fair questions on a user page despite being ordered not to by someone who thinks the user page is his personal property. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

10 months ago does not make it less of a pattern of behavior. If I am arrested for shoplifting for a third time, how much sympathy will the judge have if I say, "But the first two times were 10 months ago"? And you have utterly failed to explain why you had to ask "fair questions" on my talk page rather than the article's talk page after I moved the discussion there. You ignore that little detail because it's that particular issue that defines your behavior as harrassment. Why did it have to be on my talk page, when you could raise any issue with the whole community on the article's talk page? And, of course, your feeble reply will be that you wanted an answer from me rather than the whole community, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of responding to your questions from the article talk page (and it's my choice whether I want to reply to you despite your ordering me to reply), and placing your questions there might have generated opinions from editors in addition to me. If anyone was assuming ownership it was you, assuming that you owned my talk page (and even owning my editing rights) by harrassing me instead of placing your concerns where they belonged. Ward3001 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but once it was resolved Ward3001 could have just Cc'd the discussion over to the Talk page. I've done similar things in the past when I felt like a particular conversation needed to be visible in another place. No need to make a federal case out of it...

It's funny, when I saw the section header, I was all set to say, "Baseball Bugs can be kind of a dick sometimes, but when he is, he's almost always in the right." hahaha, no offense Bugs. But you weren't even being a dick this time! How disappointing. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I'm accused of something, such as harassment or wikistalking or disruption or edit-warring or of being a general pest or a jerk, I would at least like for the accusation to have some merit to it. I strongly object to lame accusations. Or at least I lamely object. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How exactly does this define as Harassment? ~ Troy (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He saw it as harassment because he ordered me to stop asking him questions on his talk page, which he is under the mistaken impression is his own property, and I ignored his order and continued to ask questions because I actually believed (AGF) that he might answer them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Truly odd ... on Wikipedia we try to discuss and resolve issues on each others Talk pages ... suddenly, the communication pillar of Wikipedia is harassment? Although, it might have been mildly humourous to see Bugs with a 24hr ban ... any post that has "lame", "jerk" and "dick" within a few words of each other deserves some action :-) BMW(drive) 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky. :) Most users are open to reasonable discussion on their own talk pages. Some adopt an ownership attitude and try to manage the behavior of others or to stonewall them. One index for such behavior is User:Tecmobowl, who managed to get everyone mad at him for just such behavior and was eventually indef-blocked. In this case, the user's behavior is nowhere close to that, although I have confidence that with some effort he could at least get into Tecmobowl's neighborhood. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think there have been more comments here after the "resolved" posting than there were before it. So I'll stop commenting now (unless something new and different comes up) and hopefully this "resolved" thread will get archived soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More on Oxford Round Table

Resolved

 – no action needed here, community updated by this notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Referring back to the latest recent discusson about Oxford Round Table, I have created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting report. It seems to be a complex case. An experienced admin should investigate this case. AdjustShift (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU shows yet another highly likely sock. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt template causing h-card info to be displayed on articles

Resolved

 – Fixed..._Gb^T/c 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A change to the template: Template:Infobox SSSI is causing information about the h-card syntax to be displayed on hundreds of articles where the template is used. Examples at Aust Cliff, Banwell Caves, Goblin Combe etc. Note left on Template talk:Infobox SSSI I don't know enough about template syntax to solve this problem. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 10:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rapid response - I don't know why the move you did worked, but it seems to have fixed it.— Rod ^talk 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When the text was moved outside the <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags it was included in the article :) Moving it back within the tags stopped it. It's explained here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

98.192.11.182

98.192.11.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making WP:POINT (and 3RR) edits to Pink Floyd ([19], [20]), despite more than one final warning being issued for this behaviour. POINT evidence includes [21], [22]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way. fish&karate 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is; and were I reporting vandalism, that's what I would have used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are bad, but I would be amazed if an admin working on AIV would handle this.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pigs-on-the-wing that this is/was disruption rather than vandalism. If the British approach is to treat it like a plural, then so be it. And I'm pretty sure it is, an other example (from Monty Python) being that such-and-such a city "have never won the English football cup" (not "has" never won, as we would say in America). Also note that it's the "The Beatles were", not "The Beatles was", no matter which side of the Atlantic you're on. What's with all these bogus "grammar" arguments today? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar-negative bacteria in the water? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got the germ of an idea there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Spend some time watchlisting any British band that are popular in the US, hehe - certainly at least one well-intentioned person a week "corrects" the perceived grammar mistakes in the lead of Iron Maiden. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's not standard American English usage, I could easily argue that it should be, for consistency. "The Beatles" and "Iron Maiden" and "Pink Floyd" are all bands, with multiple members. The British are pluralizing based on that fact rather than on the words used to make up the groups' names. But in sports we take the British approach to some extent: "The New York Yankees are..." and "The Minnesota Wild are..." show consistent usage. But with bands, for some unknown reason, it's not done that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to get a consensus. While 98.192.11.182's edit pattern is definitely disruptive, Andy's assertion that British English should always pluralise collectives ...

Note: This article is written in British English, which treats collective nouns like bands as plurals (that is: Pink Floyd ARE a band). Don't change this

...is plain wrong.

UK English swings both ways according to context (i.e. whether the focus is on the collective as a single entity or as its members). See, for instance, Huddlestone and Pullum - Geoff Pullum is one of the current authorities on English descriptive linguistics). "Pink Floyd are a band" looks pretty weird to me. The statement is about the band as a single collective entity - the thing called "Pink Floyd" - so "Pink Floyd is a band" is preferable. Whatever, putting stealth editorial inside articles as comments is not the way to handle it, nor, I guess, discussing a content issue here. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. So there's still a question of whether Pigs-on-the-wing are right or wrong about this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but is ANI the place for such discussion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I assert that "British English should always pluralise collectives"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry! As you were defending it against 98.192.11.182's changes, I assumed you were the one who added the "Note: This article is written in British English ... etc" to the article. Whoever added it, though, it's bollocks. (I see there's a discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd#Subject/Verb Agreement, but nobody actually seems to be basing their arguments on anything tangible like corpus data or current usage guides - which don't support the "are" version).

As you say, here isn't the place to discuss it - except that it makes a difference if you're reverting on grounds of undoubted correctness or on grounds of disputed opinion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Pink Floyd website, it says "Pink Floyd have received the such-and-such award for their contribution..." Presumably, the writer of that page knows how to refer to his own group. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems commonsense to me. Pink Floyd are a group, groups are made up of more than one person, just as football teams are, so we talk of them in the plural. Here in the UK we would say the group are going on tour, or ,the football team are playing tonight. Jack forbes (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In America, we would say "the Yankees are" but would say "the Yankees team is". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

Not long ago, I complained here that User:Xasha is causing serious disruption and harm to the project, and that I believe meaningful action should be taken against him. Following my report, Xasha was blocked - his eighth block in the last four months. Unfortunately, he is right back to violating his topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

Right after returning from his block, Xasha immediately made several edits violating his topic ban. User:Gutza, an administrator, warned him and Xasha acknowledged receiving the warning. (I should add that he had a "very serious warning" on September 15.) However, since Gutza's warning, Xasha has only increased his edit-warring, every time violating his topic ban: see here, here and here for clear examples.

The implication is clear. Xasha is indeed, as I noted two weeks ago to his displeasure, "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher...He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content", instead disrupting the project time and again. He has proven beyond any doubt (if such doubt ever existed) that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear down others' work and use the project as a battleground. His repeated, brazen violation of his topic ban is galling. Will he be served up yet another "final warning" and continue to be allowed to thumb his nose at the community, or will the curtain finally come down on this charade? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see Biruitorul is trying to remove sources like The American Journal of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law and Charles Upson Clark because they don't support his POV, and since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them, he has to secure a block for me to make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources. Two of the linked pages (Balti and MASSR) are clearly outside the scope of the topic ban, and the inclusion of the addition of the sources mentioned above in History of Moldavia is disputable.Xasha (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block you for a month when I was interrupted by your message on my talkpage - which has enabled me to consider this further. Biruitorul, I think you need to open a request at WP:RfAR regarding this matter and see if the Arbs are willing to consider expanding/broadening the topic ban. While I think that a short block per the existing topic ban is legitimate it does not seem to have the deterring effect, so perhaps it should go back to ArbCom to see if further sanctions are worthwhile. As Xasha would need participate in any discussion I shall not block in this instance - but if another admin feels differently then I have no objection. (Please note that Xasha will request block exemption for his ip - since it is used by other editors. I understand this has been granted before, Xasha can supply the details.)

ps. Xasha, it doesn't matter about the quality of your references - you are violating your topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I never did in fact remove those sources, though of course they're being used to support a fringe POV, which is itself troubling. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You did support the version that excluded them by fixing its grammar. Also, what would be the motivation of two undeniably reputable Western institution and a US Romania-expert to support a POV? (which is no way fringe, just that is opposed by a large part of the often politically controlled Romanian historiography)Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't remove them and that's that. If you must know, a 1944 source may (may) be biased because the US and USSR were still allies, while Sinclair's "bilateral agreement" phrasing completely misses the point that it was done by force. However, that is not the point. What is the point is that you continue to brazenly defy your topic ban in the face of ArbCom consensus - and that is intolerable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I want to say this for the record.) In my opinion Xasha has proven time and again that he's a POV-pushing revert warrior who follows an agenda irrespective to Wikipedia etiquette, rules or policies, and that temporary measures fail to change anything. As such, I would even endorse a ban on this user, since it's obvious to me that nothing works as a deterrent. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which may be the case, but there is an existing ArbCom decision on this matter and if there needs to be a different remedy then it needs to go through that procedure first. However, if there is no desire for this then it is a case of escalating blocks until the topic ban runs out... I have no position in this matter other than to advise the options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unaware of this case here, I broough it over here. Dc76\^talk 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: users can be community banned, even if they've been through, or are going through an ArbCom case. Alternatively, ArbCom can modify the restrictions and/or impose a Committee ban on the user too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources? (isn't this rhetorical?) Is the aversion of those few users to the reputable source-supported perspective introduced by me enough to prevent me from further increasing the quality of Moldova-related Wikipedia articles?Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're only proving you still don't understand that you're under a topic ban, and that you shouldn't have touched those topics no matter what; you're further proving that you cannot follow the rules of this project, regardless of how many warnings and blocks you receive -- after several blocks, under a topic ban, on the administrators' noticeboard, you're still discussing editorial issues and making counter-accusations involving a Romanian cabal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that so far there is consensus for banning this user, since I haven't seen anyone opposing that. I'm not saying this will necessarily remain so, I just want to prevent this from being silently archived; if that happens at this point of the discussion, or before there is any opposition, then I will ban the user myself as per said consensus. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There no such thing. 3 opinionated Romanian users don't make a consensus.Xasha (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. But again, I'm not saying this consensus will necessarily stand until this section is archived, I'm only making sure everybody is aware of what will happen if there is no opposition. This is neither a warning nor a threat, I'm just making sure we all know where we currently stand. And incidentally that's very much in your favor, since an abrupt announcement of this sort is usually followed by rebuttals -- the alternative would have been quietly proceeding to banning you on the same grounds, but without this announcement. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you want to ban an opponent in a content dispute you're involved in based on an essay. Great! Xasha (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great idea, wikilawyering is the best thing you can do at this point! --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting the prospective abuse of administrative powers is just sensible, and warning admins against such thing can't be reasonably construed as wikilawyering.Xasha (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your rationale, aren't we writing on the same page? How exactly is your warning towards admins supposed to work when it's just next to the very announcement of said prospective abuse? Either you're assuming all admins reading the Administrators' noticeboard are plain stupid and need your explicit warning to figure out an abuse announced in plain view, or you're wikilawyering -- I don't see other options (but hey, I'm an admin, what do I know). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Stripping pictures from FA

An IP editor is stripping all the pictures from a featured article.[23][24] I have reason to believe this user is not making a good faith effort to improve the article. Could another administrator please look at this. I am not interested in edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures, and removing them is not vandalism[25] plus I'm pretty sure Image:Serp.png and Image:Baidu-July-2008.png fail NFCC as used in this article. — CharlotteWebb 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's now a discussion starting at Talk:Search engine optimization#images --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to concerns at the article talk page. I suggest continuing the discussion there. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CW: Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures Should be. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yar, find one that doesn't have pictures. Rules are one thing, customs are another. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in a quick search, but I remember seeing an FA nomination for some kind of rat which was rejected primarly because it didn't include a picture of the animal. Although the criteria state that an image isn't necessary, in practice, that doesn't seem to be the case. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd. Sarah 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have been helpful for Jehochman to point out that he has a strong COI on the Search engine optimization article, considering that he is an executive in an SEO firm, and has been involved in a trademark dispute which names the Wikipedia article as part of the suit.[26] In fact, Jehochman probably shouldn't be editing this article at all, let alone accusing others of vandalism. --Elonka 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's COI is fully disclosed at his user space. His work on that article raised it from a spam magnet to FA. He has complied with this website's guidelines and expectations in that regard. Getting back to the original point of the thread, I agree that summary removal of all images from an FA can be described as vandalism. It would be a different matter if images were in violation of non-free use policy or if some were arguably gratuitous. But simply stripping all images out is like deleting whole paragraphs or article sections: we don't do that unless there's good reason. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Jehochman's COI is "fully disclosed" at his user space, as I see nothing there about the trademark dispute, though it is helpful that he disclosed it at the talkpage of the article.[27] However, Durova, as you and I both know, perhaps it might be best if you too were to avoid issuing determinations on this matter, to avoid any complications involving COI? --Elonka 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, these insinuations are off-topic and inappropriate. This thread inquires whether wholesale removal of all images from an article, without edit summary, constitutes blanking vandalism. I agree that it does. And I give that opinion as the contributor of 110 featured pictures on Wikipedia and 25 featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons. Even if one were to accept your assertions at face value, the COI guideline certainly doesn't prevent editors from addressing vandalism. To the best of my knowledge you have done little work on the media side of Wikipedia content, which appears to reflect itself in the tangential nature of these comments. Please take greater care and avoid casting unwarranted aspersions upon the ethics of fellow Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Get a room. Let's focus on the article. — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This smells like a content dispute to me. I think that a much stronger fair use rationale could be offered for those images and that the google one could be replaced with free screenshots within the screenshot (see the 4chan article for an example), but I also think that removing these images without discussion isn't productive. My advice would be to take down the google one for now and make a more compelling rationale for the baidu one (along with modyfiying the article to support the rationale where possible). In general, I would just complete the WP:BRD process for the IP editor, rather than just reverting. I don't think jerechoman's COI is an issue here. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I support improving the illustrations if better alternatives are provided; however, I think the current pictures are better than no pictures.

If this is a bona fide content dispute, ANI isn't the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Interested editors can join the ongoing discussion at Talk:Search engine optimization. Jehochman ^Talk

Well, you could produce a similar results page on your own server using any of various free search engine software or you could just create a sandbox page that looks like real search engine results (but without containing the *cough cough* Google logo or anything else derived from or uncannily resembling Google's content) and take a screen-shot of it. This wouldn't demonstrate search engine optimization any more (or less) than the Google screenshot, but at least it wouldn't be fair use abuse.

Now, let's zoom out a little bit and look at the three images in this article, as objectively as we can. We've got not one but two search engine screenshots, one of which also contains Star Wars content copyrighted by 20th Century Fox/Lucasfilm. Also we have a photo of a dark auditorium but which focuses primarily on the Google logo.

How do any of these help me understand SEO? I don't see anything to indicate that the search results have been manipulated by SEO. (A screenshot of "miserable failure" or "out-of-touch executives" or some other infamous Google-bomb would be different...) Meaningful free images for this article might include example screenshots and diagrams of deceptive <meta> tags, hidden <div>, pay-per-click fraud, etc. and other techniques.

It is in no way vandalism to remove images which don't benefit the article. — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jehochman (talk · contribs) nor Durova (talk · contribs) should be working on the Search engine optimization article. Jehochman should not, because he's involved in a trademark dispute regarding the article, and it appears that he specifically modified the article[28] using a forum post as a source, and then used the Wikipedia article as a source in the trademark dispute.[29] Durova should not be working on the article, because she is an associate of Jehochman's. For example, look at this article she wrote, "SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider", where she even mentions Hochman in the first paragraph. So, yes, let's get the article fixed, but let's be careful that it's done only by uninvolved editors and administrators. --Elonka 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but it is only that. After all, it has been decided that Jossi (talk · contribs) can happily work on Prem Rawat, as his possible COIs have been noted. "Person X should not be working on the article, because she is an associate of person Y, who may have a COI"? Are you serious? How many degrees of separation do you think should apply here? "Person W should not be working on this article, because they once nominated person X for adminship, where person X is an associate of person Y, who may have a COI", ad infinitum? Achromatic (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well at least editors have not been actively deceptive about their involvement in the external dispute (unlike the infamous Nacktverkauf der Lederhosen controversy). If Mr. Hochman wasn't voluntarily using his real name, implying that he had a "COI" would probably be bannable as "outing". Interestingly both he and Durova have written quite a bit about the paradox created by these policies. I'm not overly concerned with his interests other than as the primary author of the article as it currently stands (featured but with three images whose relevance and compliance with policy are... disputed to say the least). Sure, citing oneself is poor form, but it may have been a matter of convenience rather than deliberate evidence manufacture as the edit was made a year and four months before suit was filed. As long as the ascella.net spam dated "Sun, 27 Jul 97 03:09:22" isn't a complete hoax I don't see a problem with mentioning it in the article, regardless of what purpose it serves elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Elonka has recently happily edited articles on products of her company, like HeroEngine, and on her colleagues, like Jennifer MacLean. I think Elonka should leave her personal feelings towards other wikipedians behind her. That way needless wikidramas can be avoided, which serve little or no purpose on this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mathsci. And for the record, I have never edited this article. I did not participate at its FAC and never posted to its talk page until last night. The publication Elonka cites is something I wrote for free as an extension of my Wikipedia volunteer work: I was attempting to deal with the spam problem at its source by educating SEO professionals about our site policies. One would hope that the WMF's most prolific contributor of featured pictures could answer a query about image use without enduring this sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments discourage participation

"Don't you see your damn book you are so fond of is already cited in "References"! Stop re-adding it in "Further Reading"! Some common sense at last!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

The message above was the very first message I received on “talk” after beginning to participate in Wikipedia about a month ago. I've made scholarly contributions to several topics, all with appropriate references. The comment above was apparently in response to my restating a single scholarly reference in the "Further Reading" part of the "Law" page after someone unknown deleted it.

This person has apparently adopted an overly proprietary attitude towards said page, and considers it his/her property. "Further Reading" on that page consists of three sources unrelated to the one I placed there, and apparently is considered the private bookshelf of this individual. "References" on this topic consists of over 100 sources, which anyone seeking additional reading is unlikely to page through.

If this verbal abuse is typical of the kind of behavior and comments one can expect from Wikipdeia, I can spend my time on something else. I've published numerous articles in other printed encyclopedias, and can do that instead. Even editors need to have some respect for fundamental human dignity of other persons--all persons.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that some of the comments of Yannismarou (talk · contribs) at the Law article do appear to be a bit excessive.[30][31] Generally as soon as one is putting exclamation points into edit summaries, it may be time to take a break. --Elonka 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a WP:Civil issue there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If editors kept reverting each other well past 3RR, but were extremely polite in their edit messages, would that qualify as a Civil Edit War? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, guys?!!!! Are you serious?!!!!! What nonsense is this?!

This guy is obsessed with a damn book, and he insists in mentioning and referencing it, even if this book adds nothing to the article! This is his sentence: "Law must be viewed not as a body of static rules but as "a dynamic process by which rules are constantly changed, created, and molded to fit particular situations."" Why is this so necessary for the "Institutions" section?! Clearly needless IMO!

I rt him, telling that this book adds nothing to the article. But he insisted! I respected that, and I accepted the book, and the one sentence Mervyn added, although I still believe that this sentence is not a + for the article.

Since this book is now used as a source and it is cited (something I disagree with), I removed it from "Further Reading", and I moved it under "References". This is its proper place. To my surprise, and while I was trying to save this article from losing its star, I saw that Mervyn came back, and re-added this book to Further Reading, where it has no place.

Reading his thread here, I still see that he hasn't yet understood how a quality article works: A cited book is cited under "References"; not under "Further Reading". Now, if Mervyn cannot realize these simple things or if he cites in this erratic way sources in his other articles, it is not my problem. I do have the right to get angry, when I see absurd edits, and I do have the right to get angry with editors like him who IMO harm the article with their needless additions instead of helping it get better.

I also regard this ""Further Reading" on that page consists of three sources unrelated to the one I placed there, and apparently is considered the private bookshelf of this individual" as offensive, and I ask Mervyn to take it back, and apologize. Otherwise, I have the right to argue that he pursues a personal agenda, since his only contribution to the article is one sentence, and a quote from a particular book he seems so fond of.

This is my opinion about his edits and him, and I have the right both to express it and protect what I regard as a quality article. I do have the right to get ironic, and sarcastic, because there is no rule preventing me from expressing myself like that, if I remain civil, and I do remain civil, because I characterized a damn book "damn", and not an editor. But I have never been uncivil towards this editor and I thus regard this warning as a personal offense, which should be immediately reversed.

Finally, I feel sorry about Elonka's advice that I "should take a break". It indicates a complete lack of judgment (something I am not surprised of), respect and esteem for all the extensive work I've done in this article during the last two months. Taking a break, and letting the article lose its star is in her opinion the best option. OK, then! I am out of the article, if you don't want me there. Save it yourselves! I'll let anybody in the FARC know of your orders that I'll now follow. What a pity, by the way, what a pity ... --Yannismarou (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: you don't have the right to get angry, or to be incivil, no matter what you think of other editors - if it isn't polite, don't share it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have the right to get angry if I keep my anger within the Civility requirements.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou, no one is agreeing with you. Every single person who is commenting here, says that your comments were uncivil. Please take a step back and reconsider your actions here. Especially as you are an administrator, it is essential that you set a good example of behavior, since other editors look to administrators as rolemodels. So please, think about what is needed to de-escalate this situation. --Elonka 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I had no idea Yannismarou was an administrator. I agree with Elonka in the statement above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nishkid64

Am I missing something, or are abusive IPs edits repeatedly getting past the indefinite semiprotection that appears to have been applied and reapplied to this article several times without apparent effect? -- The Anome (talk)

It appears that the prior protections had been 24 hours each and eventually expired. The newest protection added today shows "indefinite", so that shouldn't happen again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, talk pages aren't generally supposed to be protected long term (it may be the only way for an IP address editor to contact the user), but in cases where repeated vandalism occurs after the unprotection fades, it may be wise to either increase the time its semi protected or to indef semi-protect it and wait it out till the vandals lose interest. SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot to read the expiration dates. -- The Anome (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to happen quite a lot: the semi expires, but the page doesn't de-tag. HalfShadow 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Resolved

Against Barack Obama here by 74.167.102.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It's a static IP. I've blocked the user. Can someone else follow up with law enforcement please? I have a RL commitment that I need to attend to or would do it myself. https://tips.fbi.gov/ would be where would start - I've had quick response on issues like this in the past from that site - they've called back within minutes. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I second this request - we should not take these kinds of threats lightly. Tvoz/talk 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've contacted them via the link Todd has provided with the url of the diff. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did the same thing now that I'm back. Thanks Eric. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service just called. Couldn't access the diff. It's kind of scary to think that the people guarding our leader can't pull up a web page. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← Did we provide the IP address and any other information that a checkuser can find? Tvoz/talk 06:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IP address and time is all they need. Yes, they have that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that this is the type of publicity wikipedia doesn't need. However, if someone actually gets nailed for this, such publicity might (I only say might) discourage future threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Segregator236 (talk · contribs)

I'm moving my complaint from WP:WQA, where I was referred to by an admin.

This user is having repeated problems with using non-verifiable sources and not using sources in general. Looking at the user's contributions, he mostly edits articles about Chinese military hardware, and often mis-cites. This user also adds information that is not backed up by reliable sources. Also fails to properly use edit summaries, or when making potentially controversial edits, seeks consensus. Has already been given a edit warring warning [32] , and was warned by a administrator [33] about the issue. He has also been warned plenty of times in the past about using non-verifiable sources or non-sourced edits [34] [35] [36].

It appears that friendly warnings are having minimal effect on him; it was only a threat of a banning by a administrator regarding a specific page has actually made him stop on that specific page. This user needs further scrutiny and perhaps a warning with way more teeth. Either the user fails to understand Wikipedia policies, or requires extra help (which has not been asked by the user, but has been provided with the resources, such as the policies regarding reliable sources to correct such behaviour in the past). ThePointblank (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a one-day block. He stopped immediately after your warning and then continued again hours later. The lack of discussion at all is what got him. He needs to learn to respond to other people, not just sit by and do the same things again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Geniusdream

Geniusdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long line of image violations, with a final warning from Bearian three days ago, even though I'm not 100% sure the final warning is an image final warning: this editor seems to be a problem in multiple arenas. Today, he's been uploading copyright violations and overwriting a free image with multiple copyrighted images [37], [38][39].—Kww(talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning specially stating it's for image violations. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at Khan Noonien Singh

User:David_Fuchs has apparently taken ownership of the article in violation of WP:OWN. He and User:Juliancolton claim there is consensus to ignore validly sourced references from Star Trek: Enterprise, but the article talk page shows no discussion, much less consensus. Mr. Fuchs so far has taken an apparent attitude to the effect of "I'm an admin, you can't stop me, and you're a troll for opposing me." Please, objective admins look at this and prevent this abuse. Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Where shall we begin. The Star Trek: Enterprise addition is in my opinion not worth going into detail as it barely references the subject of the article; the content would be much better served in the referenced episode. Davidkevin has edit-warred to reinstate his revision, violating WP:3RR.[40] My past experiences with this user haven't been so great, with him continually adding unverifiable information to an article against WP:NOR and WP:RS, and then calling a level-headed editor who did a better job than me of explaining the issue my "crony". [41] I'd be happy to take up the editorial issue on the article's talk page, and see no reason this should be here. That is all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A.) I'm not edit-warring, as having hit the limit of changes (there's only one of me compared to the two of you to over-ride any article changes I make) I'm bringing it here as a first step in informal arbitration.

B.) Your pal called me a psychopath in his first sentence, so that's hardly "level-headed" on his part.

C.) If you actually had taken it up on the article talk page, as you have falsely claimed you have, and actually reached consensus, as you falsely claimed you had, and didn't challenge every difference of opinion with an attack and a chip-on-your-shoulder dare to oppose the Mighty You, I'd have no basis for a complaint for abuse of authority. Yet here we are.

I await an actual discussion of the issue either here or on the article's talk page. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started that discussion at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh. If everyone can agree to stop the edit war, this can be settled without bothering other admins further. Davidkevin hasn't violated 3RR yet, and David Fuchs is correct that the discussion of this belongs on the article's talk page, not AN/I. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Something ain't right here.

Special:Contributions/Marshall_Williams2

1. 15:56, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Sexual vanilla ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
2. 15:55, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Girly1024 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
3. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussy wetter ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
4. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker5 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 15:53, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussyboy ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
6. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
7. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly)

This is obviously a kid, uploading blurry pictures of stuff around his house, making rather useless contributions to articles, spamming user talk pages, and using welcome templates on series of sexually themed usernames who last edited months ago. If we AGF, this is where an experienced user should channel this persons energy into being useful. If we don't AGF, this is a waste of a lot of peoples time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm more concern about this incomplete prod of his. His work in mainspace is not that helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On another, unrelated note, shouldn't four and possibly five of those users be blocked for violating the username policy? None of them are, as far as I can see...Gladys J Cortez 07:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Crap. Nevermind. I has the dumb. (Aaaand--forgot to sign. I am going to sleep now before I make a further ass of myself in public.) Gladys J Cortez 07:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah, another overzealous kid. It's clear from his edits that he's in middle school, and while this gave me a bit of a chuckle (It's really not.), and he does make some decent edits, he should be told that WP isn't primarily for socializing. IFD all his images, and maybe take away access to automated tools so that it's not easy for him to try to delete Barack Obama and Stain. GlassCobra 07:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If this person continues to disrupt the community then they should be blocked. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And we need more pictures of dishwasher baskets on this site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know he was from San Jose ... he has a picture of the HP Pavillion on his userpage ... BMW(drive) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like telegraphing your whereabouts. Presumably he'll have the good sense not to list his parents' address and phone number on his user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since I already know what their truck and dishwasher basket look like...--Smashville^talk 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There can't be all that many red Ford trucks in San Jose, right? At least the photo did not include (1) the license plate and (2) the photographer's reflection. I could go there myself to investigate, but I don't know the way to San Jose. I may go wrong and lose my way. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the way to use ebay, though...does that count? --Smashville^talk 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wonder if I could get a red Ford pickup on eBay? I could make it a bundle of contradictions, with a gunrack in the back and a rebel flag license plate in front, and peace symbols and rainbow stickers everywhere. The perfect vehicle for any "California Redneck". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Or the average Eagles fan. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Note: I hope the humour in my HP Pavillion comment didn't go to far over anyone's head. It was a picture of an HP Pavillion computer, and not the HP Pavillion where the San Jose Sharks play ... :P BMW(drive) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here's your red pickup on eBay[42] BMW(drive) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Thanks fer the tip! Now all I gotta do is see if they'll take a personal check. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your check has to be delivered in a dishwasher basket. --Smashville^talk 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA vandalism

Some extra eyes on the current TFA: USS New Jersey (BB-62) would be appreciated. The Coordinators of the MILHIST project have received information that the article is currently under an coordinated attack from 4chan. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected for an hour 17 minutes ago by John Reaves. Hopefully that will give them enough time to grow a brain. 211.30.16.21 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be optimistic. This is 4chan we're talking about, remember? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are they all being reverted to one revision? If so, delete that revision and all revisions using it after the time on the MP is up - Experience has taught me that doing so takes some wind out of a 4chan attack's sails. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. We can always re-protect it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lose interest then.Geni 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho dictatorial editing

• Two editors Jalal & Jayen466 are resisting the inclusion of material in the lede section of the Osho article.
• Discussion had led to a condition of lede stability that lasted a number of weeks. User Jayen466 then made this change [43].
• Semitransgenic reverted to this [44] and requested, via the edit comment, that any such changes be discussed on the talk page first.
• This led to the following revert [45] by Jalal and the following comment [46].
• Jalal claims that concensus for his reversion was arrived at and is citing the following as support [47] [48] [49]
• Semitransgenic again reverted to this [50]
• Jayen466 reverted to [51] and left the following statment saying I prefer the shorter version
• The users are forcing a WP:3RR stand off to desuade change, and have not reached concensus.
• An informal review relating to GA approval by Vassayana, on the 14th of August 2008, mentions that the lede is a bit too long and this is being cited as justification for excising from the lede material that is viewed as negative by both Jalal & Jayen466; despite the fact that efforts were made to address a wider range of sources and establish evidence of differing opinion: [52] [53].

This is simply one incident of many relating to a pattern of WP:TE by Jalal & Jayen466, but that's another issue, generally an attempt to hammer out a compromise takes place, but the users in question display WP:OWN particularly user Jayen466; making the inclusion of material that threatens the Osho follower endorsed official version difficult. Please note that Lewis F. Carter's, Cambridge University Press publication (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram, widely regarded as the most authoritative survey of the Osho Rajneesh movement, points out that Rajneesh representatives are consummate "histroical revisionists" and now deny that many of the events recorded here [his work] ever happened. Both factual events and interpretations of these are still disputed, even where evidence is overwhelming (p 118).Semitransgenic (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute. I had forgotten about that guy. Oregon has a reputation for being tolerant of all types of loonies, but this guy's crowd pushed the state's tolerance level pretty far. Have you tried talking to the other editors directly, about the most recent disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found that talking to the two in question is often futile, when there is a difference of opinion about content, and it's a 2:1 scenario, hence this post. The lengths that need to be taken to make the smallest contributions are tiring, see the source reviews I provided as an example. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• First, from the header of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution." This is a content dispute; Vassyana (talk · contribs) pointed out in his informal review that the lede needed "some trimming"; the previous GA review likewise commented on the lede being a bit long.

• Now, given that the last sentence of the second lede paragraph clearly states that there were problems with the government and the surrounding society, the addition to the 3rd para advocated by Semitransgenic (and no one else) does not add value and only makes the lede even longer than it already was.

• As for "dictatorial attitude": this accusation is part of a periodically recurring pattern of WP:NPA, WP:Civility and WP:AGF infractions by Semitransgenic (talk · contribs): [54] [55] [56] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#No_personal_attacks User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#How_about_some_mediation_and_general_cooling-off.3F Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive483#Editing_dispute_on_the_Noise_music_page [57] [58] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#RFC.

• I am sorry, Semi, but at the moment it just seems like every time you do not get your way, even over the slightest thing, it becomes a huge personal issue. This is not what Wikipedia is about. You have contributed much to the article, but so have I and others. Jayen466 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not a personal issue at all Jayen, simply a matter of dealing with the facts, some of which you are not comfortable with. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen if you really need to air my dirty laundry please keep the comments in context, cheers full comment Semitransgenic (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues have been hashed out in great detail on other parts of Wikipedia, so I won't repeat them here, except to mention that there is also a lot similar to-and-fro'ing from January 2008. For anyone with the time to search through the histories it is there. I will however add my opinion that I find Semitransgenic dictatorial and bullying and difficult to work with. It is up to him as to whether he wants to look at that. It is not only editors on the Osho article that have had this experience, so it is not just the subject matter that is controversial and disturbing to him.

As the Osho article stands, it is to all intents frozen as edits cannot be made without some sort of approval from Semitransgenic. This is the same situation as arose in January. The article had to be locked and administrators called in.

On the plus side, Semitransgenic has provided a lot of useful input and a certain balance to the article. His input is usually good, it's his attitude that is a little difficult. jalal (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote jalal on this: "As you are aware, that is a sword that cuts both ways." Semitransgenic (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which this board does not deal with. Please pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:3O or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If editors need a break to be able to sort out a DR process, we could protect the article for say 7 days to afford them some space and time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Jayen466 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mmmovie - userpage issues

User:Mmmovie, who has previously self-identified as Mark Bellinghaus, has added a userbox to his user page which is a misguided attempt to out me. I am not the person named. This is a slightly edited version of a userbox I have on my user page because of an off-wiki campaign by Bellinghaus to connect my account with a variety of unrelated persons following my nomination of his biography for deletion. Bellinghaus also refers to another of his off-wiki targets as a "crook". I would contact the user directly, but I believe that would only escalate things. Can someone please take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

True or not, attempting to out another user is beyond unacceptable. Indefblocked. Blueboy96 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Outing userbox ... is oversight required? BMW(drive) 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard-deleting all alleged personal references, true or not, would also seem to be called for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think oversighting is necessary (since the allegation has already been made in several places off-wiki), but I'm not the person identified by Bellinghaus, so I'm not sure it's my call. Thanks for the quick action on this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The name cited has a familiar ring to it, but I can't place it. I wonder if it's the real name of another user here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the off-wiki accusations, that person did create an account here in order to contact me. I don't believe they are currently active, and the username is very different. You may have seen the name on my user page, where I have a userbox stating that I am not them so that they are not held responsible for my actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like oversighting occurred. BMW(drive) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kermanshahi / -The Bold Guy- / Last king of Frisia

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi and -

• Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• -The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently blocked Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs) for vandalism and he responded with an odd comment. Not sure what should be done about these or if someone else is more familiar with this. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange, never saw that before! Bearian (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamang

The issue posted the other day about Tamang still stands - Archived without resolution in 483. User did change IPs. No apparent action was taken - We're now up to 6 reverts of the most blatant copyvio I've ever seen turn into a consistent issue. Can I please get someone to do something to prevent recurrence? Would semi-protection be out of the question? Would a block be effective? Not sure which to ask for, but some action must be taken. We should treat copyvios as something worse than vandalism if we want to maintain the appearance of good-faith in the face of legal threats. MrZaius^talk 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block will work as the IP keeps rotating. Given the increasing desire to post the copyright, I'll try a week-long semi and let's see if they stop. If more people could watch the article, that would help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by RonCram

RonCram (talk · contribs) has repeated several legal threats against Wikimedia and against the editors involved. The issue arose over his attempt to use Worldnetdaily as source for fringe claims in a WP:BLP. In response to consensus that Worldnetdaily could not be considered a reliable source for these claims he said "If the official position of Wikipedia is that WorldNetDaily is not RS, I will notify Joe Farah immediately. I don't know for certain but it would not surprise me if he chose to pursue legal action." [59] Following that statement, he was warned [60] about making legal threats. However he continued and escalated these threats: [61] [62] [63] [64] And this very specific threat: [65]

He seems to think that because he's not saying he will sue, rather he'll inform the owners of that website who will then sue, that he is off the hook for legal threats. My understanding is that this is not true. I know, of course, that his legal threats are ridiculous, but the worry is that it will have a chilling effect on other, less experienced, editors who are questioning his edits. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need to have a "bring it on" attitude and ignore such threats? If some Admins here declare that whatever Ron plans to do in his life outside of wikipedia is irrelevant and then post a link on the talk page to this decision then it seems to me that the matter would be settled. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Strikes me that his statements rather blatantly violate WP:NLT/WP:NPLT, if not in the wording of the policy, than certainly in the spirit thereof- NLT exists (at least in part) to prevent the very chilling effects that Loonymonkey speaks of from occurring, and threats to instigate another party to taking legal action shouldn't be treated any differently than direct legal threats. And in response to Count Iblis, we shouldn't overlook legal threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(font reduced to clarify RomCram isn't new) I'm against blocking relatively new accounts that don't know any better for making legal threats, but I'm in favor of blocking accounts of editors who have been here long enough to know better and who are repeatedly using legal threats as a bludgeon to get their way. Now, RonCram's legal threat is particularly silly, and I don't think any of the people he's arguing with are dumb enough to feel threatened, so I won't block him myself for the threats already made and listed above (although I won't raise a hand in his defense if someone else blocks him), but I will block him the next time he does something similar. On my way to his talk page now to say so, assuming someone else hasn't already blocked... --barneca (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec again)Actually, ignore my mention of WP:DOLT, I misquoted it here. My meaning was that we shouldn't just ignore the situation as it's primarily off-wiki. Ron can go ahead and inform whomever he pleases of whatever he pleases, but using the threat of causing a disruption of Wikipedia in order to gain the advantage in a dispute isn't really a "best practice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that he made these threats after he was template-warned about legal threats, so he can't really plead ignorance. Also, RonCram has been around since 2005 and has made thousands of edits, so it isn't really accurate to call it a "relatively new account." This is an experienced editor. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also posted on RonCram's talk page. Essentially I agree with barneca; no amount of wikilawyering is going to justify a continuation of this behaviour. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I may have been unclear. I don't think he's new, I was saying I think we block new accounts making legal threats too quickly, but he's not new, so even if this is skirting the letter of NLT, I'd be fine blocking him if he does it again, because he's not new and he knows better. Both SheffieldSteel and I have left notes on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a case where it's more important to pay attention to the intent of the policy rather than the letter of the policy.

All that aside though; I have a question of the ref being discussed. Where did that discussion take place? Was the concensus in regard to that specific article, or in regard to it being used as a source on all of Wikipedia? The reason I ask, is that it appears that the site is currently used as a ref or well over 1,000 articles ... so if concensus is that it should not be used as a WP:RS on all of Wikipedia, then we have a lot of cleanup to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That link is grabbing instances of that link on all namespaces, not just article namespace. While there are some cases where it's being used (Christian Exodus for example), a lot of those are in the Talk namespace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I did a quick scan, out of the first 100, only about 45 or so are in the article namespace. Using that as a means to estimate and rounding down, that still leaves over 400 articles that need to be evaluated and possibly cleaned up if the site should not be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good estimate; 507 links on 413 articles from the first 1000 entries on the ListSearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which statement we're talking about here - the editor has proposed so many, which as I recall tend to be fringe-y blogosphere style conspiracy theories and random criticisms. We also have many issues beyond legal threats. I know the editor was promoting a theory in two articles that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, and crying censorship, bullying, etc. at all attempts to close or consolidate the discussions. If Worldnet's articles are suspect it might not be a bad idea to do a spot check on the reliability of citations. It would be hard to make a statement that applies throughout Wikipedia based on the Obama article. Verifiability of hyper-notable political matters probably works a little differently than routine article editing. We often ask for more than one source, or a consensus among sources, on the theory that a lone source however reliable might have it wrong and may not satisfy weight concerns. If a guest writer writes a blurb about a furniture factory in a small town weekly newspaper in Ohio that is a reliable source, but we need better sourcing than the writer if the claim is that there is some truth after all to the rumor that Obama has a terrorist for a ghostwriter (or that he's Muslim, Arab, not born in America, the Messiah according to Farrakhan, participates in voter fraud, or any of the other comparable proposals that have come up in the past dayd). Certain publishers and authors may tend to be more reliable than others, but in the end sourcing is a case-by-case question of whether the specific work in question is reliable to verify the specific statement it purportedly supports in a given article. But in general blogs, highly partisan news organizations, small circulation papers, and opinion/editorial/commentary pieces (whether presented as such or as news) are poor sources for controversial factual claims about politicians in current elections. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a standard application of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted for blocking for mis-stating the law, thus illegally practicing law. Corporations can not be defamed under NY law, common law, or Florida law. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of the no legal threats policy isn't really about legal threats - it's about the use of coercive tactics to intimidate other contributors - basing an argument on instilling fear, rather than on its own merits. This is the essence of Roncram's actions. However, I don't believe it necessarily requires a block, as it's clear that nobody involved is actually frightened by the action - I think a stern reprimand would be fine. Dcoetzee 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp, disruptive editor

Andycjp is a disruptive editor who refuses to abide by policies, guidelines and the intentions thereof. To criticism and advice s/he responds flippantly, aggressively ("Who do you think you are to be my judge and jury?", response to Ward2001 on 7 June 2008 ) or somewhat apologetically, while most of the negative behavior continues. The editor is extremely active, but very seldom on Talk pages.

The one behavior problem which apparently was solved in about February this year was the habit of marking virtually all edits as minor, though it was complained about again in June: diff and diff . I think that the "sarcastic edit summaries" complained about also have stopped. Perhaps actual "edit warring", too, after this: blocked - 24h - edit warring. Some edits are definitely justifiable and valuable.

One type of complaint I have not studied, as I don’t see it as the major issue here. (Others may chime in.) This involves pov religious edits and marking anything about evolution as npov, such as this diff in June. This recent edit may also be an example.

There are several types of disruptive editing here. Comments at Andycjp’s talk page show that the same types of problems have come up again and again throughout 2008:

• From January on (and on and on): creating wikilinks which "did not add content or meaning" and/or bluelinking just a part of a previous redlink, making the link totally meaningless. This continues. See, for example, the very recent edit to Barbara Mujica where the redlink Trailblazers Award was changed to Trailblazers Award, a totally uninteresting blue link in the context, see diff. Another recent (yesterday) example is here.

The editor has repeatedly been warned, with careful explanations, about the wikilinking "errors", for example here. In July, an admin warned: "Andy, some of your recent additions and removals of links seem to me to be perverse." Another typical example from July is in this edit.

• Another disruptive and damaging type of edit is removing the tag from statements of fact which still need a source/reference. This is typically done by removing a few non-essential words from a sentence, removing the tag at the same time. See: diff and diff from today. I have explained the problem with exactly these two edits on Andycjp’s today Talk page here (and promptly received a flippant reply).

This editor’s unwillingness to follow Wikipedia’s policy has been briefly discussed here at incident noticeboard before, and that conversation continued on a talk page, where Andycjp actually change the title of the section from Andycjp ignoring policy (cont’d) to just Andycjp, here.

It may be unwise to speculate about this editor’s motives, but s/he has offered one explanation/justification: here: "My theory with red links is that although they have the potential to create new articles, in practise they are often left uncared for, looking messy. [...] ... I can`t help feeling that a good blue link leading somewhere is on the whole better than a red link leading nowhere unless the red is of vital importance. I mean, wikipedia is enormous already, when are we going to stop? I guess it goes back to how finished WP ought to look."

In my opinion it is essential for the good of the encyclopedia that this editor be stopped, whether by mentoring, banning or whatever works. Repeated explanations have been tried and do not work.

I will inform several earlier involved editors as well as Andycjp about this report.

Hordaland (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his continued ignorance of WP:RED, whether deliberate or unintentional, is disturbing. He's had it explained to him as early as 11 July, but has continued the behavior until even yesterday today. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I don't know the ins and outs. My report stands. I'd been told to put it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism [66], but put it here by mistake. Now at AdminIntervention, they tell me it should have been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I am not going to put it a third place, so I'll remove the strike-out and leave it here. Sorry about the confusion. Hope in any case that the problem gets solved, as the unconstructive edits continue at a terrific pace. --Hordaland (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

There is a vigorous content dispute happening at Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure what the appropriate response is though, but perhaps another admin would like to do something? —EncMstr (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried already, without much success. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Those two again? (See WP:WQA) This may need an admin to press the "bang their heads together" button. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Button pressed x 2. The article history is a major train wreck and, hopefully, a little time off will get those two to quit. —Travis^talk 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More Stephen Colbert

So it looks like Colbert is encouraging editing of the Bill O'Reilly "Papa Bear" article; he said he added that the host was a nobel prise winner, among other things. Can we have a unit go check on this please? JBackus13 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Was taken care of when it first aired last night. Grsz^X 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)