Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Please ask your admin friend to stop his personal attacks

Resolved

 – Move along, this seems to have played itself out. seicer has indicated what will happen. If things continue to happen, pls feel free to raise complaints in the appropriate venue.

// roux   04:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Having had several bad experiences on Wikipedia, I semi-retired. Apparently, I must now be brought out of retirement because of personal attacks made by SheffieldSteel on my user page, and on my user talk page. I simply cannot understand, why this person is being so vindictive and keeps set on bothering me, even when I have cut Wiki-time down to a minimum. --Law Lord (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect… Are you saying "Why the people on Wikipedia suck […] The ignorance of people is just amazing but the fact that people think they can decide something without any knowledge of the matter is just very offending. The page is just an exampe of the kind of people Wikipedia is filled with." isn't any kind of attack? – iridescent 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I smell a Plaxicoing. --Smashville^talk 03:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, rather I am saying that: "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners", is not a personal attack but rather an explanation and stand-alone statement made on my user page in regards to why I am "semi-retired". Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, saying that Wikipedian editors are ignorant and that we suck is a personal attack. VX!^~~~ 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, that is not really the subject at hand here. That statement was removed (by me) on 5 November 2008 20:15, without anyone asking me to. Thanks --Law Lord (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's real hard for us to take this seriously when you haven't provided any diffs at all showing that Sheffield has been attacking you. Have you even notified him of this thread? l'aquatique || talk 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My current user page is what SheffieldSteel considers a personal attack against him. I have not notified him of this thread, because I am banned from posting on his talk page. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Law Lord is not referring to the comment from June of 2008 pointed out by Iridescent. He is referring to the comments on his user talkpage which is the topic at hand here. I for one wouldn't consider that a personal attack which he is being accused of by the admin on his talkpage. The user didn't get personal with the admin SheffieldSteel, but merely wrote 'administrators.' Unsure of why SheffieldSteel is regarding the remark on his userpage as a personal attack when his name wasn't brought up. You will note the admin accuses LawLord of personally attacking him about that on his user talkpage here [1] which may have sparked LawLord's frustration at him. Cheers dude (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am referring to. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem Law Lord! Oh and ---> Cheers dude (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody should feel free to explain why user JzG thinks it is acceptable to edit my user page without having participated in the discussion neither here nor on my talk page. Thanks. My comments here and here. --Law Lord (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, he did actually "participate" on my talk page [2]. I am not impressed with said user, and this incident remains. --Law Lord (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks against you on your Talk page. As for the edits to your User page, see WP:OWN. Edit-warring to keep that message on your User page seems rather pointless and a drama-magnet. I suggest deleting it and letting it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do admins, as a group, have such thin skins that one should not dare to criticize them on user pages? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So it would certainly seem. --Law Lord (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's supposed to be wrong with this message. Seems pretty tame to me. --Conti|✉ 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this intimation is the issue at hand. Also, anyone is allowed to edit any page on Wikipedia, except for the MediaWiki space (but that is a security and technical issue). There are simply some people who wish that their user pages are not edited. While it may appear to be a stretch now to say that Law Lord is saying that SheffieldSteel has no manners with that message, I don't see the purpose of this message put on his user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, and the rather obvious trolling on my talk page, I'm not willing to AGF on this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not trolled; but I certainly find it interesting that you freely reveal that my posting on your talk page should in any way influence that matter at hand. --Law Lord (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It shows a pattern. It's "free speech" for you, but it's bad for Sheffield to speak his mind. Also, the rather clear flamebait comment of America being a "rogue state," when the EU document is only different in semantics. If you really wanted to avoid drama, you'd simply remove the message and let it drop. Hence, trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to remove a statement made on my user page, when it complies with policy. I am not going to take the bait and call other editors/admins trolls. Admins do not dictate, what a user page can say. There is not personal attack. I am not removing anything. Please note, that several regular users in this thread, have pointed out the obvious: there is not personal attack, hence nothing to move. It my displease user HandThatFeeds, and so what? --Law Lord (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking verbal shots at other wikipedia editors, even if not specifically named, is not compliant with policy. It's a comment whose sole purpose is disruption. It has nothing to do with furthering the work at wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't "displease" me at all, nor did I say so. However, you seem determined to win, which belies your claim that you wish to avoid drama. Simply put: is it so important for you to have this statement on your page that you're willing to drag this out on ANI for however long it takes to "win" the debate? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't one say exactly the same thing about those people who are determined to force the removal of that statement? It applies more to them, actually, since they're playing the dirty pool of using the fiat of their admin powers to force the end of the debate on their terms. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dirty pool?" "Admin fiat?" Seriously? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia. Given the context of this incident, I feel that the snipe is uncalled for and will be removed. Further instances of insertion will result in the userpage being protected for a duration. seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not quite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The original complainant, having failed to make his point here, is now forum-shopping all over the place. 06:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an unfair characterisation. He has initiated an RFC/U to find consensus on the actions taken. I don't think it's wise, I doubt it'll go the way he hopes it does, and I think it'll just create more drama, but I'm not sure it's totally unreasonable to go that route. // roux   06:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's that link btw: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord... l'aquatique |✡| talk 06:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done that myself, although it was reachable in the userlinks. Notice how he solicited input from a number of users, yet failed to notify those who disagreed with him, that he was posting an RFC. Actually, he had a chance at this if he had focused on what specific issues he has with what specific admins. Once he posted that pointy comment on his page and then took that specific thing to RFC, he lost the AGF high ground. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The way he started the RFC could have stood improvement, but the admins involved have hardly distinguished themselves with exemplary behavior either, instead acting in a "We're the law around here, what we say goes, and we won't take any lip from you, so just sit down and shut up!" way. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. That is why we have different layers of dispute resolution. Otherwise, we should make the closing of a thread by a single admin at this board the final answer. That would be ridiculous. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Things done at this board are often not final even when they should be. And vice versa. WP is imperfect. And yet... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The complainant came here with the complaint that his sniping comment had been removed. Its presence was a violation of several policies, so its removal, especially from a user claiming to be "retiring", was appropriate. What's missing in this discussion (unless someone can show me some diffs and straighten me out) is the context of that comment. Near as I can tell, the user simply lost a content dispute and got mad over it, and thus fired that shot across the wikipedia bow. That's hardly appropriate behavior from an experienced wikipedian. If he's got a problem with an admin or any editor, he should follow appropriate channels. He didn't. Instead, he posted that childish comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would be superfluous of me to state that I strongly disagree with your presentation of events. Your presentation of events appears as pure fiction to me. As for any remarks made being "childish" or "sniping", you will note, that I have initiated a RFC to let the community review that. --Law Lord (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help your case if you could cite some diffs illustrating issues that led to your posting of that comment originally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that would rather help your case, since your false claim is that my comment was directed at any particular administrator(s). Which it was not. --Law Lord (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any case. It's you that has a case. Which you're winning, having canvassed a bunch of folks you expected to agree. But if that comment is not aimed at any particular administrators, and was not triggered by any particular incidents, then where did it come from? Are you now saying you don't have any issues with any administrators? If not, then what point are you trying to make with that comment? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, if nobody had taken offence with the remark, nobody had known anything about this and nobody had gotten an unfavourable impression of the admins involved. For me, this episode proves exactly what law Lord was claiming, and I am entitled to have that opinion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. The comment was a pot-shot at admins. What triggered the comment??? Where did it come from? Out of thin air? No, it had to have come from an issue with an admin. But now he has to deny that he has any issues with any admins, or else the personal-attack aspect of it will be revealed. Maybe I should post on my user page, "Some editors and/or admins are idiots", and using the newly-formulated Law Lord Policy, it should be able to stand, because it's not talking about anyone in particular. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not missing the point. I am one of the many admins here, and I cannot care less that someone feels that I am an idiot. Even if they would call my name with it. It takes someone who feels offended before it becomes an issue. So, where does it come from? I quite frankly don't care. There are 1000+ admins, and some are nicer than other, and I can see that if you have a few to many incidences whether or not that you are part of it, that you can get the feeling that you better leave for the reason he mentioned. The fact that some people make a huge deal of this is what created the drama, not the original statement of someone who was mostly gone and maybe never ever would have returned. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He was engaged in a dispute with SheffieldSteel just prior, so it's pretty obvious that's where the inspiriation for his userpage comments came from. Admittedly, his userpage statement is tamer than his statement directly to Steel that he is "biased and unfit to be an admin." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To say he was "someone who was mostly gone and maybe never ever would have returned" is highly unlikely. Otherwise, how would he have known it was removed? Did he have an alarm bell of some kind attached to it? I don't think so. What's more likely is that he posted that comment as a "trap", checking back to see if or when someone would remove it, so that he could make as much drama as possible out of it. Which he did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been following this discussion I would like to say that unfortunately Baseball Bugss interpretation of the situation is probably not that far off. On Danish wikipedia Law Lord managed to create quite a stir with similar behavior involving among other things countless threats of legal action from him. It was not until a long and weary process that he was finally indef banned quite to the benefit of the Danish wikipedia as most of the active users suddenly had more time to edit articles instead of engaging in pointless discussions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

When something was said about him being on here 2 years (actually less), he pointed out that it was actually 4 years, counting his Danish time. He forgot to mention the part about being banned, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the matter at hand here. This is all spawning from an admin who was much too thick-skinned and erroneos I might add in what he was stating was a personal attack towards himself. Even if anyone felt the comment should be removed, the manner in which he came to Law Lord about wasn't the right manner as Law Lord shouldn't have been accused of making personal attacks. Law Lord came to this Noticeboard about that admin's behavior, and suddenly the issue was removing this harmless comment of 'some admins don't have good manners' as if it were some hurtful insult toward someone. Cheers dude (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant "thin-skinned". What this is all actually spawning from, is a dispute between Law Lord and SheffieldSteel that culminated in that comment that was obviously directed at Steel. Law Lord's attempt to pretend his comment was just some innocent remark, having nothing to do with that dispute; along with the revelation that he was banned from the Danish wikipedia for creating drama; are important pieces in the puzzle. When someone brings an issue here, the entire context of the issue must be examined, not just the complainant's view of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Saddhiyama is making statements on matters he knows little of. The matters he thinks he knows of was handled by OTRS and Carry Bass. Saddhiyama is making false statements, and not having the knowledge needed to make any statement. I will say no more of this. If Saddhiyama wants to comment on the matter at hand, he is free to due so at RFC. --Law Lord (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you were not banned at the Danish wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Danish, but Big Red Signs look the same in any language. – iridescent 23:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is almost as lame as the hoagie editing war. --Smashville^talk 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And if you're talking about the original complaint, you're right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I only eat Danish, I don't read it. A good dessert after a Hoagie. But that red stop sign with the X in it is a clue. "Du er blevet blokeret i i al evighed på grund af." I have found that "blevent" refers to "banned" and "blokeret" refers to "blocked". More clues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than answering about his apparent "D"anishment, he is now apparently complaining about the fact that the information was revealed. [3] This is the Rod Blagojevich defense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Article ownership

Could a few neutral veterans keep an eye on the Rashid Khalidi article? I came to it after a third opinion request weeks ago. An editor has removed an entire section of sourced content and has refused proposal after proposal after proposal and won't allow any compromise to restore it. The section has good sourcing, and the good faith editors involved are open to it being modified as needed and as appropriate with well sourced and reasonable modifications. But there comes a point where obstruction, wikilawyering, and gaming the system become real concerns. If you go to the talk page you'll see what looks like good faith discussion, but what you won't see are the three or four archives of discussion and obstruction over this same few short section. I'm willing to go into more detail about the specific nature of the problems, but if people are willing to help with the process and help to resolve it in a reasonable way, I'd rather not engage in a big drama filled battle. But I challenge anyone to read all the archived discussion and conclude that the process hasn't been abused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral observer of the article during the last several weeks, I'd like to point out that there is a serious question of WP:BLP violation with ChildofMidnight's addition of marginally sourced and Unduly Weighted content. The talk page tells a very different story than CoM's version here. The Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) may be more appropriate for this discussion. Priyanath ^talk 03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I doubt anyone will have time to read the entire discussion that's gone on for several weeks, but regardless, these disagreements are currently being worked out by several editors. This should be clear from the talk page, as well as the request for mediation that was filed not long ago but is on hold while discussion remains productive.[4] ChildofMidnight, for whatever reasons, has decided that one side of the discussion is being obstructive, and so he has repeatedly shown up and re-added material that was removed in accordance with WP:BLP. He has just done this again, ignoring the discussion on the page, and I've just listed the problems with this version of the material here. I had previously raised the issue on ChildofMidnight's talk page without much success;[5] I would only ask here that an admin confirm the assessment that editors should not repeatedly re-add material to a bio that is actively being worked out to ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP, and perhaps that if ChildofMidnight believes one side is right or wrong he should explain this on the talk page in order to reach consensus. Mackan79 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) The original complaint above is a pure content matter - an editor can't impose the content he wants in the article, a claim that Khalidi is a former "PLO Spokesman", which was part of the overall "Obama pals around with terrorists" line from the recent Amercan presidential election. Other editors who refuse to agree to the edit, he reasons, must think they own the article, be playing obstructionist games, refuse to compromise, be pushing their POV, and so on. I would call it a "content position" but hey, one man's content is another man's WP:POV.

The real problem is that ChildofMidnight has several times reverted in material that was challenged on BLP grounds as either being poorly sourced, synthesis, or a misleading account of the sources, after being warned repeatedly by at least two editors[6] not to insert BLP violating material and to wait for a consensus resolution.[7][8][9][10] The last of these, which he just revert-warred back into the article despite the editors on the page being close to consensus on a different version, is also arguably a BLP violation because it basically accuses Khalidi of lying about his career. Worse, even though I am clearly not the only one with BLP concerns this editor has fixated on me for incivility, threats, accusations of bad faith, grandstanding, disruption, etc. using words like "shameful", "should be ashamed", "lousy", and "delaying tactics", "whitewash", and "not a reasonable good faith editor", [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

ChildofMidnight has also been goading another inexperienced editor, historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), into doing battle against me.[18] As part of his month-long campaign to accuse Khalidi of being a PLO spokesman, Historicist resorts to calling me juvenile names like "high handed",[19] "not as stupid as [I] pretend",[20] "Mr. Pure argumentativeness", being an "obstreperous editor", considering Khalidi my "hero", and many of dozens of other insults, then pretending he wasn't talking about me.[21] Historicist encourages ChildofMidnight's behavior, saying "[he] threatens and bullies... it's all there. I'm very glad to see you standing up to him.",[22] and wondering how the two of them can "stop such a manipulative fellow" as me.[23]

At long last Historicist admits he is here for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia, accusing Khalidi of being a "PLO Spokesman" as a breaching "experiment" based on a colleague's challenge to show whether he can "try to get accurate information to stick" on Wikipedia,[24] and concluding that he wishes this "vile" place would "collapse."[[25]]

This is all very toxic and unwelcome. Although the players are different this reminds me uncomfortably of the pre-election POV sockpuppet attack on all of these articles, on the same subject, Obama = friend of terrorists. I should not have to be abused and taunted by editors who are trying to prove a WP:POINT about the WP:TRUTH so they can demonstrate Wikipedia's wretchedness, nor by editors who poison the well against consensus because they have convinced themselves I am some kind of troll. I have begged, pleaded, and warned both of these editors, dozens of times, to stop attacking me, and to use the talk pages for article improvements rather than complaining about other editors. Historicist's behavior has improved in the past day or so, although I still question whether he desires to improve the article or this is still part of his "experiment" to see if he can make his content stick. ChildofMidnight continues to disrupt.

I'm not sure what I want out of this notice board - I did not bring the complaint. I would like to be able to edit the article in peace, and to urge editors who are not here to improve the article or establish consensus to stop editing the article outright. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring / BLP

Despite bringing the matter here, and being warned not to revert nonconsensus material editors claim to be a BLP vio, the complaining editor is now revert-warring the content.[26][27] Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the edit-warring there does seem to be a genuine desire to resolve this dispute, so I've given the article one month's full-protection to allow all parties to engage in the on-going mediation case without distractions. I'd strongly encourage every interested editor to participate in this - failure to so could be seen as evidence of an intent to ignore consensus and continue disruption. I hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is no closer to becoming inclusive and balanced than it was two months ago. Most of Wikidemon's accusations are false or misleading. Indeed Khalidi has been a controversial and polarizing political figure, but you'd never know it from the article. I haven't objected to a single version of the content added by Wikidemon. My only protest is to the exclusion of ALL material about Khalidi's past work and his politics. This has been covered extensively in the mainstream media and in academic circles. Every effort as dispute resolution has been rebuffed by Wikidemon's refusal to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What is there to mediate? This editor continues to fixate on me as their sole obstacle to telling the WP:TRUTH. I stand by what I say 100%. Half a day ago mediation was on hold pending a "breakthrough"[28] on the article talk page where the four most active editors were nearing consensus of their own accord before ChildofMidnight showed up to disrupt things again. In six sequential edits:[29]

Me: "I generally agree [with X]."

Avi: "[proposal x] should be agreeable."

Historicist: "Let's go with [X]."

Mackan79: "I don't mind [X]."

- then -

ChildofMidnight: "The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of 'politically correct' nonsense....bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system....editors who have diverted the good faith ....in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from 'you'." (reverts in BLP vio)[30]

What can mediation do to help abuse and disruption? The participants have a consensus already. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, particularly after this[31] (ChildofMidnight, in response to my saying we seem to have consensus, accuses me of "disruptive obstruction" and "silly distortions and twisting of the truth"). Can we please have an administrator take a look at the unabated WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations? Let me make this clear. We should not have mediation unless we can ensure a civil process, and if the consensus process is unfinished we cannot finish it in an atmosphere of accusations and abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The administratrators should know that we have reached consensus before, and posted the material on th page, only to have [[[User:Wikidemon]] remove the material, Protect the page, And start the duscusson again. Wikidemon appears to have infinite time and infinite determination to block this material from the page. Using a endless and varying array of threats, page blocks, repetitive and ever-changing arguments, he has prevented this material from being entered on the page for two months, and appears willing to go on arguing and blocking sourced material forever merely because he dislikes it. I would welcome an administrator who would take a close look at Wikidemon's behavior.Historicist (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, pah! Historicist has been repeating this flat-out falsehood to score points at every opportunity. He is describing a failed stunt he and another editor pulled to push through something nobody agreed to. It's already the subject of a previous bogus AN/I report against me two weeks ago so it's hardly worth the keystrokes to respond again.

The long and short of it is that Historicist (and with him, ChildofMidnight) want to add some hot-button political content to the encyclopedia as some kind of process "experiment" and cannot get consensus for it. Consensus requires editors to entertain plausible content proposals in good faith, but it does not require an editor to agree. We've been close, and we may be very close to an unobjectionable version that can stand. But the objections to other versions have been real, serious, and fundamental - some versions proposed are severe BLP violations, others synthesis, or WEIGHT problems, improperly sourced, or contradicted their sources. So the discussion has continued, on and on. That is all fine, a content matter.

What isn't fine are the constant, unceasing, petty accusations and personal attacks that, other than the completely made-up stuff, seem to amount to a claim that it is a policy violation to disagree with a content proposal. This is exactly the kind of thing I need help with, telling contentious editors to keep these kinds of attacks off the talk page and stop playing process games so the editing environment is not so poisonous. Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I did not post the material here that bears my signature - an editor copied[32] it, out of context and cropped misleadingly.

"The "fix" editors agree on is the one you call "politically correct nonsense", a "whitewash", and a "sham".[17] I'm afraid I cannot help you fix that. Unless you have a reasoned argument why your BLP violation is better, the consensus version is the one we should go with.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! If everyone agrees on it let an Admin (know) and they will put it in the article. I'm thrilled that you've finally agreed on a version of the information that's acceptable to you personally. As you know all I've been asking is that the information be included and that you stop your disruptive obstruction. I'm not fooled by your silly distortions and twisting of the truth. Anyone who wants to can read the archived discussion for themselves. I'm thrilled this is finally at an end. Please let an Admin know you're ready to add the section you removed back, so we can all go back to constructive contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"

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

Guess what happens when Wikidemon gets called on his bluff? Anyone? When offered the chance to add a version he says he agrees to, he's happy to do so and ends the conflict right? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit too mudslingy. Dial it back a notch maybe? // roux   07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Getting" is not the right word. Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been throwing this kind of mud at me for weeks, and it is continuing on the article talk page as this discussion progresses. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cropped misleadingly? That's what you wrote and that was my response in the exact order in which they appeared. I've simply explained your refusal to abide by your own agreements. You said you agree to a version (not for the first time) and then you come up with new arguments why the version you agreed to can't be added. You've refused to participate in mediation and have refused to allow any version of well sourced content to be added. That's obstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again with the made-up nonsense. My behavior is fine and is not the issue. This editor is fixating on me as an excuse for edit warring and disrupting the article. It's weird and needs to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the matter at hand here. This is all spawning from an admin who was much too thick-skinned and erroneos I might add in what he was stating was a personal attack towards himself. Even if anyone felt the comment should be removed, the manner in which he came to Law Lord about wasn't the right manner as Law Lord shouldn't have been accused of making personal attacks. Law Lord came to this Noticeboard about that admin's behavior, and suddenly the issue was removing this harmless comment of this editor finding some of 'some admins don't have good manners' as if it were some hurtful insult. Cheers dude (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely zero to do with anything. --Smashville^talk 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go with the closed section further up about Law Lord's userpage, rather than this article issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the editor and the fact that he had already written the exact comment in a different thread...you can never be too sure. --Smashville^talk 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed that CD had posted that here and then posted it in the intended section about the Law Lord, without bothering to remove it from here. I could have removed it myself, but I thought it was better to just leave it here, for its unintended entertainment value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford blatantly breaking policies...

I am sure that you are aware of the desysopping of User:Bedford by User:Jimbo Wales. On his userpage, he mentions this:

I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

That is the third paragraph... He is breaking Article 10 on WP:NOT and breaking WP:NPA wich that quotes includes a vague concept of a personnal attack...

What is the game plan? --Mixwell!^Talk 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no "article 10 of WP:NOT." Or rather there is more than one. Please link to the section you think applies. Edison (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• This has been a concern of mine for some time, and just last night I emailed Bedford in regards to the content on his userpage asking him to please remove it and he failed to. I think there is a very easy solution here: Bedford removes the content and we all move on, no need for drama, no need for arguing, no need for blocks. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I reread the rules, and no rules were broken. People may wonder what happened when they see such a valuable user and yet somehow he does not have the status he deserves. Besides, if you look at [33] you can see Mixwell is clearly just wanting to agitate. Best for him to apologize to me, and move on.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford please, do not turn this thread into your soap box. The community is asking you to remove content from a userpage that belongs to them that violates WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Please respect that, remove it, and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am not Bedford's friend, nor I am his enemy. I have worked together with him, and I have disagreed. I feel that the comments should be removed because of their connection to a past moment, and we should be concerned with future progress. I hope this comment is neutral, and I hope other comments on the issue are equally neutral so we don't turn this into a fight about past problems, personal differences, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as Scotty Peterson wanted to silence his wife, so too do some want this removed.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that I am better looking and not as creeping as Peterson, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Pfft As is typically the case with these kind of remarks, they have the opposite effect to that which the author intended - which kind of makes it hard for me to get my knickers in a twist about them. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not bring external affairs to flame this thread... --Mixwell!^Talk 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? CIreland (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the distinct feeling you misunderstood CIreland's comment. It was really just a statement of common sense, that someone may make a statement intending to effect a particular view in readers, and unintentionally invoke quite another. Orderinchaos 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Generalissimo. Remove the comments. They may have won the battle but they will not win the war! Synergy 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)It has come to my attention that my response may be construed as being serious. It is not. It is 100% completely sarcastic. I sang We Three Pengs while writing it.

• While I don't agree with the tone of the paragraph on Bedford's page (nor the charming turd he dropped above), I believe that the original complainant is trolling, as demonstrated by the diff Bedford provided. That was thoroughly uncalled for, and designed to provoke a response. I would ask Bedford to retract or refactor the Scott Peterson statement above, and consider refactoring the paragraph on his userpage, but dismiss this complaint (with prejudice). Horologium (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• While the complainant may have a prejudice towards the user, that does not make the report completely bogus. I see a few other users here who feel this issue has some stance and as such should not just be passed off. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much in the way of personal attacks in Bedford's comment. It does however seem to be uncivil. Bedford, maybe instead of removing it you can simply tone it down a bit? Comparing what happened to "gangrape" really isn't helpful for anyone. If you just removed or rewrote that part of the sentence I suspect people would be fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The userpage comment is just about within policy. While putting things like that on your userpage is generaly a rather poor idea it is best adressed for the time being by the community ignoreing it.Geni 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see how accusing editors of rape is within policy at all, seeing as sexual crime allegations tend to stick to the accused, whether proven or not. And I don't mean to be a dick about this... but what else do you expect from a Confederate idoliser with edits such as this? Although I'm not that well versed in American history, I'm pretty sure most people don't idolise the Confederacy just because "General E. Lee was a pretty alright bloke". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear in context that rape is not literal in this context so your first concern has little weight. Bedford's personal views about the Confederacy aren't relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason why Bedford should not be allowed to express his views on his userpage in this manner—if people want to hold and exercise power, then they should be prepared to face furious criticism from those who are negatively affected by their actions. Everyking (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gangrape" has absolutely no place in the discussion. A complete and utter violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against any and all parties who were involved in his de-sysopping, in a most disgusting and vile manner. Personally, not only would I remove the comments, but a slight vacation would be in order. It he had used it in an internalized/clarified method ("...in what is perhaps the Wikipedia equivalent of a gangrape...") this would be different. ♪BMWΔ 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if he went onto somebody's talk page and accused them of participating in a "gangrape", but since this is his own userpage and he is airing his viewpoint about an action that was taken against him, I feel this ought to be permitted. In general it is not wise or healthy to censor or punish people who are airing grievances against more powerful people in what is perceived as their personal space. Everyking (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's material that's unacceptable. If I wrote "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" on my user page and I kept reverting efforts to remove it, would we even be having this discussion? No; I'd be nearly instantly banned. You just don't call people rapists. And that's not some pansy Wikipedia rule, that's common decency. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what Bedford's latest edition of user page trolling is; it's annoying, but as CIreland says, I don't think it's doing what he thinks it's doing for his image. What's ultimately far more damaging to the environment our community operates in (compared to the gratuitous use of the words "gang rape" on an obscure user page), is the habit of many users (Mixwell just being the latest example) of wandering around looking for things to be offended by, and the habit of many users (Sceptre just being the latest example) of taking the opportunity whenever their perceived enemy shows up on a noticeboard to attack with every dredged-up criticism there is. We would all be better off if so many of us didn't rise so predictably to the bait every single time someone trolls us, or go for the jugular every time we see potential prey separated from the herd. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since User:Sceptre and User:Mixwell both decided (sequentially) to edit war with Bedford on his own user page, I have fully protected it. Unless and until there is a clear consensus that the section in question is impermissible, it will remain on Bedford's page. As both Sceptre and Mixwell have a history of conflict with Bedford, there actions are nothing more than axe-grinding. Horologium (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, the person who appears to be edit warring is Bedford, who, might I add has violated WP:3RR (just because it is his userpage does not make him exempt). I do think that before the text is removed, consensus must be gained and I urge all parties involved to cool off, then talk. Tiptoety ^talk 03:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser look at Sceptre/Mizwell would be far more fruitful.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, remove it. As I said, if I kept reverting the removal of something like "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" or "Jimbo Wales raped the community", I'd be quickly banned. Besides, "it's a metaphor" does not make it appropriate. "Fucked as a baby in a pedophile convention" is a metaphor (or a similie), but it's still offensive (and deliberately chosen because it is). Sceptre ^(talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

actually if you read WP:3RR it kind of does unless you are arguing that its libelous. If anything, the other two violated the spirit of 3RR through their tag teaming efforts.65.213.142.2 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The lack of enforcement when it comes to user pages is simply mind-boggling sometimes. While I can appreciate the need for consensus on whether it is acceptable, if the admins here aren't going to (at the very least) refactor the ill-considered wording (instead of "gangrape", use the word "it" or something less offensive), then this will require ArbCom intervention. Even if this isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid doing harm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. If the word "Actions" were used, I wouldn't like it, but it would be permissible. The term used is perjorative and needs to be taken down (and if he won't show any decency and take it down himself, it should be removed for him). SirFozzie (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I personally don't think it is that big of an issue. It is potentially offensive, but when you put yourself in Bedford's shoes, I think is a rather mild reaction, especially for someone who is generally as outspoken as he is. I, for one, would likely have not even noticed that on his page had I not specifically been looking for it. It's not like he has <span style="font-size:600%;text-decoration:blink;color:red;"> before it. I would say, just let it go, as there are many things we could all be doing that would be a better use of our time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• What I'd personally like to know, leaving the whole Bedford issue out of it, is how exactly this section managed to migrate from being nearly at the top of the page, to being all the way down here?? This looks to me like someone's effort to "bump" the topic back into discussion....and frankly I think we have much bigger fish to fry than this. GJC 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  It was moved here [34]. DuncanHill (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seeing as a edit war had occurred, and the page was protected it appeared we needed to come to some form of consensus before this thing really got out of hand. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I requested the protection until such time as certain children found other ways to grab attention for themselves. Ignoring them would be the best policy.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 06:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The irony, she burns. // roux   06:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, he compares his treatment to that of a gangrape, he does not call out any editors as gang-rapists. It's a subtle difference, but ultimately, shitty purple prose isn't worth fighting over. As we've all seen here, anyone who thinks that an election won without daddy's SCOTUS appointments handing it to you is more illegitimate than one with such antics, tied with a love of southern civil war politics, is a boring bigot, and like all such wiki-trolls, ignoring it is better. eventually, he'll behave in a manner so outlandish that he'll get the attention he's seeking, just before he gets banned. patience is a virtue in this case, let his commentary stand. ThuranX (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's political feelings and his interest in the Civil War are not at question, nor are they grounds for personal attacks to be an acceptable form of input in this discussion. Please redact and stay on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm over my 1/month quota at ANI again, so I'll be brief. Has Bedford or any other of the commenters here been the subject of the verb in question? (For Bedford, not the metaphorical sense, do you have an idea of the physical experience?) Have Bedford or any others committed such acts? Does anyone have a clue what that word means, and how the experience echoes through entire lifetimes? To trivialize a horrible crime by analogizing it to an experience on a stupid website, makes my gorge rise... so I'll stop now. Franamax (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that: the real issue here is not that the phrase is offensive to those involved in Bedfords desysop (tho of course it is), but that the phrase could be extremely offensive to some readers & this is why it should go. If it were only a matter of Bedford trolling then it could be ignored, but in this case it is the specific form that the trolling takes that is the problem. Misarxist 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Third'ed Franamax; that's exactly why we changed "wikistalking" to "wikihounding". Sceptre ^(talk) 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fourth'd (?) And for those of you whose first mental reaction was to recommend that Bedford actually be subjected to the physical version of his verb so that he could compare, I say "shame" (yes, there are a few of you, I know it). ♪BMWΔ 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested clarification from ArbCom, with regards to my previous comment - the emerging consensus was clear, yet there's still been no enforcement whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• The words involved harm just one person - Bedford himself. They are unlikely to convince anyone he has any sort of case. But as they are on his userpage the only people likely to read them are those interested in Bedford and his views. If he is not able to see for himself that these words do him no favours, I suggest moving on. It's really not worth creating any sort of drama over. Dean B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're not wrong - the overwhelming message is "once I was po'ed about this, now I am po'ed, bitter, resentful, hate-filled and vindictive". Not a great advert for Bedford's human qualities. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares, let's just move on and not feed the troll. The only person it's harming is Bedford, himself. There's probably tons worse that I could think of that would be more offensive than this... VX!^~~~ 03:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• The use of the term "gangrape" in describing the removal of his sysop status is clearly just an overblown metaphor and not an accusation of criminal conduct. I do not see it as a policy violation. In my personal view, his use of the term to describe the actions of Wales and others does not gain sympathy for Bedford. I would permit it on his own user page, and I would not consider it a 3RR violation for him to restore the text on the page when others remove it. I hold no view on the appropriateness of the desysopping, since the issues in question are not posted here and I had not heard of it prior to this discussion. I would urge Bedford to edit out the term since it is just drama inducing and sounds whiny. I would urge his enemies to move on and read other pages. Edison (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wave of recent article moves for Thai royals

Monarchians has been moving hundreds of articles related to Thai royalty in the last couple of days without any discussion. The previous article names were generally in the form of first given name or first two given names without titles, conforming to this style guide.[35] There has been lengthy debate on the issue of whether to add titles following the name. I don't have a dog in that fight, I'd just like to see something consistent. It's a big mess the way it is now. Monarchians has added titles both before and after the given name and sometimes even put the same title in twice in the article name. This does not conform to any style. Here are some examples, with the current article name first and the "short" form of the person's name following:

Prince Chula Chakrabongse of Siam --> Chula Chakrabongse
Princess Chulabhorn Walailak of Thailand --> Chulabhorn Walailak
Prince Dipangkara Rasmijoti of Thailand --> Dipangkorn Rasmijoti
Mahidol Adulyadej, The Prince Father of Thailand -->Mahidol Adulyadej
Queen Ramphaiphanni of Thailand --> Ramphaiphanni
Prince Rangsit Prayurasakdi of Siam, The Prince of Chainat -->Rangsit Prayurasakdi
Princess Vibhavadi Rangsit of Thailand -->Vibhavadi Rangsit
Sri Patcharindra, The Queen Mother of Siam --> Saovabha
Maha Vajiralongkorn, The Crown Prince of Thailand --> Vajiralongkorn
Sri Savarindira, The Queen Grandmother of Thailand --> Savang Vadhana
Srinagarindra, The Princess Mother of Thailand --> Srinagarindra
Srirasmi, The Crown Princess of Thailand --> Srirasmi
(This one is just wrong -- Srirasmi's title is simply "princess")
Queen Sukumalmarsri of Siam-->Sukumalmarsri
Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya of Thailand --> Ubolratana
Princess Valaya Alongkorn of Siam, The Princess of Phetchaburi -->Valaya Alongkorn
Prince Varananda Dhavaj Chudadhuj of Thailand -->Waranonthawat
Prince Yugala Dighambara of Siam, The Prince of Lopburi -->Yugala Dighambara
Mom Chao Chatrichalerm Yukol --> Chatrichalerm Yukol
Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath of Siam, The Prince of Phitsanulok --> Chakrabongse Bhuvanath
Prince Bhanubhand Yukol of Thailand-->Bhanu Yukol
Princess Bejaratana Rajasuda Sirisobhabannavadi of Thailand -->Bejaratana‎
Princess Soamsavali Kitiyakara, The Princess Niece of Thailand --> Soamsavali Kityakara‎
Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, The Princess Royal of Thailand ‎--> Sirindhorn
("Princess royal" is an unofficial translation of "princess maha chakri", so this is redundant)
Princess Galyani Vadhana of Thailand, The Princess of Naradhiwas ‎-->Galyani Vadhana

Hundreds more moves were made similar to these. I hope someone can revert them all. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention defaultsort troubles. Other than violating style guidelines, the user's not really doing anything "wrong"... s/he is probably familiar with wikis other than enwiki? Gracenotes^T § 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just a user & sometime editor, but I do live in Thailand. It seems to me that Monarchians is a Thai Monarchist, and is trying to enforce Thai standards of address on English-language Wikipedia. It is above my pay grade to decide whether or not to get in a dog fight over it, but the only article that I think it just might make a difference has naught to do with a Royal, but the new Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva: if his name in Thai is not preceded by some sort of title, then it reverts to a noun signifying [one who has special] privilege. In Thailand. Where most people speak Thai. Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's a historical page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) suggests (per WP:MOSBIO) that non-reigning Thai royals should be titled as "First name + Additional name (if existing)". In any case, WP:NCNT says use the "most common form of the name used in English". I highly doubt these full titles are the most common forms used in English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not involved in the old discussions, but if First name + Additional name (if existing) were to be applied, a few items in Kauffner's proposal will need to be changed:

• Saovabha Phongsri instead of Saovabha (full birth name without titles)
• Sukhumala Marasri instead of Sukumalmarsri (preferred English spelling)
• Varananda Dhavaj instead of Waranonthawat (preferred English spelling)
• Bhanubandhu Yugala instead of Bhanu Yukol (correct name and preferred English spelling; in contrast to his nephew Chatrichalerm Yukol's surname, Yugala here is part of the full birth name.)
• Srinagarindra doesn't follow the logic of Savang Vadhana and Saovabha Phongsri, as the last two are being referred to by their birth names (which are also assumed in their queen consort titles) rather than their widow titles. Princess Mother Srinagarindra was born a commoner, though, and before receiving the Srinagarindra title, she was known as Princess Consort Sangwan, which is much less well-known.
• Soamsavali instead of Soamsavali Kityakara‎ (surname not included)

--Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Monarchians is still moving articles as of today (i.e. after this notice was posted), but in fairness, (s)he had not been clearly told to stop. I have asked him/her to cease the moves for now. If (s)he does not, perhaps a block would be warranted? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this doesn't seem to be a problem needing administrative intervention (unless the user continues to move pages). I just saw the discussion on Kauffner's talk page, and I think this is an issue the community should be able to resolve. Monarchian's contributions are valuable at least in determining the royalty's full titles (which are lacking in the articles), and as Gracenotes notes, poorly-informed page moves are not reason for administrative intervention. If Monarchians insists on a change to the (outdated) MOS, We should start a discussion at WikiProject Thailand and ask other project members for input. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started such a discussion here. Kauffner (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid

User Satanoid is refusing to learn from earlier ban. These words from Satanoid reflect very strong feelings and some personal vendetta against an assumed identity and is worrying me, this is very serious. Please see here-- --Sikh-history (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I saw an earlier report, and was trying to think who he reminded me of. It could be worth requesting a check user to see if he's a Hkelkar sock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight, I have experience of disruptive edits of user:Hkelkar (from one of his sock Goingoveredge). From a long time experience of Satanoid I was being continually reminded of the editing style,tone and tactics of user:Hkelkar. However, I let assumption of good faith override my suspicion. Now, I find some more weight in my suspicion as a third neutral editor (PhilKnight) has felt the same. If this editor really comes out to be another sock of user:Hkelkar I'll really be dumbstruck with his inspiration of hate against Sikhs and his never ending list of sockpuppets on wikipedia. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry o not know how to do it? --Sikh-history (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I'm not sure if PhilKnight actually intended to point to WP:CHU, I think PhilKnight wanted to point to WP:RFCU. The page WP:RFCU (called "Request for Checkuser") has some examples of already filed checkuser requests. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant WP:RFCU not WP:CHU. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Cheers dude

Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this earlier ban report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement.

Anyways, you go on to say he hasn't learned from that and provided this diff here. No, he shouldn't be commenting on irrelevant matters that don't pertain to improving wikipedia articles on your talkpage but I don't see where you make friendly efforts to explain to him that the user talkpages are meant for discussing how to better wikipedia articles. All I see is perpetuating irrelevant conversation by responding to him on the irrelevant matter he has brought up or criticizing him about previous blocks which is also irrelevant. Reminding the editor of previous blocks is not going to help matters. Rather, friendly attempts should be made in explaining to him wikipedia policies and what is and is not allowed and making sure that you are following those policies yourselves.

Bottomline, I see no reason to block this editor. I feel an attempt of relaying of wikipedia policies in a civil fashion should have been taken, before this was brought to the ANI noticeboards. As for the sockpuppets suspicions, I'm not sure if this is the place for that. Just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cheers dude, I could not relate your comments, edits and experience with the edits of Satanoid. Have you been editing the same articles as Satanoid. I am baffled, what brings you here on Administrator's noticeboard on something filed on Satanoid? Do you usually provide feedback on reports filed on ANI? Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite having only 351 edits, nearly twenty per cent of User:Cheers dude's edits (66) are to this page alone. He may be energetic and/or well-meaning, but he doesn't seem likely well-versed regarding how things are done on Wikipedia generally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Cheers dude, put yourself in my position. You come onto wikipedia in good faith and help edit materials in fields you feel you have some expertise. You meet someone who you think may have some prejudice towards some of the material you are dealing with. You still assume good faith. THe attacks get mopre personal, resulting in insults towards your religion. You still carry on. Then that person start leaving messages about an identity he percieves you to be? Some pretty hate filled and insulting messages. Do you not think this is at least a little bit creepy? Surely this is not the behaviour of editors on wikipedia? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As user:cheers dude rightly says, the terms 'son' and 'extremist' don't amount to uncivil remarks to warrant a block demanded by tou and sikh History. You need to state exactly where on the Sikh terrorism or Sikh extremism related articles I have actually been abusive. Kind regards Satanoid (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been abusive enough as demonstrated here. Like I said above. To make fun of the Guru's children is offensive, but to make fun of the brutal murders of two children in it's own right is offensive. --Sikh-history (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, you do not have to edit the same articles as the users of disputes in order to provide feedback on those disputes on this page. In fact, its best that people who provide feedback on disputes have nothing to do with users so as to provide a neutral opinion on the matter. Please be aware that by bringing an issue here, anyone in the community is allowed to give their feedback and try to help.

CalenderWatcher, I ask that you would address solely the topic at hand and not get off point and discuss me or my editing history. The topic here has to do with Satanoid and I gave my feedback on the topic while you have not. If you do not agree with my feedback, that's fine and you may explain why, but please do not bring up irrelevant matters about myself that have nothing to do with this discussion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the topic at hand, namely your lack of fitness--by way of experience, judgement, knowledge of policy and knowledge of the situation to hand--to pass comment, and am now saying, explicitly, that you should stop muddling issues that you're not involved in until you have a better grasp on things than your 361 edits and less-than-a-fortnight's experience imply. You've already had to retract some of the 'advice' you've given previously on this page, which should tell you something. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sikh, I'd agree with you that that type behavior is very offensive but I just haven't seen the diffs to support those claims with the exception of the identity issue (which I've already said I felt wasn't responded to the right way as the replies I saw didn't relay to him wikipedia policy and how discussion about things that have nothing to do with improving articles is not allowed but rather engaging in the same behavior addressing the matter he brought up). Other than that, nothing I saw from him was a personal attack or any attack to your religion. If you'd like, you could provide me other diffs of what you perceive as insults to your religion and personal attacks! I'd take an entirely different stance on this issue if you could show me that the behavior really is as bad as you're saying it is. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read his entire code of conduct. I really cannot see how you could have missed the insults he posted.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Cheers dude", please butt out. These guys are trying to discuss ongoing patterns of vandalism about which you almost certainly know too little to make an informed comment, unless of course you are a sockpuppet. To those above, Hkelkar's latest IP was hardblocked two days ago - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar - but it may be worth contacting Nishkid privately to see if there is crossover to Satanoid. Otherwise you probably need to go to WP:RFC or some other dispute resolution mechanism, because the comments highlighted (and they are not alone) are distinctly unhelpful and indicative of an off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I highly suggest you take a good long look at WP:Civil and take a look at and study up on the policies regarding giving feedback on this page especially considering the fact that you are an administrator making those types of comments. That's all I will say to you. Sikh, I haven't seen anything related to personal attacks or attacks to your religion. However, judging from the history of edits on Sikh extremism, there seems to be a very lot of disagreement that's gone on for weeks. I see a lot of disagreement over what should and shouldn't be added into that Sikh extremism article. I would suggests that you all reach consensus by introducing more parties into the discussion on the article talkpage so there will be less friction. That's just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that Guy has been editing for nearly three years, has over 54,000 edits, and is an administrator, I'd suggest he's very well up on policy. That said, I don't believe such credentials are necessary to realise that your 'advice' is unhelpful and carries little weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a classic example of a personal attack. Now insulting the Sikh Guru's children aside, to make an off the hand comment about two young children who were brutally mudered is simply not on. I agree with most of the comments here. I do not think you have enough experience to make a comment on this user. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've nicely proved my point, I think. Either you do not have enough background to offer valid commentary, or you are a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't think you are actually helping here; I suggest that if you want to try your hand at dispute resolution you start with what appears to be your area of expertise, Brooke Hogan. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, see below. Please either validate your sock accusation or AGF and tone down the rhetoric. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's merely invoking common sense, so I'm not sure what 'validation' is called for here. This is regarding an editor who's been here--including his IP edits--less than two months, and has already managed to inject himself energetically into disputes, at least one of which he admits being wrong about. For a new-comer, he found his way here fairly quickly. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made no comment about the content, but about the way it is conveyed. However, if I were to comment about the content I might - using Guy's rationale - decline to do so with you since as you so identify with Guys viewpoint I suspect that you are his sockpuppet... Now, once you have warned me on my talkpage for the personal attack please take the time to consider how making such comments do not advance the discussion; concentrate upon the content and not the contributor - and even if the account is an alternate, who are they teaming up with to violate policy? If Cheers dude's claims are baseless then explain why and then let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call your suggestion of sockpuppetry as personally attacking as I would delusional: if you're not serious, you appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove some kind of moral-superiority point, and if you are, your judgement has been demonstrated to be seriously impaired. If you'd like to continue to be unhelpful and stir up a side drama for whatever your purpose is, as with User:Cheers dude I can't stop you but I can point out that scolding a fellow editor based on nothing at all it doesn't help your case. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it LessHeard! As CalenderWatcher still hasn't been able to come up with arguments to refute any of the opinions I've provided, but rather continues to try to debate with you on irrelevent matters related to me, and has only brought up the manner he believes I gave my opinions in, referring to it as "scolding", I'm assuming that may be the real issue here. To the users whom I directed my comments to, if you felt the manner I came off in that original comment was harsh, I do apologize to editors I directed those comments to.

As for Guy and CalenderWatcher, however, redirecting this entire discussion to my edit history and making attacks based on sockpuppets, something about Brooke Hogan, etc., is far more incivil than anything I've said in this discussion. Thus far, I haven't entertained these users' attempts to throw off this debate by responding on irrelevant matters pertaining to myself they have effectively turned this discussion into, and I refuse to. This is not the place for it. If they have a beef with me and would like to have a full-fledged debate over it, they're more than welcome to take it to my user talkpage or another forum and discuss matters civilly with me there, but I feel their comments and incivility don't contribute to the matter at hand so this is not the place. Cheers dude (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you are still determinedly missing the point, so let me spell it out once more. People come here to discuss policy issues with the admin community. The input of long-standing non-admin editors is also very often helpful. What is not helpful - actively unhelpful, in fact - is newbies chipping in with no apparent knowledge of the issue at hand, the policies involved, the past and present users being discussed, and even the content area. Your editing shows absolutely no evidence of expertise in this content field, and unless you are a sockpuppet you cannot plausibly have any significant experience of dealing with Hkelkar, to name one of the more prominent accounts under discussion. Your "tell the nasty man to go away" style complaints are also not exactly improving your standing. And as noted below you seem to have weighed in on the wrong side most of the time, which indicates that you are a newbie not a sock; as such you should be wary of getting involved in things you clearly don't understand very well. And you should be doubly wary of asserting that the problem lies with everybody else and not you. Now I suggest you go and find some articles to work on. God knows why I am bothering to write this, I doubt you'll believe it any more than you've accepted any other comments, but this is just my opinion: your clueless verbiage is annoying me, and I'd rather you didn't thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments just written by Guy aren't a clear example of what I'm talking about in terms of unacceptable, incivil behavior from this administrator, I don't know what is. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't know what is, I'm afraid. I requested Guy to address you in non antagonistic terms and that is exactly what he has done - I never had a problem with most of the content of his remarks other than the vague sockpuppet accusation, and he has now clarified that he does not think you are one (don't worry, CalenderWatcher was also unaware that I was addressing form and not content and didn't understand my response either - I am polite but obviously not so good at communicating as might be desirable). Guy appears to be correct, in that by attempting to educate seasoned practitioners you are exposing your own lack of understanding. It really would be better if you gained more understanding of the intricacies of maintaining this project before making statements that generate much more heat (as a byproduct of friction) than light. You are being advised to desist commenting upon matters you are not familiar with; it is good advice, now addressed in the appropriate civil tones, and I suggest that you do so. It is not incivil to point out your faults, when you choose to exhibit them against the advise of old hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. You've certainly misunderstood the meaning and rhetorical intent of Guy's conditional clause as an accusation rather than a logical inference in your hurry, so I wouldn't talk of others not understanding if I were you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! Cheers dude (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, at least one editor has been or was banned from this page for constantly commenting without being familiar with the subjects discussed, so there is apparently precedent for consequences--if not explicit policy--regarding continual uninformed feedback. But if you're looking for a rules-based approached, I'll note that policy and rules here are not written in stone and handed down from on high, but evolve from consensus, so if you keep demanding to be shown policy, you'll likely find it will be created just for you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that blatantly stalking an editor that disagrees with you and drawing them into an edit war is a pretty quick way to get invited to a block party: [36][37]. --Smashville^talk 00:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: My edit has been wrongly used by the following statement made by Cheers dude in the closed discussion below. Cheers dude said -"The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint [38]". (stress mine) No, I did not say that in the diff to which Cheers dude has linked. The only purpose (and obvious) of that edit was to keep both discussions categorized so that they can be addressed appropriaretly. I'm not sure how and why Cheers dude is interpreting in the way s/he has claimed. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on CD's own user page, he was previously 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and you can see he's been contentious from day one, although "day one" was only early November, so unless he had another IP before that, he's still a newbie chipping in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could someone, preferably uninvolved, kindly take a look at the section of this page titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. I have been respectfully giving my opinions and suggestions on an issue and these two users, one of which I was surprised to find out was an administrator, are pushing me to butt out of the situation based on my edit history. The administrator has become quite uncivil suggesting sockpuppetry with the user in question because I said I haven't seen any personal attacks or religious-based attacks from Satanoid (the user being reported), telling me to Butt out, worry about Brooke Hogan or something along those lines. I have tried to remain civil and neutral in viewing the matter and giving helpful suggestions and my honest opinion, however this admin keeps responding with incivility for some reason and CalenderWatcher keeps changing the subject to my amount of edits and how they should prohibit me from commenting and trying to help. Please help! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being unhelpful, and have been told why. You've been unhelpful at least once before by you own admission. Being informed that you are being unhelpful when you are being unhelpful is not uncivil, it's educational. Being advised that you should take the time to understand what you're giving opinions on and perhaps learn what the rules are before jumping in isn't uncivil, it's good advice. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers dude: Usually, when editors come here, they're seeking admin opinions/intervention. When someone (no offense meant by this) who has comparatively little experience, has no knowledge of the situation at hand, and is not an admin starts commenting on the issue, people start getting frustrated. I admire your enthusiasm, but I suggest that you quietly excuse yourself from this board, become extremely familiar with WP policies, obtain some more article edits, and then maybe come back. Again, no offense is meant by this. Hermione1980 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...no offense, Cheers dude, but you seem to be betting on the wrong horse in every single dispute you've involved yourself on since I had my first dealing with you and help to create unnecessary drama (see: User:Law Lord). It's okay to have opinions, but quite frankly, I haven't really found any to have been very well-informed. Obviously, in time, you probably will be...but right now, please take the time to learn and lurk and make edits to the articles which you know about before you start involving yourself in the wikiprocesses. --Smashville^talk 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Again, none of this should be brought up in the debate above like it was which is titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. If these are legitimate concerns, redirecting an entire debate in an uncivil manner to myself which is what was done above is not how to address them. I'd be more than willing to discuss matters like this with these users or anyone in the appropriate forum, that is, if their willing to behave in a civil manner and not make accusations of sockpuppets and similar attacks. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience editors who seem to think that it's always everybody else who's wrong tend to have a short and turbulent life on Wikipedia. Another piece of useful advice: when a significant number of people tell you that ou are wrong, it's usually because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint [39] they've effectively thrown off the debate and turned it into an entirely different issue and continue to in the above thread. Cheers dude (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who created the "Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher" sub-section? Despite your unwillingness to digress from the actual topic, you seem to have no problem in continuing it here.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The language used, and the views expressed here, are in my opinion well within the bounds of normal "civility" on Wikipedia. Nobody has leveled any insult. The "accusation" of sockpuppetery is nothing of the sort. It is a fair comment that a very new user engaging in debates here is unusual and an expression of the view that, unless you are a sockpuppet, your edit history means you probably aren't experienced enough to comment. In other words, you are being given the benefit of the doubt that you may have more experience than your edit history suggests. I see nothing worthy of any action. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! As noted above, I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games and engaging in antics. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! You might want to do that on my user talkpage as I don't even intend on looking at this thread anymore. My advice to certain users is to quit harboring grudges over prior debates on this noticeboard. Now I'm done! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers dude (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm not involved, other than the action I'm taking. This discussion is pointless. The OP was requested to step back, yet continued to push the issue. Now, by the OP statement directly above, he's done, so this particular thread now no longer serves a purpose. May we get back to our originally scheduled Wikipedia issues? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:OUTING violation

And while you are arguing Satanoid carry's on writing creepy message and vandalising my page. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I gave him a week off. A WP:OUTING violation is enough for me. I don't care if he hasn't been warned about that before, he's known long enough to quit screwing around and he won't stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm heavily involved with him over at Sikh extremism and Sikh terrorism, I would like to ask for review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay by me. The chilling effects of attempting to out editors are huge; the editor in question could use some time off. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested Oversight of the above diff. Don't post oversightable material on a noticeboard, please. Jehochman ^Talk 11:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes it difficult to review the block, but yes, fair enough. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Catch-22: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. One way around this is to email Oversight and let them place the block. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I completely forgot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more diffs that need would need to be oversighted. See Sikh-history's talk page for more attempts at outing.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, I am actually quite scared by Satanoids behaviour. I feel like just deleting my account and leaving wikipedia. I do not wish to take the chance that he thinks I am Randip Singh (someone he obviously hates and thinks is an extremist ). I am very scared. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editwarring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Resolved

 – Image shot from the grassy knoll by aliens disguised as Elvis, nothing more to do. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Two accounts, Markdandrea (talk · contribs) and Mdandrea (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding disputed information (which has OR, SYNTH, RS, UNDUE, BLP problem - see talk page) to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which is on article probation. One account claims to be a sock of the other (see [40]), while the other denies it [41] [42].

Also, see possible wrongful copyright claim by one account File:MarkLevin.jpg (unrelated to above article)

Anyone ready to wield the block hammer and/or clue-stick ? Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Protonk took care of blocking the two mister Dandreas. Could a checkuser perhaps look into the connection between the two accounts; I can file and RFCU if necessary, or if we don't want to get all wonky, any checkuser could just indicate here what the results are... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a WP:DUCK situation. The 'sock' account was indeffed and the master got 2 months. That is based on the fact that the actual damage due to socking was minimal and not undertaken with as much intent to confound and obstruct as the usual sock-puppets. I am, of course, open for this block to be reviewed and shortened if an administrator decides that Markdandrea won't do this in the future. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue there, using a sock to edit war is still a Bad Thing(TM), especially when the material being added is questionable at best. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me who is thinking "why the hell does that article even exist?" Sceptre ^(talk) 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. Ask the various news organizations which lavished time and attention on this non-issue. Of course if we think that lefty blogs wouldn't be apoplectic over John McCain's panama birth were he elected, we are kidding ourselves. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That, and I don't see the 2000 election conspiracy theories article (ranging from ballot stuffing to "misplacing" ballots to deliberately stalling the recount to packing SCOTUS with conservatives). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just an invitation to be bold. :) Protonk (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a suitable venting valve in my opinion, which gives venue to shunt the whack-a-doodle insertion of CT into the various Obama articles. I think even beyond inauguration it is a nice museum piece for the looney fringe. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Two different, totally unique people with virtually identical views and virtually identical names editing the same article at the same time, and backing each other up? I started to run a checkuser, but then gave up when I realised that I could see a thousand dancing hamsters on the checkuser results and still think they were sockpuppets, or at the very least, meatpuppets. --Deskana (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think people with the time and distance (i.e., most fairly partisan United States users like myself are not suited for the job!) need to look closely as BLP as it relates to COATRACK here. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What image? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:MarkLevin.jpg mentioned in my original post that was uploaded by the user and falsely labelled free.

I think we can mark this issue "resolved" now, but in case someone missed their favorite soap-opera today, do read the unblock request by Markdandrea in which he now claims that Mdandrea is his son ! Abecedare (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Father and son, blocked together. A heartwarming story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of grassy knolls and conspiracy theories, the attempt to delete the article was shot down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite - it's at WP:DRV now. Black Kite 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

unindent

Collateral damage: The autoblock caught me in its net. User:East718 took care of the unblock request for me, and in his own words: "I've turned off the autoblocker on Mdandrea's account and unblocked your latest IP." This is because my work computer cycles through a group of IP proxies.
That said, it also tells me that the user(s?) in question are editing from a Navy/Marine Corps Intranet workstation in the Camp Lejeune area. If you get me his real name, I can look him up in the database and see if I can contact him. Worse comes to worse, I can forward a complaint to the webmaster. bahamut0013♠♣ 13:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Semper Fi! I asked him his name. He said: "Puddintame. Ask me again, I'll tell ya the same." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandals looking for a spotlight on Yahoo! Answers

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted, semi protection probably unnecessary at this point. Should be reported to WP:RFPP if need develops. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisms on Harry Julian Allen have been quite frequent in the last few days, because the page was mentioned on Yahoo! Answers.

Interestingly enough, some RC patrollers (in good faith, I believe) rolled back some of these vandalisms only to restore the most abusive version of that article!

Maybe the page could be semi-protected for a few days, until the question on Yahoo! Answers becomes old.

This is the last good version I can see.

--Lou Crazy (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears there's only been six edits to that article in the last few days, and none since July before those. The RC patroller made an error. Protection isn't needed right now, though some more watchlists would be good. (In future, you'd be better taking this to requests for protection, by the way.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Intervention at Hoagie

Resolved

 – Complainant dropped the issue.

His comment can be found here BillyTFried (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for admin intervention at Hoagie. I believe that an editor is using a RfC as a sideways attempt to delete this article. And is trying to push a POV in the text of the article which supports his claims and thus distorts the RfC. I see this as a conflict of interest for him to be editing (diluting) the article while at the same time trying to eliminate it through merger. I think that the editor is cleverly using the rules of WP to subvert the spirit of the rules. Offering diffs will not display the cumulative efforts here. I am not seeking any dicipline here, but I'm asking for someone to give us a reality check. I got involved here trying to be neutral, but have been dragged into an unpleasant and embarrassing contest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hello! I have been working towards a merger of the individual stub pages for 4 regional names (and many others that don't have their own articles) for the same sandwich, Hero sandwich, Hoagie sandwich, and Grinder sandwich, into Submarine sandwich (the most common name per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)). All have been successfully merged except the Philadelphia regional name Hoagie, for which I created an RfC and a Straw Poll which currently stands at 11 to 6 for merge. And all content in the Hoagie stub page is now included in the sourced and more comprehensive page Submarine sandwich. Therefore the current Hoagie page violates WP:Content fork, WP:REDUNDANT, and WP:Redirect#Alternative_names. I also provided many sources, a few of which were already and still are being used on Hoagie's page, to prove they are all the same sandwich. Nobody has ever proven otherwise. However, I've still gotten resistance from two editors, a self-confessed "Phili-phile" named user:SummerPhD who appears to want to defend her city's name for this sandwich at all costs, and user:Kevin Murray, who has used polite, but tricky tactics from day one to try and block the merger. In my efforts to merge these article I have made a great deal of effort to treat each regional name for this sandwich with as much care as possible which has resulted in the Submarine sandwich page I am merging to being described by Kevin Murray himself as "excellent". Also I was asked to have an uninvolved admin step in and when one happened to on his own accord, and called it consensus for Merge, they still did not relent. I made a request for Conflict Mediation which is ongoing, but Kevin has continued to remove info from the Hoagie page that has cited sources, and replace it with unsourced info that simply reflects his own point of view. And when it became clear the majority was going with Merge he decided to add a Merge Proposal to the Submarine sandwich page saying he now thinks All Sandwiches should be merged into Sandwich. That proposal isn’t going well for him as it is being seen as intentionally disruptive editing. So, after he reverted my edits 3 times in a row today, I added a 3-RR warning to his talk page hoping he'd stop, but instead he responded by adding the same warning to my talk page and then reverted my edits for a fourth time, and then reported me to the admins.

Here's a few examples of Kevin's wp:Good faith efforts in this situation:

• Kevin's first action in this situation was when a week after I posted the Merge Proposal Tag, Straw Poll and RfC he politely claimed that "no consensus has emerged to support a merger. Result: close RfC and remove merge tag. Cheers!", and then unilaterally removed the merge proposal tag and closed out my RfC, instead of allowing me to pursue that process which goes for 30 days, and despite the fact that the poll results at that time stood at 6 to 3 for Merge (now 11-6). When I caught on to what he'd done I reversed it and confronted him and he politely admitted he was wrong, but continued his polite but tricky tactics.

• His next shady action was when he removed a pic of the British Holland 1 submarine that a cited source in the article said the sandwich was named for saying it was an "unrelated" image that had a bad date under it, and then when I restored it and removed the date under it to satisfy his complaint, he turned around and removed it again and replaced it with a pic of a different submarine not mentioned in the article and then dated it himself by putting WWII under it. I just walked way from that one.

• Then he decided to tell me what he thought of me on my Request For Mediation page by making a new section called "Wiki-Drama? BTF" (my initials) and stated that "You are cluttering the discussion with so much wikidrama and distorting the processes by continuing to vomit your emotional rhetoric". When called on that one he again politely apologized and then changed his comments to be less offensive, leaving my remaining replies looking overblown. I thanked him but reverted his edits and ask that he just use the Strike Out tag, but he reverted my edit and told me if I didn't like it then call an Admin.

• Then he took things a step further by placing a Merge Proposal tag on the Submarine Sandwich page suggesting it and other sandwich articles be merged with Sandwich stating that "Since there seems to be a strong and vocal group advocating a reduction of the number of articles about sandwiches, I suggest that we study the options including a more complete merger to one article about sandwiches". As I said before, that one isn't going well for him as it is being seen for what it is.

• Then he started making changes to the Hoagie page which contradicted what its own cited sources said in order to try and boost the notability of the page that was facing a merge. When I caught this, I change the content to accurately reflect its sources, then he reverted my changes, then re-re-revert, and we ended up here.

Just as I have stated about the Phili-phile, SummerPhD, I feel that Kevin Murray may fall into this category regarding the current situation: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best."

I had avoided taking things here as I thought or hoped it was not necessary, but now that we're here, I hope that you will give Kevin Murray the "reality check" he is asking for. Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing to find this oddity sandwiched in amongst heavier disputes. I don't see why we need multiple articles for the same subject. I recall a TV ad featuring Subway founder Fred De Luca, in which he said, "Some people call them submarine sandwiches, some call them hoagies; I call them Subway Sandwiches." I see the same illustration is being used for both articles, also. Maybe the complainant could explain what the practical difference is between a sub and a hoagie? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Verging on WP:LAMEST. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs more meat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of eating hoagies! I want a grinder, a sub, a foot-long hero! I want to live, Marge! Won't you let me live? Won't you, please? --Smashville^talk 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"But even in Britain, where they don't bother to dub the original American voices (for The Simpsons), probably only a few get the joke. You see a hoagie, a grinder, a sub, and a hero are one and the same thing. They are simply regional names for a sandwich served on a large Italian roll and filled with Italian meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, and sprinkled with olive oil and spices. Variations on the basic recipe are made by filling the sandwich with other things, such as tuna salad, roast beef, ham and cheese, meatballs, and all manner of other ingredients. Subs can be served either hot or cold. All the exotic things that Homer associates with travel are simply roses by another name."

Yeah its lame, I know. But trust me, some people would shoot you dead for calling their sandwich the "wrong name" faster than they would for calling their God make-believe! I think maybe someone just needs to buy Kevin this shirt for Xmas. BillyTFried (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this has made me hungry...I think I'm going to head off to Jersey Mike's. --Smashville^talk 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's so funny that they have one in Nashville and call em' Subs! I may have to head over to Jersey Joe's in San Carlos, CA where they call em' Hoagies! BillyTFried (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Chicago... so I'll have an Italian beef sandwich instead. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you say "sand-wich" or "sam-wich" or "sa-wich"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone says "sammich"! Shit I better start a new article for Sammich! :-P BillyTFried (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to say "san-wich" with a three P's and silent Q. I hope everybody has their own personal intervention with a Sub/Hoagie/Grinder soon. ♪BMWΔ 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's plain to see that everyone here is well-bread. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a pretty crummy pun. Horologium (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Observers often comment upon my rye sense of humour. Decorum inhibits me from repeating those comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire line of discussion should be toast. ♪BMWΔ 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou

Well, .. this has been going on for some time now, and to specify, I'm referring to the noted user's apparent unwillingness to follow, or even understand our policies here. A quick overview of the said user's talk page notes that many, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor over various breached policies, including, but not limited to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS.

Many of these 'conversations'(re: see talk page), have not really had the desired result, and the editor in question refuses to either understand the policy, or acknowledge that he or she had done anything wrong. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me just message that this report was made after the final warning was given to this user regarding the insertion of OR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's awkward. He hasn't done anything blatantly negative I don't think, but he doesn't seem to understand most of the policies you linked to...--Patton123 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bates method article is covered by the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and Seeyou has been notified, so this discussion could be moved to ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been some recent disruptive editing of the Bates method article, so I think a 1-week ban from the article could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More Canvassing: [43], [44], [45].— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going thru Seeyou's contribs to get rid of the canvassing edits. I can't plant any sanctions on him because I'm involved (and have been for a while), so I leave that to other editors. Likewise, I'm not going to try and understand AE's instructions because I was absent for the most recent spate. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange type of vandalism

Resolved

 – Seems to have been a good faith effort to add information. Addressed at contributor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where to put this, so I think this is the best place.

I randomly got to an article a few days ago, and by reading, noticed something was kind of wrong. Looking in the history I noticed someone re-pasted the same thing twice, replacing outside links and sources and whatever it was. At first I assumed good faith and I reverted it, but the next day the user seems to have comeback and done exactly the same thing again (see history). The strangest thing is that most of his edits on other articles look OK, just the ones on this article are inexplicable. I thought about trying to ask him what and why, but I didn't want to get too much involved or blamed for harracement or knows-what. But I still think someone should look into this. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You won't--well, shouldn't, and it wouldn't be believed if you were--get accused of harassment if you post a nice message on the user's talkpage saying "Hey, I saw this edit on this page. It looks a bit off to me because of XYZ, but maybe I'm missing something? Could you let me know what you were aiming for?"

That said, it looks to me like bog-standard marketing drivel, and you were right to remove it. // roux   09:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be really glad to be informed that an edit I made seemed unusual or otherwise off. Something like "Hey, I noticed your edit to LMNOP. (provide diff) It seemed a little unusual to me and might actually violate WP:FOOBAR, so I reverted it". Fast and easy for you (easier than checking contribs for a pattern of vandalism), and helpful to the receiving party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The bog-standard marketing drivel is not the oddity here, really. The oddity is that the bog-standard marketing drivel was already in the article, and he has copied it and pasted it right beneath the previously existing text. (See here.) Double the bog-standard marketing drivel. And he's done this twice. That is quite odd, but I have a theory. :) I notice that the pasted section includes one new sentence: "An HD-DVD version was released in 2007." I don't believe this is intentional disruption (aka vandalism); I think he's attempting to add a fact to the article, but instead of inserting it in the existing text is reproducing the entirety. I see he hasn't been notified of this thread. I will remedy that, as per custom, and address the matter at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend directing the editor to the article talkpage and talking things out there. Some simple communication would probably help matters seeing as how he seems to be, as you say, a constructive editor in other areas of wikipedia. That's my feedback on the situation. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war/socks/username redirects

Resolved

 – IP blocked for exceeding 3RR, article protected.

Edit war brewing at Mississippi between an IP and User:Christchild777 and myself (myself to the extent that I keep reverting to preserve sourced content until a consensus is met). I believe the IP and Christchild777 are the same person. Interestingly, Christchild is now redirecting his/her userpages to User:N/A and I wasn't sure of the policy on that either. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not identical with Christchild777, and what has been said above is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on, see the talk page of the article. 91.0.62.38 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And please someone have a look into the behaviour of Allstarecho, who keeps readding content, although several editor have said that this section is not appropriate for the article.I removed this section, explaining the removal in the edit history and he promptly reverted without explanation, simply stating that I am vandalizing.91.0.62.38 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Until a consensus appears to remove that section (it currently doesn't, on the talkpage at least, where views vary) then removing sourced information could be seen as vandalism. Therefore, please stop doing it. I have reverted. Black Kite 19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has since reverted again (only to be immediately reverted back), but since both the 91.0.x.x IPs are the same editor, and they have now removed the content four times, I have blocked both for 31 hours. Black Kite 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted because the reason given (vandalism) is offensive and not true. How can a good faith edit that was suppported by arguments given on the talk page be vandalism. But good luck anyway, the stronger wins. Must be an American thing, the tactics of Allstarecho, intimidation, blocking, attacking. Bye,91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, not being American. But since this user is operating from a dynamic range far too big to rangeblock, I have semi-protected Mississippi for a week. Any other admin may wish to remove or tweak this. Black Kite 19:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry, I will not violate this 3rr rule, and if someone would have told me earlier I would not have reverted the edits. Will you also block Allstarecho, who kept reverting, too? Oh wait, my edits are labelled here as vandalism, so Allstarecho is the good guy, right? 91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. It was you who was removing sourced material from the article on multiple occasions. Allstarecho was merely putting the material back. Unfortunately, whilst not always necessarily "vandalism", removing sourced material without consensus is looked upon poorly - see WP:CONSENSUS. Black Kite 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, BlackKite you are misrepresenting what has happened here and your response is one-sided and biased. The first time I removed the section I gave a reason in the edit summary, “section does not assert notability for the context of a state, removed per WP:UNDUE”. No one has to agree with this reasoning, but it should be clear that this was not vandalism. Allstarecho then reverted, giving as reason RVV and slammed a vandalism warning on my talk page. Do you think that this kind of intimidation is okay? And do you think that it is ok to canvass selectively and in non-neutral words, as Allstarecho did? And is it ok that Allstarecho is insinuating that other editors are homophobe, is using various vandalism and “no personal attacks” templates to intimidate other editors who are not as established and experienced as he or she is? Because according to your reaction to this incident all this ok. Thanks for making that clear.91.0.74.17 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

user:98.194.199.220

Resolved

 – thanks to Chris G.

98.194.199.220 (talk · contribs) Anyone have any idea who this IP actually is? He keeps leaving me bizarre messages about kangaroo courts and admin abuse, but I've never had any dealings with them... --Smashville^talk 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's Captain Kangaroo. Toddst1 left a final warning. Tan | 39 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS record here, if needed. It's a Comcast IP. VX!^~~~ 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Captain K die? I'm being haunted! --Smashville^talk 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He's back. Can someone else block him...my 6 month idea is probably a little overkill... --Smashville^talk 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris G did it already: [46], though only for 3 days. I would recommend you search through people you blocked recently to see if this guy rings any bells. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably User:LittleGreenVolleyball. I didn't get to finish the decline on his unblock because my cat was helping...but essentially, sockmaster -> IP -> sockpuppet. Fairly blatant. IP number of the one that keeps posting on my page is similar, too. --Smashville^talk 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism, personal attacks against User:Durova

Resolved

 – IPs blocked for harassment. AdjustShift (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• 83.203.93.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 67.202.1.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I and others have reverted similar edits by different ranged IPs that seem to be against Durova. Please compare this with this. I am not sure if these IPs edits seem consistent with any known user or what, but the issue is ongoing and so maybe some page protecting may be needed? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Those vandalism edits are similar, yet they're two completely different ranges? Thoughts? VX!^~~~ 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They also seem to have an interest in V for Vendetta. Does that ring any bells? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one's from Paris and the other is from Kansas City, Missouri. Weird. VX!^~~~ 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess just warn them and see if more develops. VX!^~~~ 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we should promptly block anyone engaging in on-line harassment. No warnings necessary for blatant, disruptive trolls. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Durova#IP_vandalism.2C_personal_attacks_against_you in case if she has a better idea of who is behind this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much for keeping on top of this. I was out shopping and missed the whole thing. Feels good to return and see that people care. Happy holidays! :) Durova^Charge! 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; hope you bought something nice. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins did the right thing by blocking the IPs.[47][48] We must not tolerate harassment. The two IPs are from two different countries. When you are a famous WP editor, you can have enemies anywhere. AdjustShift (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fouldsy09

Resolved

 – Indef. blocked for vandalism by Kcordina. User talk page protected due to abuse of unblock template. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fouldsy09 repeatedly posted personal attacks on people's user pages. Now, he created a new account called User:Fouldsy08 and is still vandalizing. Schuym1 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been indeifinately blocked. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help here

I was ready to let this go, but, unfortunately, some people never learn: here. The lad is disappointed over the copyvio I tagged for deletion earlier today. I'd really appreciate some input here, cheers! BanRay 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. BanRay 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

118.136.44.99/118.136.43.120

The ips 118.136.44.99 and 118.136.43.120 have been using the article Carnivore as a place to shove some other band's information in. His ips are within the same range persistently making these edits not showing any signs of giving up/understanding even when some (including myself) have explained to him why it's not allowed. He's about due for a block and is past his fourth warning. FireCrystal (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both of the IPs and someone else has already protected Carnivore (band).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a copyvio

Resolved

Feel free to hit me with the cluestick; I should probably know this. I recently reverted this edit, which introduced a copyvio of this website. Do I need to delete the article and restore all but the offending revisions, or is letting it languish in the page history okay? Thanks, Hermione1980 02:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We normally only delete copyvios like that if someone complains. --Carnildo (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what Carnildo said. I'd also delete if it was sitting in the edit history for a long time and was the primary text of the article (which obviously isn't the case here). either way (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

State-By-State Television Templates

Resolved

 – Edits by both User:XPL883 and User:Yay999 were reverted, templates reverted to previous.

The "(Network) Affiliates for (State)" templates are being combined by area (New England, Rocky Mountain, etc) by two users (probably one in the same), User:XPL883 and User:Yay999. This was not brought up for consensus/comment in the main Television Station WikiProject. The "combo" templates are unnecessary as they are and the should be reverted back to the state-by-state version. Comments on this would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:02

Is there a need for administrative intervention here? Right now it appears to be a content dispute. Is there anything going on other than that? either way (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably going to need admin help, because they are all page moves. I, at the moment, can't revert page moves. An admin would have to do that. If User:JPG-GR could be brought in, since he is a WP:TVS member and can help speed along the process of reverting, it would be helpful. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:33

There are no page moves as far as I can tell, only redirects. The only admin tool that would be somewhat relevant here would be rollback, but that wouldn't be appropriate since this is a content dispute and not vandalism or the like, either way (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I am doing this by myself...lovely. Any help on reverting you could give would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:49

It's kinda tough to tell where what redirects to what. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:51

• User:Yay999's edits have been reverted (what a mess that was). Am on to revert User:XPL883 mass edits. Any help would be VERY appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 06:22

• For the record, I'm not on anyone listed in this thread's payroll, so I fail to see the reason behind attempting to assign me this task. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, upon checking, I'm not even a member of WP:TVS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that, thought you were. The reason I thought of you, was I knew you did alot of page move work. Metros said it is a simple redirect revert, so that I can do on my own. When I thought it was going to require page moves, I thought of you. Think of it as a compliment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 06:59

Azad chai

Azad chai (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), is back. The contributions of Baboner (talk · contribs) and 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are very similar to contributions of the banned user Azad chai. Usually he goes around making vandal edits to the articles and calls Azerbaijani people baboons or makes other racial slurs. CU data would be stale by now, but the contribs leave no doubt that it is the same person. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I caution administrators not to fall for this report. The strawpuppetry has to stop. This 'vandalism' from this new strawpuppet and the similar is to associate legitimate positions with sockpuppets. See this particular edit by Azad chai, where Karabakh is written by it's Azeri variation 'Qarabaq' by this Armenian wannabe. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of VartanM. Does he think that the admins should not react to vandalism by Azad chay, and his evasion of ban? Grandmaster 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself, so I bold faced my point for your viewing pleasure. VartanM (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would be good to see real evidence of "strawpuppetry", other than speculations around the spelling of some words. In any case, ban evasion has to be dealt with. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's strawpuppetry? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently it is meant as a reference to socks being used to set up editors from the opposing camp. Grandmaster 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one too: 70.21.172.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all appear to be the same person or a group of people. Grandmaster 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Vartan is implying that these new apparently pro-Armenian contributors are actually Azeris in disguise. No matter. We dispose of trash no matter is perceived nationality. To believe otherwise should cause you to leave the project. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would be really thrilled to see some real proof of Vartan's allusions, other than speculations over spellings. I heard this all from User:Fadix, now indef banned, who is the real generator of all conspiracy theories for a certain group of editors. But of course such claims cannot be taken seriously, unless supported by strong evidence. Grandmaster 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Urgent protection request

Resolved

 – Protected, deleted, oversight requested.

Please protect User:Persian Poet Gal's page and delete certain stalkerish edits! LovesMacs (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not totally fixed, there's an account doing the same thing, User:Offensiveandconfusing! LovesMacs (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in case I am requesting an oversight for Offensiveandconfusing's talkpage. Rgoodermote  08:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits oversighted (and very quickly may I add). Rgoodermote  08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is done. Can you guys monitor User_talk:Offensiveandconfusing as I've blocked the account indef, pending a plausible explanation? Checkuser shows that the computer making the oversight edits is likely to be the editor's computer, and I'm not seeing any evidence of 'hacking'.[49] Feel free to override my block if deemed necessary, as I'm not really here these days tho' I'm available by email - Alison ^❤ 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He is on my watchlist. I can't do anything about unblocking. But I will send you a message if he says anything. But honestly, from that uncyclopedia page...I don't think this user is going to be a very good editor. Rgoodermote  09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

Resolved

 – Problem is at Commons. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to report Pixelcounter for abuse and foul language, at here, thank you.

Sardaka (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing administrators at the English-language Wikipedia can do about abuse on other projects. You'll need to contact someone at the project concerned - Commons in this case. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility removed, warning left, reporting user notified via talk page. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 11:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested change to protected template

An admin made a change to a protected templated that went beyond both the request that was made and the consensus of the discussion behind it. (The request was for a change of width to an infobox, but the admin also changed the font size, which was never discussed.) Would someone please be good enough to undo it? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

• I don't see how this is an "incident". Why don't you wait for someone to see the request in the edit-protected queue? I don't want to jump in and revert that change w/o reading more of the discussion. Protonk (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by user

• Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few days while I've been on, I've noticed Steelerfan-94 "troll" several times over several pages.

• Trolling and advertising his own Wiki at WT:GUNS, see [50][51][52][53][54][55] - Also see this where Steelerfan-94 has been told not to do it, and has threatened to take it to "one of my MANY administrator friends". Add sarcastic comments as well.
• Stalking other user's edits.
• Further trolling [56] towards a user who had only been online for 1/2 an hour. Also see User_talk:Steelerfan-94#Re:IDK if you know this and User talk:Steelerfan-94#My talk page

I'm not sure what to do here, so I thought I'd bring it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also been a little worried lately. Some comments here worried me a bit. ayematthew ✡ 12:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gave a final warning; further abusive commentary and spamming will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seicer, seems the appropriate action. Also strongly suggest removal of rollback. — neuro^(talk) 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that suggestion. ayematthew ✡ 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with that suggestion. I agree with seicer's warning - but disagree with removal or rollback. I don't see any good-faith additions being rollbacked. He warned Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) for misuse of rollback here - if anything, it seems Scorpion0422's rollback rights need to be revoked. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See [57], [58], [59], [60], and [61]. Just a few -- and having Rollback is about trust. If we can't trust him, he shouldn't have rollback. ayematthew ✡ 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, those examples show the editor using rollback to remove unsourced info, vandalism and generally poor IP edits. Black Kite 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem like using rollback to revert good-faith non-vandalism edits to me. ayematthew ✡ 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see rollback abuse. This edit is reverting unsourced and really shitty material; this was unsourced; ditto; etc. Typically, that is not covered under rollbacks -- an undo with a description would be preferred, but this is not abuse by any stretch. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is the editwarring of the advertisement primarily. Whether it is undo warring or not, edit warring is not acceptable, especially for someone with a tool which could aid them in committing it. It's simply being preventative. — neuro^(talk) 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor User:Johnnysmitthy deleting text in multiple articles saying ' no reference must go wiki rules!'

A new editor removing loads of text from Christian related articles because there is no reference [62] and also stating that he plans to use 'other IDs' for editing [63]. I'm not sure what to do about him. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're being trolled. Indefblocked, but as always open to review ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at this and am ok with an indef block for now, let's see if an unblock request shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, although the edit history doesn't look very promising I'd be happy to be proved wrong. EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SA - once again

This one came to my attention via WP:WQA.

Please see the entire discussion here, with the most grave and concerning being SA's phrase "...[we] have taken our collaboration to other venues explicitly to avoid you" (emphasis mine). ♪BMWΔ 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is not an isolated incident. See this edit summary. He had said he would take a break until after the New Year.[64] I think we should enforce that good idea. SA appears to be engaging in gratuitous incivility that only serves to provoke other editors. Nobody has provoked him recently. To say the least, I am exasperated that SA is thumbing his nose at those who have tried to help him in the past. This situation cannot continue. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support a block of indeterminate length, as this incivility is obvious hindering users from working constructively on Wiki. Garden. 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I nearly overlooked SA's latest actions, mainly because I have recused myself from most science-related matters, but working behind the scenes (see also: [65]) to implement broad changes to avoid "nagging" editors is not what I consider constructive. Per the rationales given above, and the community's exhaustion of attempting to work with this editor, I would suggest a block of an indeterminate length to be reviewed in one month, and with a periodic review of actions henceforth. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The words "enough is enough" come to mind. // roux   17:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could give notification to SA. Oh wait.... Crdamon, if you cannot give an unbiased notification, please let someone else do that. seicer | talk | contribs 18:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some ideas:

1. Admonish Gandalf to stop his obsessive disruption in the ongoing project to make content standards for Wikipedia. We wouldn't have to collaborate with like-minded users over e-mail if there weren't so many distractions from the peanut gallery of wikistalkers and content-haters.
2. Desysop and block Jehochman for a wide range of problematic behaviors including his continual fishing expeditions in checkuserdom, his blatant conflict-of-interest promoting of certain kinds of search-engine optimization, and his obsessive drive to "reform" users who are working just fine without his "help", thank you very much.
3. Desysop and block seicer for personally attacking expert editors and scientists like myself and User:R while he adds little to no content to the encyclopedia. You can also block him for wikistalking me. He shows up every time there is a complaint to yell and scream and stamp his feet: "Ban SA! Band SA! Ban SA!" Hasn't he done enough damage to this project already?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:ScienceApologist

I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwh3

Resolved

 – No further action necessary at this time. --Smashville^talk 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jwh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Contentious AFD, and it has gotten ugly...

User has removed the AFD banner from the article [66], removed comments from the AFD itself [67], and engaged in persistent attacks on other editors at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Hunter_(film_director). Warned multiple times. Chasingsol (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Appears to also be editing under User:68.191.139.230.Chasingsol (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a block maybe neccesary. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion of a COI here, as do other editor's, related to the article's subject and the editor's username.Chasingsol (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked for it yesterday and hasn't edited since...why would we issue another? Nevermind...I see the IP edits. --Smashville^talk 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked his IP and his username for 48 hours. --Smashville^talk 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated.Chasingsol (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually unblocking him now...on second look at his edits, he hasn't done anything since coming off the block...I confused myself on what day it was...in the above diff, he didn't remove anyone's comment...he deleted his own comment and removed an SPA tag. Not really blockable. --Smashville^talk 17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your diligence. I understand he's new to editing (as am I), and having an article put up for deletion can be blood-pressure raising.Chasingsol (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but at least he knows we're keeping an eye on him, I guess. --Smashville^talk 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)