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

Admin on a blocking spree

For the original information see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter.

I just came across 200.30.68.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has made only one possible useful contribution in February. Based on that I looked at;

• Crashoverride10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lapsax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Irisj-k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Iris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

With the last two there are no contributions but the history of their talk pages is interesting. Crashoverride10 and Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) were both blocked earlier by User:Earle Martin and User:Luna Santin. Based on what I see I really don't think these users are here to help Wikipedia and so I have blocked them all. At the same time I have redirected and full-protected their user pages and semi-protected their talk pages. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a lot of these social-networking blocks in the past, and decided it was time to create Template:Uw-myblock :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you know these users won't become the writers of featured articles someday? This kind of admin abuse and stalking must stop. What has happened to WP:AGF? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for directing enthusiasm to the right place, but when there are no, or few, constructive edits to content, I think a line has to be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My impression is that these cases are rare, but certainly, those who use our (free) resources for social networking, setting up non-notable games pages, and the like, should be discouraged. I see the block template and will note it, but (and not only is it late here but I have also just had to rebuild my operating system, fortunately without apparently losing anything important), but is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block? --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kidding aside, after a month or so of no meaningful edits, I'd block indef pending consensus from the community that Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth are now open to straightforward social networking, as a way to snare and groom new editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that just isn't going to happen, because such consensus isn't gonna happen either; the flipside is that new, and tentative editors might have some idea that we are an encyclopedia, and very little else; potentially constructive editors, I think, should exhibit this understanding in their edits, however naive, e.g. by correcting spelling mistakes, or tidying up grammar, even if their edits don't fulfil WP:MOS and its project-specific subtleties. My own initial editing experience here was hard, but I managed to adapt and understand, if you will, to the way things are done. A {{welcome}} may be all very well, but many younger editors are somewhat impetuous and impervious to the finer details of policy, particularly image policies. For seasoned editors used to creating defensible, or good, if not actually featured, content, the overhead of nursing new editors may be outside their interests. We tend here to throw new editors into the deep end, and if they don't make it, discard them. That, in one sense, is regrettable; whereas there is Admin School, there is no "new editor school", as such. --Rodhullandemu 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My position on WP:MYSPACE blocks is somewhat different from consensus; I think they should have to go through at least two levels of warnings and be encouraged to make a productive contribution somewhere, even if it's just a spelling correction, before we consider a block, regardless of how long they've been a user without making a productive edit. After all, the biggest hurdle for a new contributor is always making their first edit, and if we can gently (or not so gently) encourage them to do that they may not have to be blocked. Dcoetzee 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's understood there are mild disagreements on how to handle these accounts. My own outlook is, a user's first few edits show a very strong likelihood as to what they have in mind: If the edits have to do with social networking, that's what they're here for. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but what's with the overly-long signature, anyway? (And what do you have against sausages?) —Travis^talk 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an answer to your question, but the sig isn't overly-long in my opinion. By avoiding font and color changes, their sig isn't much longer than your simple-looking sig in the edit window. --Onorem♠Dil 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering the following: "Is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block?" I surmise that the current set of warning templates can apply. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any standard escalation past {{uw-socialnetwork}}, but I'd hope that more than one warning would be issued prior to blocks being issued. Blocks seem to be handed out too quickly now. --Onorem♠Dil 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To try and answer both above points, unless I've missed something, and it's quite possible I have, apart from the generalised disruption templates, there isn't a hierarchy for what might be called "non-encyclopedic use of edit-space". As for blocks being handed out too quickly, it's a matter of clue; although the word "encyclopedia" is hexasyllabic, it's not beyond rational comprehension, and I find it easy to distinguish between those editors who appreciate this, and those who don't. --Rodhullandemu 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone feels I was a little overeager then please feel free to adjust/remove in any way.

TravisTX, the signature is stolen from Bluebottle and can be seen at The Goon Show running jokes. Why next you'll be telling me that you have no idea who the great war hero Captain Hugh Jampton is! I looked at the size of it and it appears that it's smaller than Seicer's but slightly bigger than Rodhullandemu's, the signatures that is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I make no claims based the size of my signature; that's an epiphenomenenon of our technology; it's not a macho thing, unless I am actually female. --Rodhullandemu 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, do you mind if I use that oh-so-nice template you created to the page of the user talk page User talk:Beautiful&Educated, used by the user Beautiful&Educated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I myself think it would fit perfectly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's freely available. For now (until I get more time), I think it is acceptable to use the standard notification templates, but reserve uw-myblock for the finale. seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment, the user I blocked was Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an apparent parallel account for Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and only after several warnings had been received and blanked. I think if warnings are ignored in that way it's an open-and-shut case. As an aside, I wonder if there are many other invisible mini-networks like this, only editing each other's user spaces? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine, if warnings are being given and ignored. It's not something that needs a rapid-fire block, we can try to educate them, but past experience is not exactly grounds for optimism, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time right now to take action, but: Rollthebones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and User:Morachnus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are another social networking case. (Special:Random/user is awesome.) -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we wait for train wrecks to happen?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Or can we be preemptive? Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - seems to be a logged-in version of 71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) If this editor returns to main / talk space it is not going to be pretty. Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Imo increase it to raising warning levels on the onsent (possibly 4im) and less leniency. It is not a static IP ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No useful contributions (plus block evading). yandman 08:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Er, are you advocating the instigation of trainwrecks (with response units already in place) to lessen the likelihood of unexpected trainwrecks to occur, with the attendant diminishment of negative issues being propogated - or have I edited the Modern Philosophy website as I intended? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a US government IP

Earlier today, 204.248.24.165 placed text on Morgan, Vermont that includes a copyright notice: for this reason, I reverted it and placed a uw-copyvio notice on the IP's talk page. However, since then, the text was restored (complete with copyright notice), so again I've reverted. I rarely deal with copyvio text issues, so I'd like advice: is it right to block after two instances of copyvios in one day? More importantly: the IP is registered to the US government's Department of Homeland Security. I've never encountered a situation before where an IP worthy of blocking was governmental; could someone who knows what to do with such a tricky situation please work with it, and leave a note on my talk page that it's been resolved? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer for the IP: You need to notify the foundation, see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses. Considering the low amount of editing from that IP, it shouldn't be a big issue. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of sending an email to the Communications Committee and putting a note on their talk page on meta. If you block such an IP address it is a good idea to go send a note to the committee ASAP. If there are no other issues this should be marked as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 204.*.*.* is not among the sensitive addresses listed. As such, no notification is required. It might still be a good idea, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the sensitive ones are the ones where we really need to make sure admins do it and so we list them explicitly on that page. There's still a general need to alert the committee for other governmental IP addresses. Am I misinterpreting things? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible to alert when in doubt. A Whois doesn't make it obvious unless you pick up the D?HS code, but the template at the top of the talk page makes it clear that it's Department of Homeland Security, which seems worth treating with care. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarification: from what I can see, 204.248.24.165 hasn't been blocked, though it was blocked for 3 hours last October. A warning was given at User talk:204.248.24.165#February 2009 and the IP made two more edits which were reverted, then stopped editing. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tax dollars at work. After a hard day at the Department of Homeland Security, the individual seems to be continuing to post the copyrighted material from home (that's a Comcast address). --Dynaflow babble 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not sprotect and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But where's the fun in that? I'd rather get a government employee in trouble! Grandmasterka 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(after reading a huge and ugly notice telling me to go away) - Treat them exactly the same as any other troublesome IP. DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at work. My guess is that it's the very first of US$787 billion spent. MuZemike 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

given that several different ip addresses have been used, the simplest things seems to be to semiprotect the article on the town. As this is quite recent, I did this for only 7 days.I would not rule out that the ed. involved may have written the copyright material himself. & doe not understand how to donate it to us. And, FWIW, there is nothing the lease inappropriate or exceptional about the material otherwise--a summary using it as source would be suitable content. May DHS never do worse. DGG (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Idf anyone's interested, the source of the copyvio seems to be this. --Dynaflow babble 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please look at User:Lawyer33 contributions? He seems to be making legal threats in his edit summaries. • \ / (⁂) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears so, but seems to have stopped when asked not to. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But not to have retracted them. Legal threats don't get any more clear than that. I've indefinitely blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavy on the socking, too - I see User:Lawyeruniversal2 and Lawyergeffen doing the same things. The names suggest this person is at least ostensibly representing record labels; I'm going to give the latest iteration a note regarding OTRS and the proper way to report problematic errors. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigate before posting, Tony. A sock investigation already got the other two. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An Admin is needed to block Greg_L

I cuddlyable3 am a relative newbie and now contribute mainly to mathematical articles. I am experiencing such mounting disruptions to editing from Greg_L that action is needed by an admin to enforce WP:POINT based on defiant incivility and admitted untruths by Greg_L. This archived WQA raised by Thunderbird2 is Closed as Stuck. That is because block sanctions that were discussed cannot be issued from WQA. I do not see that any of the editors who contributed in the WQA (excluding the two users implicated) condoned the behaviour of Greg_L. My involvement has been can be seen in the strikeouts of falsehoods that Greg_L introduced. This summary is my opinion of what needs to be done (by an admin).

Short history

I have had contact with Greg_L only since 4/5/6 November 2008 when his entries at [1] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate.

I see that Greg_L is regularly cited in complaints including those arising in this 2-year debate, by Wolfkeeper and this by Omegatron last June.

Actions already tried

A WQA from me, Reaction by Greg_L.

A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite

My message wishing for civil collaboration to which Greg_L replied acceptably on his Talk page but then quoted the message with derision ("Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you..") in the WQA.

My offer to go to mediation has been deleted by Greg_L without comment.

I have notified Greg_L of this request to WP:ANI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While other admin opinions are needed here besides mine, I think there is insufficient evidence (here and in GregL's contributions) to even warrant a warning, let alone a block. No action necessary here. Tan | 39 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. He happily admits to uncivil sarcastic comments towards others, and happily says he won't ever change. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that leaves us in a bind as to a possible resolution, assuming we can't find some amicable (or otherwise) endpoint for this dispute. Have we just tried separating the two parties? Do they share too many common interests for this to be feasible? Does either not wish to disengage from a particular subject? More to the point, is Greg's behavior really all that bad? From those diffs and links I don't see anything too bad. Sure, he's being a jerk in that first post on his talk page about the WQA, but the next post is factual and direct. The rest of the links are him removing material on his talk page (perfectly reasonable) or past AN/I reports. So...I'm with Tan in a lot of ways here. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I admire Tan's speed reading of the whole issue in what looks like 10 minutes. I estimate that would allow a few seconds to consider the bit in the WQA where Greg_L links me to a terrorist shooter. My complaint is that false statements such as Greg_L admits making would be immediately handled under WP:BLP if I were not an editor.. FYI I am a "LP", just not yet old enough to be a notable one.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, spending ten minutes of time on this was pretty good. Most admins will agree. What did you want, an hour? Your sarcasm is noted, and further justifies my belief that you two need to just stay the hell away from each other. Tan | 39 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking shit about people who comment on your request is a sure way to get it ignored. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the eviscerated nature of Protonk's and Tan's replies, I DO agree with the principle behind them. You asked for some assist here, and if anyone can speed read, Tan can. (Sorry Tan, I couldn't resist.) Picking apart someone's handling of your request is not a great way to engraciate yourself here. That being said, I'll hop back over to WQA now, take it away guys. Edit Centric (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proton, quoting you: Have we just tried separating the two parties?, we are separated unless he seeks me out. I have had nothing to do with Cuddlyable3 since he filed a WQA against me last November and was told that he was responsible for precipitating the behavior about which he complained.[2] He has apparently harbored resentment over that ever since.

  When another editor recently filed a WQA against me, Cuddlyable3, who is no stranger to the WQA process since 2.6% of his last 1000 edits are Wikiquette alerts, weighed in for a dig. When he pointed out a factual error in my rebuttal where I said he had deleted an animation, I apologized for that error publicly—in several places. He holds onto grievances and is here—again—seeking his pound of flesh. All he needs to do is stop obsessing about Greg L and get on with editing. Problem solved. I don’t specialize in math-related articles and have zero interest involving myself with anything at all do do with Cuddly, except for when he leaves yet another post on my talk page announcing that he has found yet another forum to seek revenge. Is this surprising? Note his block log, where there is this explanation for a block: “Attempting to harass other users: Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators.” Then they had to block him again when, fresh off that block, he picked right back up with his harassment. I’m seeing a pattern here with his inability to “let go”.

  BTW, the “A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite” is… uhm… ‘misrepresentation’ as it had absolutely nothing to do with this, and his “My message wishing for civil collaboration” that he left on my talk page was self-serving posturing and/or baiting—perhaps hoping for an uncivil response from me—since he was at that very moment busy making new calls for sanctions against me on the T‑bird WQA, which I had forgotten about and had assumed had been archived. The phrase “civil collaboration” didn’t even make any sense because he and I hadn’t edited on the same thing (just that one single article) since back in November when he was admonished for egging me on. As I stated on the T‑bird WQA, I just wish he would leave me alone. I really wish he would leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. There is one more bit of misinformation, above, that I find particularly galling and which I would like to point out: Examine the first sentence in Short history, above. What impression did he clearly try to imply? He would have you believe that …[Greg L] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate. In other words, me (the uncivilized outsider) comes to a venue frequented by peaceful mathematicians and acts like a barbarian. What posts are actually there from November on Talk:Mandelbrot set? Why, this thread, the one over which he was admonished [3] for egging me on and that I had done nothing against policy. What did he actually link to in order to “support” his allegation? Why this, which is a post he recently put on my talk page complaining about my false recollection on the recent T‑bird WQA. There seems be a pattern of misinformation in his above allegations, and that seems very wrong to me. Greg L (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

filibuster, is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place. Kilde: Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But, since we don't vote around here, filibustering does not apply, neither does your growing wikilawyering. All that to say, Cuddlyable3, you are not helping your "case" at this moment. You provided your "evidence", you trashed the first neutral admin who commented, and because of that, I see things going downhill from here ... your next step: WP:RFC ... although I recommend trying to avoid Greg L for awhile instead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Original post was asking for a block. I wish that Greg L was a bit less annoying, but I've never doubted that he's working hard to improve Wikipedia, and before issuing a block to a good-faith contributor I'd like to see at minimum a user conduct RfC establishing consensus that his conduct is problematic or disruptive - and failing to establish any alternative remedy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether action is taken or not, it may be illuminating for people to read this user conduct RFC on Greg L from June 2008, and this, this and this, all part of an ongoing arbitration involving dealing with Greg L's incivility. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the task of weighing up the evidence presented at ArbCom pages and taking appropriate action is best left to the arbitration committee. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment having read through the above, it looks like an angry person rehashing past events, going back a long time, and misrepresenting some events to make his case seem stronger. What exactly has Greg done in the last 3 months? 2 weeks? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am only providing the above as context, in the inevitable event of this issue being raised again some time in the future and a link made back here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else he proved to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work in Talk:g-force less than a month ago. There's a strong case for a new RFC on him, there's plenty of ammunition. It's amazing to me he hasn't been blocked more than he has been, I think it's just because people haven't been joining up the dots enough.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that above is context only. A view of the WQA (link provided above) is probably key to recent (ie last 2 or 3 weeks) activity. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW you know my feelings about this, I think you are plain wrong. By the way, Wolfkeeper above is the one case I know of where Greg L's behavior was not right, and I understand Wolfkeeper's gripe. All the others who have been recipients of Greg L's sarcasm had it coming.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be agist but

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

anyone besides me concerned with the content? Dlohcierekim 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The user didn't upload any of the pics; just displaying them. Harmless, AFAIC. The userpage history has some amusing edit summaries, tho. Tan | 39 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He removed everything. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, look at the dif's. I've removed what I'm talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what Dlohcierekim removed, it looks like the issue was personal information for a minor, not the LOL Cats. Since the user has readded some information but not the problematic info, can we mark this as resolved?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're truly concerned about personal information of a minor (especially one under 13) then we should have the diffs oversighted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the revisions, if someone feels it's important, they can engage an oversighter to get rid of the deleted revisions. –xeno (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on medical articles

MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) seems to think that personal attacks and uncivil behavior is a valid replacement for editing according to WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. He has made the following attacks recently:

1. Calling an editor a liar
2. Calling me a liar (I won't bore you with the several other instances)
3. Calling editors irrational
4. Calling editors severely disturbed

This is just a choice few. Setting aside the personal attacks, what Mr. Price fails to embrace is that we do not give undue weight to fringe theories. And, despite a valid guideline, WP:MEDRS, he wants to include citations for either tertiary sources which are specifically excluded from medical articles to make clinical claims, and second, he wants to include articles that have been disproved, set aside, or simply invalid. But those are issues which are purely content related, and are being handled by a number of editors and admins. I am requesting block so as to reduce the fighting and build consensus, but also because he's not listening to valid advice given to him by other editors here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I started trying to mediate, but to no avail. A little quality time with WP:TE seems to be in order. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)'s behaviour, as an example, includes the removal of citations with an edit comment that is false; I point out the error and there is no substantive further engagement on the issue but the article is not permitted to be corrected. In another example an attempt at factual correction simply elicits a non-substantive response along with threats --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with the sources and the particular situation, but I'd say neither are acting very nicely. Michael is more out of line in his personal comments, but he contends that Orangemarlin is lying. If that is true, then it's not a personal attack -- it's a fact, and it is one worthy of attention. Also, Orangemarlin can make snide, deprecating remarks towards those he disagrees with and fly into emotional anger. I'm a little worried about even posting against him because I suspect I'll be attacked for it in the future. That was why that infamous ArbCom case arose. Note that in the 4th diff presented [4], Orangemarlin implicitly calls Michael a POV pusher and compares him to a creationist.

It's possible that Orangemarlin is not being truthful. At major depressive disorder, Orangemarlin cited a Cochrane review as stating the exact opposite of what it said, even after being corrected several times -- see discussion. The Cochrane systematic review, PMID 11869656, concluded that "available evidence does suggest these substances [tryptophan and 5-HTP] are better than placebo at alleviating depression". This was originally cited correctly, then switched by Orangemarlin to "tryptophan and 5-HTP have no effect beyond placebo" [5]. User:Looie496 noticed OM's mistake and corrected it [6], but OM changed it again [7]. Then I corrected it, and Orangemarlin again inserted the completely false language. At this point, User:Looie496 commented that User:Orangemarlin should be careful since he was under ArbCom restrictions, which he wasn't. For this, Orangemarlin called for the block of User:Looie496 at ANI (thread). Soon after, Orangemarlin removed all supportive studies from the 5-HTP page, although he stopped short of stating falsities aside from misreporting the sample size in an edit summary.

Also, note the message at the top of this page. This seems to belong more in Wikiquette alerts, and I don't think Michael should be blocked for personal attacks. II | (t - c) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ImperfectlyInformed, the issue is whether Orangemarlin has actually lied. I don't seem to be the only editor to have reached this conclusion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at all whether he lied, but it's worth straightening out. It might be helpful for you to succinctly lay out all your evidence of a lie here so we can determine if there is one. While personal attacks, unless egregious and consistent, shouldn't really be discussed here, lying about sources could. Those are a bigger deal than personal attacks. It's difficult to distinguish between a lie and a mistake, but when a mistake is repeated over and over, I tend to think of it as intentional. It's important to bring these up to deter it from continuing. Also, can you agree to stop making attacks on Orangemarlin? Better to say "you're not correct" then "you're a liar". II | (t - c) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, although either comment seem to provoke the same response :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of debate is not to convince your opponents, that is often impossible. You should refrain from enflaming the situation as an attempt to keep things calm. the return will come from others, not necessarily OM. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is about MichaelCPrice's incivility. And II stay out of this. You are borderline uncivil too. I love how the anti-science crowd comes out to support each other.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note how any disagreement is labelled "anti-science". Is that civil? --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really uncivil no.It's a bit rude, to be sure, and you have been quite rude to him as well. This whole thing is simply petty squabbling. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there seems to be far too much concentration on the weakest evidence, while ignoring the stronger. This, for instance, is out of line.

Checking his last 50 contributions, I find this, this and this comment which all serve to escalate the situation. While this edit by Orangemarlin's edit summary appears to be inaccurate, Michael nowhere attempts to politely point this out, instead choosing to roll back all of Orangemarlin's revisions and launch into severe personal attacks [8][9], turning a minor error (it appears Orangemarlin meant to remove the first citation, which his edit summary is an accurate description of) into a major situation. This dispute escalation is a major problem, and I support a temporary block. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I should have been more polite in your example and I apologise, but by that point both editors had lost their cool. In my case it was due to the continual smearing by association with creationists etc, and the serial factual errors. An example of how Orangemarlin likes to raise the temperature is seen in his attempted Wikihounding expedition, which he embarkd on immediately after raisng this ANI, [10][11] etc, culminating in raising an AfD. The expedition continued with a factual error in another article here, with the claim that the data were unsourced (not true, see ref that appears in article section), and another here, with claim that existence of atmospheric oxygen has nothing to do with the evolution of antioxidants. Note: all edits were made without any engagement on the articles' talk pages. It seems hypocritical to stoke the fires and then complain about the heat. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with important issue on Don Stewart

I've attempted to add WP:RS and been reverted based on the objections of Harvest09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a WP:SPA interested in removing negative material from Don Stewart, a faith healer. This user misunderstands policy, and has called cited material wrong or misquoted. As pointed out by myself and another person, it is that user who misunderstands the material.

When The Daily Courier, a newspaper from Stewart's hometown, is quoted (via google news archives--"Prescott native hopes ashes will help rebuild his ministry", The Daily Courier, November 5, 1982) Harvest09 called it "an old photocopy that can be questioned." Then ironically, the user brings up WP:V in which he clearly does not understand it has to do with "verifiability, not truth." Then in another case the user accuses a living person and a religious foundation of "misquote articles like the one they claim to be using in the Dallas Morning News and as a result their reference is not a RS." It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to remove a source by claiming a living person and foundation are purposely misquoting material. It also important to note that TWO sentences in question deals with the fact that the foundation worked with Inside Edition on a national broadcast about Stewart's faith healing and finances. On a side note, the user also wants the reference to a critical story on Inside Edition removed.

There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up the racism, riot, arson, and money. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner.

Furthermore, the riots from 27 years ago are so famous that recent accounts on the riots and shooting from police are published regarding a new book about the events. How a WP:SPA can block something that has a current and historical interest is why I am posting here. Can some other people take a look at this article/talk page and work on it with me? It seems no one else is willing to actually look at what's going on with this user and article. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that no one is reverting or adding ad hominem attacks - just a rather heated discussion on the talk page. I think that process should be continued, keeping in mind that reliable sources can be wrong, and if contrary information can be found in another reliable source, put both in the article or leave both out, as consensus serves. I don't see anyone trying to keep all negative information out, just questioning the details whether they appear or not in the sources. Using exact page or paragraph cites will help point people to such details, or consider whether those details really add anything to the article. Basically a content dispute that hasn't bubbled too far off course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look again. This is a revert and this is a revert from two uninvolved parties in the last two days. Whereas, this is a removal of sourced information. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the seriousness of the paragraph removed by administrators should be very carefully worded, if it is used at all. The paragraph he wants to insert doesn't make a number of things clear. I guess we could get into it now, but it is kind of frustrating, because we had started discussing something totally different and this has become a diversion. There is so much there I haven't had time to read all the articles, but I haven't seen Stewart mentioned as a major player in these events. Sorry this has become such a bother. You can see my objections on the discussion page to the paragraph that includes events of murder, riots, a church burning, etc. We aren't getting any discussion from BBiiis08 on the article discussion page before he inserts edits. His only discussion is criticism of my concerns about WP-V, RS, and NPOV on the things he has already edited. I'm confused about what point he is trying to make about Stewart when he keeps inserting this paragraph into the article. Harvest09 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • @BBiiis - as detailed also by Carlossuarez46 - the process of discussion on the talk page is appropriate and should be continued. Arguing therefore that an editor has a Single Purpose Account (SPA) smacks a little of not assuming good faith (AGF) towards an apparently new editor because on the face of it there is nothing wrong with Harvest09 having an initial interest in this article - unless he breaches policy or perhaps COI guidelines. Given that he is discussing his concerns at length at the article talk page, and that his concerns appear important, reverting your recent edits whilst awaiting the outcome of the discussion seems the appropriate and patient thing to do. Please note both Scarian and myself have only reverted based on our administrator role (in this case of assisting the process of discussion) and certainly in my own case I have no specific interest in the article.--VS ^talk 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Harvest09 being a WP:SPA is completely relevant because he is writing a book on the subject/Stewart and has a vested interest-- maybe WP:COI? Just read that post about him interviewing people in the ministry for his book as well as his attempts to contact them over this article. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You (Harvest09) haven't explained what line/what sources you are concerned with. You simply write exclude for "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" concerns. You haven't been specific at all. Which WP:RS? Are you doubting that a boy was killed during the rioting as referenced in James Randi's book? Do you doubt two people were killed in the above cited sources or this news article? Are you saying this article is wrong about Stewart sending out letters asking for money? You can't throw a blanket claim of "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" to get sourced material removed. You can't just say, "I doubt this newspaper's article so we can't include it."
    • Above Harvest09 wrote: "...I haven't had time to read all the articles." If you haven't read the articles then on what basis do you oppose using the newspapers as references?
    • I added my proposed addition here: Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This really is a content dispute so doesn't belong here, but I can affirm that my feelings about User:Harvest09's participation echo those of User:BBiiis08. They appear to be an SPA intent on removing negative content from the article (see their contribs and judge for yourself). Just my 2 cents. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not an SPA - two SPAs: User:JScardilli. See contribs (and note edit summaries vs changes). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Hassan Nasrallah?

Resolved

 – Semi'd 1 week. — neuro^(talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, hopping from address to address, is repeatedly vandalizing Hassan Nasrallah. I've added it to WP:RFPP, but it does take some time for things to be addressed there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Set for 1 week. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

Yousaf465 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on an Anti-India propoganda for sometime now.He began with complaining of too much India bias for FAs on Mainpage at time when there was 59 Indian FAs and 1 Pakistani FA. He is now on a spree to get all images that decipts Pak as terrorist hub like [12]. His new interest is to push Anti India POV on State-sponsored terrorism (history) article. With this edit he removed everything related to Pakistan and replacing with India and Israel. His edits were repeatedly revereted by many users including YellowMonkey. YM blocked him for edit waring and POV push on the article. User:Seicer who is soft on Yousaf , unblocked him ( saying that YM didnt respond back in time) and blocked User:24.28.83.178 who had been also reverting Yousuf's POV additions. A new user Maijinsan (talk · contribs · count) came up from no-where an adding sock tag to many usernames including the above IP editor... It is evident that he himself is a sock. Seicer semi-protected the article and allowed Yousuf to continue to add Anti-India POV statements referenced to Pak dailies which cannot be considered as reliable . I dont want to "edit war" with him and request for third opinions here. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I suggest that you take the effort to add "istan(i)" to the (likely insulting) diminutive "Pak" if you wish to be taken seriously as desiring a neutral consideration of this problem. I would further suggest that you take this complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for review by sysops who are better able to disregard the nationalistic rhetoric of the differing parties. I trust you will update your notices to the above mentioned editors to reflect the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pak" is a common abbreviation for Pakistan used in English language publications both in India and Pakistan; it is no in way shape or form pejorative or insulting. E.g. "Pak-Afghan border situation needs urgent attention: US" The Daily Times, "Pak serious about fighting extremism: NATO chief" The News International (both Pakistani publications), "With Pak alleging links between the Samjhauta..." The Times of India. 87.112.89.175 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would note that the diminitive "Paki" is considered an extremely pejorative insult in British society and, this being the English language Wikipedia, similar terms may strike the readership as antagonistic. Cultural sensitivities should work both ways. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pak is short term for Pakistan,but "Paki" is not acceptable.User:Yousaf465

If I see no rationale given for the block, and his contribution history looks fairly legit, and the unblocking administrator makes no comments regarding the block in a reasonable matter (I did notify the blocking administrator), then I will unblock in most instances. Case closed for YM's old block.

It should be noted that I am not "soft" on anti-Indian propogandists. I frequently get asked to block or review the contributions of specific editors (check my user talk page), and I have done sweeping blocks on this in the past. Perhaps you didn't bother to do a little check of my contribution history??? seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone thanking you is evidence of "being soft" then we are all soft, and that's the way I like it. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm just confused. seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

will replx in detail.User:Yousaf465

Anyone know about Lex Luthor?

Hi: I have been somewhat helpful reviewing Ralph Bakshi at FAC but I have recently been bothered by a guy who emailed me and wants me to do this and say this about the article. I have listened to him because he seemed to know what he was talking about concerning Ralph Bakshi but taken no action on his behalf. Now he is asking me to make changes to William Monahan because it is "being edited by an unlettered twit who stupidly leaves articles erroneous as he quests about the encyclopedia irritating people". It quickly got weird as you can read and I then said that I would have to ask others about the propriety of our conversation. He then told me to report this to ANI and he told me to come here and report him as The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia because you guys know him as that. I will let you guys deal with this chap because I am way out of my league here. LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins: The above is the latest sock of Manhattan Samurai Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia. Nothing to see here, folks, ignore the waving person, move on! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Best to ignore, the editor's motivations are possibly mischievous. Skomorokh 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'll do then. I had a feeling it wasn't all right with him. Thanks! LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lara: What user account contacted you? I think you might be one of his socks but recognize that might be a little unfair.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this guy take forty cakes? --NE2 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, i knew MS would be back eventually. But could you please stop with the Lex Luthor puns, they stopped being funny 2 weeks ago. Elbutler (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Juris Doctor article edits by abusive user

Based on the pattern of edits to the Juris Doctor article, it is apparent that a user has been making disruptive edits. The user has been insisting that the J.D. is now replacing the LL.B., but have not provided any support for the claim, and have ignored discussions. This began on 19 June 2008, was particularly strong in September, occurred again in December, and persisted in January. This user has recently begun aggressive editing on this issue again yesterday and today. An attempt to open a discussion with the user after numerous reverts in September of 2008 was made by initiating a section on the talk page addressing the edits, and reference was made to that discussion every time the change was undone. Posts were also made on the user pages. The user has promised in edit summaries on numerous occasions that she or he will keep correcting the error she or he perceives until it is "right." In fact, it is from the pattern of edits, and the comments in the edit summaries (which say things like "flies in the face of facts," "get it right," "wow! is wiki truth or fiction," and "this is a lie"), that it becomes apparent that all these edits are from the same user. The user does not use an account for the edits, and the IPs include 38.13.201.18235.13.201.182, 68.61.196.89, 68.61.197.65, 24.11.161.213, 71.206.107.220, 76.252.71.24 and 81.208.83.242. Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it from me: the JD hasn't replaced the LLB, at least in the United Kingdom. I'll head over to the talkpage and chip in. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to be getting the message, and doesn't seem to be interested in talking. I recommend semi-protecting; if he wants to edit it he can create a single account we can track and talk to rather than multiple IPs which indicate a changing IP address, meaning we have no way of telling if he actually got our messages. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

This case was initially submitted Here. MZMcBride moved it to SPI 22:59, 10 February 2009. Mayalld closed it 15:16, 16 February 2009 stating "if investigation is required, please file as an SPI case above". I asked MZMcBride what the purpose of submitting it to SPI was, given that most (at the time all) of the edits were from IPs. MZMcBride's response was, roughly, "I don't have anything to do with SPI, I'm trying to keep AV/I clear." Now, after adding to registered accounts to the SPI it is being closed because the one account is stale (blocked a while ago) and the second one was just blocked as a sock of the first. Argh! The original problem has not been addressed. Additionally, another new register user, Mr.s86, may or may not be involved -- their limited editing, while suggestive, is not quite clear cut. (Edits to Raven-Symoné and Raven-Symoné (album) claiming an otherwise unknown future album are pretty typical, but these edits and creating Lil' Miss Diva are a whole new level beyond.) What do I do with the IPs? Help! - SummerPhD (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also Kielz86 (talk · contribs) and Boi91 (talk · contribs) (both blocked) and XoxoGossipBoy (talk · contribs) (not blocked) whom I found by following the overlapping chain of deleted contribs. All three have been active in similar areas. May be relevant if another checkuser request is required. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade

Mysticshade (talk · contribs)

Requesting assistance with user who is continuing to flaut multiple guidelines - despite repeated requests from multiple users to temper his edits and engage in CON.

Specifically, Mysticshade (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and deliberately:

• Uploaded and included copyrighted materials (both images and text) in this project and Commons (And has been blocked on Commons for same)
• Has copied and pasted content from one topic to another (ignoring the GFDL authorship, redundancy and MOS guidelines) despite multiple explanations as to why this was inappropriate [13]
• Has engaged in editwars, reversions (bordering if not surpassing 3RR) and non-collaborative practices, despite multiple requests here and on article talkpages to engage with other editors
• Has copied and pasted copyvio content from other sources
• And has introduced factual inaccuracies into several articles. Examples include:
  • Persistent use of a 2:3 ratio flag for Ireland, when it is officially 1:2 [14]
  • Inaccurate representation of the number of singles releases by a particular band [15]
  • Etc.

On their own, all of these issues could easily be forgiven as "newbie exuberance", but the fact that the user continues to ignore requests to temper his edits are all being ignored. Not sure I'm requesting a block per sé, but something has to happen. Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree with Guliolopez's assessment of Mysticshade's problematic edits above, unfortunately I don't honestly think that Mysticshade is a newbie. For example, a new user finding his/her way so quickly to a hot-button issue like the use of the Ulster banner [16] definitely rings alarm bells for me. I know that I am sticking my head over the parapet here in abandoning the assumption of good faith, but there is something odd going on here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully support action being taken here. I also agree with Flowerpotman, the articles being targeted, the language seen suspicious. The user has resisted all attempts to get him to discuss changes on the talk page and vandalism warnings when that failed. The same pattern of editing (littering with decorative photographs) has also taken place at Dundee and Dublin and elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Egebwc

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB. — neuro^(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Egebwc has his password on his user page and it works. Probably should block that acct. --64.85.215.227 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. yandman 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Damage to microformats

J JMesserly is making a number of edits which are damaging the microformats emitted by Wikipedia, often making them emit broken and/ or bogus metadata (and is doing the same on Commons, but I've raised the matter, separately, there). I've tried to reason with him on his and my talk pages, the microformat project page, various other projects, and many template- & article talk pages. I've offered to assist him (he's clearly new to microformats; I've been implementing them here and elsewhere, and contributing to the designs of microformats and microformat parsers, since 2006). I've got nowhere (I'm sure he feels the same way about me). His behaviour includes repeatedly threatening me with Arbcom if I won't I submit to binding mediation, repeatedly asking the same questions, accusing me of vandalism (after having to apologise for doing so on Commons); making ad hominem attacks, edit warring without discussion (I've also reverted often, but have always given reasons). I've asked him to hold fire while we discuss matters, but he's continued; making so many edits to implement his preferred way of doing things that it looks like a bot run. I can see no evidence that he is interested in building or working towards consensus. I'm tired of this (and currently ill); I really don't want to devote my time to compiling a catalogue of evidential diffs (most of my editing for the last week or two has been to argue these matters with him, to revert his damage and to point him at WP:BRD, to the point where I'm always fire-fighting instead of making more constructive edits); but some neutral party who understands metadata and especially microformats needs to look into this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You give such a strong impression of WP:OWNing everything to do with microsformats, and dragging everybody with whom you have a unilateral dispute to ANI claiming mass damage and destruction (which is often not evident to anyone else) that I don't hold out much hope of this being anything other than shunted elsehwere. Take it to the Wikiproject or RFC is my advice. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett has an extensive history of making assertions about the correctness of his positions regarding microformats [17][18][. I was not aware of any of these prior events until recently, and I appear to be only the latest recipient of Mr. Mabbett's oversight of my contributions at Wikipedia. While I maintain a positive outlook towards Andy, I am having a difficult time differentiating his past behavior from his current behavior. Regardless, I have not responded to his frequent personal attacks and hope that memories of this friction will fade with time as we work together regarding our common passion for microformat capability at Wikipedia. I have made repeated attempts at reaching common ground with Pigsonthewing. Although he asserts authority regarding microformats, he quite often makes demonstrably incorrect statements (lamian war)[19] (ISO date for JFK:November 22, 1963 (-07:00))[20] causing me to regard his frequent unsupported assertions with skepticism, and requests for support for his allegations. These are declined, with the remark that he has already responded. My proposal to him as that microformats.org community be the arbiters on the technical points he raises. My repeated inquiry to him is whether he prefers to continue to try to work this out, to agree to binding mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation, or to go to arbcom. So far, I am unclear what his preference is, but I do not see that the incidents board can do much with this, as was the observation in a prior incident (see Fabrictramp recommendation [21]). -J JMesserly (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Threeafterthree

What could be controversial in the following sentence from Martin Fleischmann? "He is best known for his controversial work with his colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s." According to User:Threeafterthree it is the word "best", which apparently is a clear violation of WP:PEACOCK and WP:MOSBIO. And of course it needs a source which says specifically that he is "best" known for it, otherwise the word must be removed or replaced with "also" (which, apparently, is perfectly fine here).

This has been going on since shortly after Guy expressed concern that Fleischmann might fall under WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK (for cold fusion). Note also that when the controversy started, the sentence following the incriminated one cited an article that included the phrase "best known for his role in the 'cold fusion' controversy". Oh, and Threeafterthree "got give a rat's ass about this guy, but if folks want to write that FACT, then back it up". [22] By now the word "best" is sourced immediately in the place where it appears, and I seem to have satisfied Threeafterthree's concern [23] that I might have a COI or other agenda. Threeafterthree even got an unrelated edit in that nobody objected to so far, even though it's almost equally silly. [24] (Note the phrase "who replicated the experiment" after the who-tag.) That, of course, doesn't seem to be sufficient success, and 4 1/2 hours later Threeafterthree asked User:Abd and me how many accounts we each use for editing. [25]

It looks like he is once again longing for a wikibreak, as in November when he last edit-warred (on Barack Obama). [26][27] Now he has also started censoring other editors' comments (at an unrelated article), a behaviour that ultimately led to his blocks in September and October. [28]

I suppose some kind of admin action is in order here. E.g. checkusering me to see how many sockpuppets I have, or warning me for calling a spade a spade. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The content issue should generally be ignored here and only behavior examined. Behaviorally, Threeafterthree was insisting on a content position and wikilawyering for it, insistently, repeatedly and sometimes uncivilly, plus asserting the position with edits when it was clear that no other editor supported him. (The position unsupported by others is that "best known" is inappropriate, and then a source is demanded for it, when there is a source and it's been asserted and shown. But, please, assume that Threeafterthree is correct on the content and focus on the behavior, i.e., insisting on correct content with repetitive edits, tendentious argument, and without any support from other editors.) .I've been following this and have informally warned Threeafterthree on the article Talk page. If the behavior continues, I would warn him on his Talk, I felt that it was still short of that, though getting close. The behavior could warrant a Talk warning, and, if continued, a block. I can understand why Adler is concerned, though. Adler's behavior has not been spotless, he's been gratuitously uncivil, but also apologized for it, as I recall. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The user should have been warned before bring this here. I recommend speedy close of this discussion as premature, unless someone has other serious behavior to report that took place after warning. This, and the notice on his talk page, could be considered the warning. On the other hand, I have not investigated this user's history, and if this is a repetition of prior patterns, with previous warnings and a block for such behavior, warning may not be necessary, I'd take back my recommendation. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I think Threeafterthree is a reasonable guy, you should try just talking to him, maybe even send email or something. It's certain that we need to be careful saying that Fleischmann is best known for probably the largest and most spectacular cock-up of his entire career, so maybe an alternate form of words can be found. I had a go, see what you think. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize that this has come to this board. There was a content dispute at a biography about using the term "best known for" and I pressed the issue I guess without knowing who all the players are, ect. or that cold fusion is touchy. Anyways, I really do not want to defend my prior history or feel a need to. I do remove comments from talk pages that I feel are harmful or off topic per WP:FORUM. Anyways, again, I think this has been overblown to reach this level but will listen to the community and try to work with the folks on the Martin Fleischmann talk page. Thank you, --Tom 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foie gras

Sko1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is once again an edit war going on at that article, being instigated by the same guy, User:Sko1221, a single-purpose account focused on POV-pushing on that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has been in Foie gras controversy for a long time; I don't see a major problem with it existing in this article and it could be argued that removing it is also pushing a POV. It's certainly more encyclopedic that the image of the bottle of wine ... Black Kite 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is alleged to be a photo of a duck being force-fed. Prove it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to think of an alternative reason why a duck/goose in a battery farm should be having a funnel put down its throat. Come on, be realistic - it is a duck being force-fed - compare [29]. Black Kite 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My purpose for wanting this picture to be included is that i know people don't usually read every word on a Wiki page, we usually skim the page. I am adding this picture for those people who want a fair, informational story but want it fast, without having to read each word. There are probably good paying jobs for those who want to create an ad for foie gras, but this is not the place. Thanks, Sarah 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute with no admin action really needed, and consensus here and at Talk:Foie_gras#Images seems to agree that the image is what it claims to be (a duck being tube-fed to make fois gras) so there's nothing for an admin to here. rootology (C)(T) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The single-purpose, POV-pushing account wins the battle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page of the article; there's no battles to be won, and I had an outstanding question for you on how a visual representation of a physical action described in the article is any kind of a POV push. rootology (C)(T) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's to try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah here, SKO1221. I have not stayed away, i am not a "sock", i simply forgot to log in so did not show up as SKO.

Never been to either article, just saw this in passing. I would tend to think that an article on Foie gras should concentrate on only the subject matter itself, and not the controversy. That is why there appears to be this separate Foie gras controversy to cover the issue of why people are against this product, rather than the product itself. The Fur clothing article does not contain images of bloody animal pelts, for example. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But the article already has a section on fattening. The image is hardly comparable to bloody animal pelts, it is merely an image of a duck being fattened up to illustrate that section of the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And it has arguably a POV-fork that focuses on the controversy, which is where the picture came from. And the SPA / IP wants the picture in this article, too, as "it's a huge part of the story". [30] Maybe the solution is to put the whole "story" into a single article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just read the controversy article and it reads fairly neutral. It's kinda long to put into the foie gras one. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does the picture need to be in both articles, other than to further push the "cruelty to animals" viewpoint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has removed the picture again, after going through this process of resolution.SKO1221 Sko1221 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

News flash: It ain't resolved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is still ongoing here, now, with another undiscussed reversion. rootology (C)(T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've got here is a single purpose account that turned up in the last day or so for the express purpose of trying to push the "cruelty to animals" angle as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's all well and good, but we don't block to win content disputes. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought this had been resolved. suggest reversion to resolved edit and lock. Sko1221 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking the single purpose account for POV-pushing and edit warring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And blocks for the other editors edit warring, as well? Regardless of their "original" intention, when more people reviewed it, a consensus seems to have formed/is forming on the talk. rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Page locked until the disputes are resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

suggest blocking baseballs for un-resolving resolved issues.

Here's a suggestion - lets not block anyone. Lets have everyone go to the talk page and put their arguments forwards. Kinda novel idea I know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What protection is there for a resolved issue (other than the temporary locked mode of the page) from edit warring when someone is very POV toward foie gras, as we have seen here? Sko1221 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Let it rest. Don't think for one minute that because some admins happen to agree that the picture should stay that we cannot see that you are in fact the most POV editor on the page. You editing history speaks volumes. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for your help. Sko1221 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest blocking Theresa knott for cruelty to otters over an extended period (no one believed your excuse). Meanwhile, this really does look like a content dispute that should be resolved using dispute resolution techniques. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take another look at the image source[31]? It looks like it is copyrighted which would make the matter moot. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the owner of the image (Gaia) remove copyright. Will let you all know what i hear.Sko1221 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread was vintage Baseball Bugs. Tan | 39 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There was obviously an issue that needed to be raised, although the user who originally turned in SKO to WP:AIV the other day (without success) has kept quiet on this subject today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tookluck

Resolved

 – Tookluck lostluck. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we ban this user? He/She redirected the BLP article for Roland Burris with a libelous comment (1, 2). As this ass-clown doesn't seem to have anything positive to contribute, the sooner the user is shown the door, the better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rogerspeed23

Perhaps I should AGF more, but this user's edits look to me like an attempt at under-the-radar vandalism. Most of them re-word small parts of existing articles in ways which introduce minor errors of grammar and spelling, and generally reduce the readability and flow of the text. I've reverted some of the worst cases. No, I haven't warned him, yet. It's late and I'm going home. I'm flagging it here in case someone here is familar with the MO. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked three different articles he edited, and agree, it does seem like vandalism. All his edits have been reverted in those. Not yet certain if he is doing this on purpose or not. We'll have to wait for him to comment here. I believe you are suppose to put a tag on his user page telling him he was mentioned here. Dream Focus 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address the issue of vandalism. Its such a strong In fact its an inaccurate statement. Vandalism by its nature is destructive. As stated above the accuser isn't sure.

I try to correct usage, and grammar myself,I've seen some criticism for style not on substance yet in these arguments. You guys are in Europe or something. My language is Southern American. If I were going to vandalize something I would know how to do that. I don't know all that you have reverted...I'd like to know. I did see the use of vapour changed it to vapor ...I'll listen....just don't hit me with a hammer....

See here for starters. Natalie (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Southern American" or not, please explain how Underground mine ventilation moves of air to the underground workings of a in order to dilute and reduce the dangerous build up of deadly gases is correct in any dialect. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogerspeed23 is either a troll or someone whose command of Standard English is so shaky that s/he has no business "emending" WP articles. I'm not sure whether WP:DENY, WP:DNIV, or WP:COMPETENCE is most relevant here, but I'd suggest that the user think carefully about each edit s/he makes, after checking it with the preview function, before clicking on "Save page." Eventually, the work required to undo Rogerspeed's edits is going to make someone with the power to block lose patience with her/him. Deor (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting vandalism. Although I have mangled some things, and I stand corrected. The ventilation section I edited was laden with some industry specific jargon and I thought I could clear it up a little evedintly I failed- my bad. I thought I corrected it. I'll try to be more careful so as not to incur your evident wrath. I'd like to try your good side and collaborate more effectively. Rogerspeed23 21:09, 19 Feb 2009 (CST)

Aid, please?

Resolved

 – Thanks, guys! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I have someone who knows Chinese please translate what's currently on User talk:龘龗龖龕龔龓龑龞龝龜齾齹齉鼉鼈麎麤? He's calling every attempt to remove it as racism, but apparently it appears to be just gibberish. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been nuked, but now he wants an unblock, again calling what happened racism. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use the google toolbar, you can add a button which runs it through the google translator, which usually gives a translation good enough to get the gist. Alternatively you can add {{notenglish}} and preview it, which also gives a link to a google translation.--Jac16888^Talk 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Google Translate confirms that it's total nonsense. Mind, it wasn't able to translate some of the characters, but it got enough to show that there wasn't any meaningful text there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

question about an old "friend"" of ours

As this user or an imitator has returned (if ever so briefly), should some version of this page be around for a reference? I remember reading it when I first started out, but it has since been deleted per WP:DENY. I doubt if many of us remember, and I think the benefits of having a point of reference outweigh the detriments. If nothing else, it's answer to a common RFA question. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion on wheels!!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY is not policy. Endorse restoration, its deletion is merely a hindrance. Besides, Willy on Wheels is already reasonably well known on Wikipedia aside from the LTA page. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

...and has publicly apologized, lest I'm mistaken. It's a Spy wearing a WoW mask. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; I recall reading on a mailing list post a sincere apology from WoW after Wikipedia use managed to save him from flunking out of college. Anybody with the "(Willy) on Wheels" moniker is an impersonator, and should be blocked, no LTA needed. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if this was a Grawpalike. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikacsu

Resolved

 – He gawn, bye-bye.

Just 10 minutes after Pikacsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s one-week block for disruption expired, he was back at Talk:Barack Obama with these edits. He hasn't learned a damn thing in the past week, and it's time he be shown the door. Grsz¹¹ 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He was re-blocked (for good) 58 minutes after patiently waiting for a week-long block to come to an end. It's like the Superman episode where an arch-criminal seals himself in an impenetrable cube for 7 years, only to be arrested the minute he walks out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Pikacsu running afoul of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation for the previous discussion here. Grsz¹¹ 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a little interesting that the word "Afghanistan" doesn't appear currently on the Barack Obama's wikipedia article. It means for me that some guys from White House is coloring his bio, but they don't write the hard issues, the bad news. And if somebody is editing his article then it is a 100% probability that somebody will revert it, block you, and they say the reason: "personal attack". Pikacsu (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Either present evidence that the White House is editing the article, or retract that personal attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare it by Bush's article, that contains 15 times the Afghanistan word, this tells me everything. Pikacsu (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is not a soapbox for you to add POV edits like the one's presented here. Dlohcierekim 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This isn't the venue for content discussions. You know full well what you are doing with this repeated trolling on the article talk page though; they are not valid attempts to engage in discussions, they are your personal soapbox for criticism of all things Obama. This "woe is me" plea falls upon deaf ears. Kudos for setting a land speed record for resumption of vandalism after a ban's expiration though. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pikacsu indefinitely for refusing to stop trolling. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems from his blanking his page he has no intent to request an unblock. Can his page be protected and redirected? Grsz¹¹ 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They should be able to modify his block to where he cannot edit his own talk page. However, it would be prudent to give it a day or so and see if, on reflection, he actually wants to work here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets of Blocked user Pudge2

Resolved

 – Banhammered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:They watch you posted this message on J.delanoy's talk page claiming he/she was Pudge2 (an indef blocked user). User:They watch you was created by User:Poophead92. These are possible sockpuppets with one being claimed. What should be done....block, checkuser??? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 20, 2009 @ 00:36

No checkuser needed if they admit to it. Fire away, boys. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The user could be told to request an unblock with the original account (although other users have been allowed to continue with new accounts after indefinite blocks before). One thing I don't understand is why edits such as this were reverted as vandalism. —Snigbrook 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still block evasion. — neuro^(talk) 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

Resolved

 – ANI not right venue, no serious problem to handle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User Görlitz deleted a porton of the text in Nobody's Fault but Mine claiming "no citation".[32] I added a citation to prove the claim.[33] User then deleted passage again under the pretext "No reason given for removing the text. Restoring." which is bizarre because he removed the cited text not restored it [34]. It appears he's trying to imposed his own opinion on the article by deleting cited text that disagrees with his point of view. HelenWatt (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What he did is mistaken, but there's no sign it was intentional abuse. In cases like this, the normal response is to restore the content again, put a note on the article talk page and on his talk page that it looks like he mistakenly reverted your addition of a citation and the original text, and see whether that solves it. If they continue to remove it and won't respond on their talk page or the article talk page then ask more experienced editors or admins for help talking to them to find consensus.

The Administrators' Noticeboards are only for serious or ongoing issues. This isn't serious, and has only happened once so far. Also, if it was serious, we do ask that you notify users on their talk page when you file a complaint here.

Please reach out to Gorlitz on the article talk and his talk. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

fake "wikipedia"

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just followed a link to a "Takarazuka Wikipedia" (link), thinking it was some obscure language of WP. I get there and see that it's some not-the-real-thing using the word "Wikipedia" in its name. Should something be done about this? Like emailing them and saying "Don't use that name"? flaminglawyer 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(if this is posted in the wrong place, I'm terribly sorry, but it's the place that I though it fit best) flaminglawyer 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing an administrator here could do. Your best bet would be to notify Foundation counsel, lest I'm mistaken. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cary and Mike at the WMF. For future reference, apparent fake wikipedia things should go to the foundation. English wikipedia folks aren't the foundation and can't start proper legal review etc... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a trademark violation, but a fairly harmless one, since they're visually distinct from Wikipedia. I think some people have just started using Wikipedia as a synonym for any kind of topical wiki encyclopedia. A friendly e-mail wouldn't hurt, I don't think it's worth the Foundation's trouble. Dcoetzee 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle - disruption at WP:NC (flora)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) has been given the opportuntiy of the last three months,archived discussions,more discussion,even more, to express his opinion on the way in which plant articles are named. After 3 months of discussion B2c has again gone forumn shopping[35],[36]. At this point in time B2C appears to no longer be acting in good faith with editors but deliberately ignoring consensus.[37] He has also been cautioned about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, some of the many warnings about WP:POINT, [38],[39],[40]. It has now reached the point that temporary sanctions need to be enacted. Gnangarra 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, Hesperian and I are covering new ground today, and that link above is part of it. What consensus am I ignoring? I certainly would not want to do that. The only "warnings" I've received are from people who disagree with the view that the current flora guideline is in conflict with general naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, all I'm doing is engaging in discussion, with those who choose to discuss with me, on the talk page. How this disrupts the editing of any actual articles -- as is constantly claimed it does -- is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Discussion_statistics Gnangarra 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing new in that discussion, I didnt say your disrupting editing of article I said that your forumn shopping and ignoring consensus for the convention is disrupting Wikipedia. Gnangarra 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why fault Don Quixote for Tilting at windmills? Much like The Scorpion and the Frog, we all do what is in our nature. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When such actions infringes on the ability of community to work co-operatively, we assume good faith, when its no longer possible for the assumption of good faith in an individuals action we seek WP:BLOCK // WP:BAN, as I'm involved with issues, along with many others I'm bringing the issue here to seek independent action. Gnangarra 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes (he hasn't edited in the mainspace for over a fortnight). This naming dispute has now been going for 77 days, and it is Born2cycle who continues to sustain it, because such disputes sustain him. Every argument he has put forward has been responded to at length and in good faith, and numerous times, but nothing can dent his conviction that he alone bears The Truth. Everybody but Born2cycle is sick to death of this dispute, but Born2cycle will not let it go, continuing to badger us with the same long-refuted claims, insisting that the matter remains under dispute, and that further discussion is warranted, and that those who refuse to discuss it further are guillotining debate. 100% of editors who actually contribute in the field are against him, but he declares that a sign of bias, and fights on, forum shopping for "unbiased" participants, and seeking to deny a voice to the editors who actually have a stake in the decision. This has long since moved into the realms of arguing for the sake of arguing, or perhaps arguing for the sake of refusing to admit defeat. Hesperian 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting further input regarding the addition of stock information to Warren Buffett

Hi, there is a content dispute at Warren Buffett regarding the addition of stock information, such as in this diff. I removed the content, but User:Iifacts added it back. We discussed the issue on their talk page, but it didn't go anywhere, so I am requesting for further input into the situation. Please see Talk:Warren_Buffett#Stock_Holdings for the latest discussion, in which we are trying to form a consensus. The user reverted the same thing four times in the past 24 hours (1, 2, 3, and 4) but instead of going to WP:3RR, I'd rather just build a consensus on this as soon as possible so it can be done with. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary cut off many good content from the Warren Buffett page, especially the stock holding part and time line just because of his own taste. I try to engage talk with him but he dictated the page has to be in his way only, and reverted the page many times (4 times in 24 hours). Many people have done a lot of work and it's a shame that everything is gone and the page now looks very difficult to read. Thanks! Iifacts (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)