Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Request permanent block and talkpage protection

talk to me 21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 – Silly rabbit decided to go the WikiBreak Enforcer route--Fabrictramp

Please block me permanently and protect my talkpage. I no longer see any merit in the project. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but we don't block to enforce wiki-breaks, permanent or otherwise. You may want to look at right to vanish--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to try WikiBreak Enforcer and set it to let you log-in in 2050 or similar. §hep^Talk 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks like a case of storming off in a huff because of not getting one's way. (If that's too soon, try a minute and a huff.) I went through something like that a couple of years ago. Getting priorities in order is important. You're not always going to win, even when you're right. There are a brazillion articles here, so there are plenty of areas where contributions are possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You could always scramble your password. — neuro^(talk) 02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Build the web

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

Continued below at #Build the web again.

Background: there was until recently a guideline page called WP:Build the web. In January, following extensive discussions, it was merged with two other guideline pages to make the page WP:MOSLINK. This merger was well received and (once a few niggles over wording were sorted out) unanimously supported. Then a week or two ago someone decided unilaterally to resurrect the old text of BTW and mark it as a separate guideline again. There was edit warring over this; the page was protected for a week, and the text was restored, but marked as "status under discussion". The discussion took place at WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline?, and a clear majority of contributors (and, I would suggest, the clear weight of the arguments) supported the status quo, i.e. that the guidelines should remain merged, with the old text of BTW being kept but marked as historical or an essay. Discussion continued at WT:Build the web as to exactly how to label it, although some of those who wanted it still marked as a guideline decided to keep arguing for that, denying the previous consensus. Now, I see that one other editor (possibly not fully aware of the full history) has again unilaterally marked the page as a guideline (and I have reverted it; knowing those involved, a new edit war will almost certainly break out now).

Requested action: I am NOT asking for this page to be protected again at some random version, as this clearly doesn't work. I would like a neutral uninvolved admin to settle this dispute, in accordance with the procedure (still perhaps largely untested) described at WP:Policies and guidelines, whereby the existence of consensus to change the status of guidelines is to be judged by an outside individual. Then perhaps the arguing will stop. If someone would agree to do this, then we can show them where the discussions are on which the claims of consensus are based. If no-one will do this, then please protect the page, but at the version that was supposed to be stable during the discussion, i.e. the one which says that the status of the page is under discussion at the talk page. Random protection is not appropriate in these cases (I'm sure it says in some policy that you should, or at least can, go back to the last stable version). --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that administrators read through WT:Build the web before taking Kotniski's claims of "unanimity" and "majority" at face value. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The substantive discussion was held (as Earle well knows, since he was there) not at that page (although it was well advertised there) but at the talk page of the merged page, namely WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline?. I make it a 12-6 majority, with consensus confirmed by the strength of arguments (no-one has disputed the "against resurrection" arguments at all, while the "for" arguments see, to boil down to little more than "I liked it". The discussion where there was unanimity will be found in the most recent archives of WT:MOSLINK, just before the merger (although there had been similar discussion with similar results at earlier stages).--Kotniski (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The forgetfulness of Earle Martin

On Feb 17, Earle Martin started a new section at the page now named WT:Linking, titled "Resurrect this guideline?" Immediately underneath the header, he wrote,

Namely WP:Build the web. Note: for the time being, I have restored the text of the guideline, as it is unfair to expect that people can argue for the life of someone when then have already been executed. This is for discussion purposes, not edit warring, and I will adhere to the eventual result of the discussion. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Emphasis added by me, Goodmorningworld.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually me who started the section (you don't think that those trying to impose their will by force would actually do anything to initiate orderly discussion about it, do you? They always leave that sort of thing to their opponents, to whom it comes more naturally.) But I believe that was Earle's statement. New thread on this topic opened below (#Build the web again).--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

threats/jokes about committing physical violence against editors

Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened/joked about drilling a hole in my skull on an article talk page. i removed it, he added it back. i asked him on his talk page to remove it, and he refused [[1]]. this is the same editor who recently called another a moron, a zipperheads. more morons, and ugly trolls. i ask that an outside editor remove his physical violence threat against me, as it adds nothing to improving the article, and makes me uncomfortable, even if it was intended as some sort of joke. if i removed it again, he'd surely edit war, based on his response. if an outsider removed it, i doubt he'd war Theserialcomma (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a formal warning to this Koalorka. Lets see if he heeds it, or perists in such personal attacks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the controversial comment from the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had blocked this user for a good week, it would have been a decent block. This guy's behavior is very very far from being acceptable. You were very lenient Jayron, and I think in light of that leniency a long block should be awaiting Koalorka if he continues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I would have no problem with that if he continue. I think that in most cases, with established users, I am uneasy with blocking someone unless they have been told "you will be blocked if you continue". I think that the blocking policy makes clear that we should at least try other avenues before blocking someone, and the "stop or you will be blocked" message should at least be tried once. If he continues, by all means, block away! In fact, if he continues, and I am the first to notice, I myself would issue the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence are obviously unacceptable. Even granting that such a comment is sometimes intended metaphorically or quasi-humorously, insisting on it or restoring it after the other editor has complained is certainly beyond the pale.

On the other hand, on IRC, I have been stabbed many times, including by several well-respected administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between banter between two people who have a good working relationship, and aggression that tries to hide behind a claim of humor. The edit summary when Koalorka restored the 'joke' was not a friendly statement. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka needs to read WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the statements of Newyorkbrad and Durova. Because I had the same sentiments as you two, I informed him that further incivility would result in a block. I agree 50% with Exxolon. Remember that the key of WP:DICK is that you cannot refer other editors who are being WP:DICK, lest ye be thought a WP:DICK yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with him and I'm afraid Kaolorka is a bit of an ass, but at least he has the interests of encyclopedia at heart.--Patton^t/c 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• People need trepanation like they need a hole in the head.

... ... ... Oh, wait. 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A review of the relevant talk page material quickly shows two things: (1) there's no threat here, and (2) Serialcomma is behaving disruptively and obnoxiously, and ought not to be rewarded for it. Looie496 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! When we want your opinion we'll beat it out of you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the editor has been blocked for 48 hours by Jayron for further comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad an experienced editor chose to push the envelope on his first edit after the warning. Regardless of anyone else's behavior, steering an article talk discussion away from content and toward personality conflicts with a snark is not the way to go. I had noticed that edit last night, wondered whether to mention it here, and decided not to. But can't disagree with the block. Here's hoping a couple of days' break cools things down. The editor has an odd reaction to the block announcement, though.[2] Durova^Charge! 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I may have chosen 1 week, but still good. Threats of violence, even joking ones, especially when re added after removal, do not need warning and probably should not have warnings. People already know this is unacceptable they don't need to be told "Saying your going to hurt someone isn't allowed". Chillum 17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that is like telling a judge how long to sentence someone. You're preaching to the converted here...--Patton^t/c 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Block length vary considerably depending on circumstances and the admin. I may have chosen a different length, but the length chosen was well within reason. I would have done differently, but I do not disagree. Chillum 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree completely, and wouldn't have objected if a longer and/or earlier block had been implemented. Perhaps there's an advantage, though, to the course this has taken: Koalorka is probably reading this thread and seeing unanimous agreement--and that if anything he's been given lenient treatment. That doesn't leave a blocked editor any leeway for complaint and may motivate him to improve his conduct. If problematic behavior resumes there will probably also be swift agreement for a longer block. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious procedural concern here. Theserialcomma and I have a 'history' where he reports me, doesn't get me banned, reports me for the same thing, doesn't get me banned, then badgers and baits till he gets somebody to listen to him. He's been badgering and baiting Koalorka for a while now. He also jumped to the admin's talk page rather than posting it here because he didn't get his way here. Isn't there a sanction for asking mommy after daddy said no? Are we going to continue to reward Theserialcomma for disruptive behavior and skirting on the edge of stalking, baiting, badgering, forum shopping, etc to muscle his opinion through? This is really sick. It was mentioned earlier that you are rewarding Theserialcomma for his disruptive behavior because he's driven others to the point that he can forum shop and get a supportive admin to take action against him? Really not cool. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's a case to be made regarding Serialcomma, please start it separately and back it up with diffs, etc. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova, if you have a case, make it. Otherwise, throwing out unsourced accusations won't make your point with anyone. As for Koalorka, the current discussion on his talk page [3], the leniency in his block hasn't sunk in to him yet. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though it may be little more than some face-saving bravado, that conversation is a bad sign. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma's editing on some of the military and firearms pages has been less than optimal from a consensus point of view at times in the past. Mildly disruptive at times without approaching the blockable level at all. However, he's been amenable to discussion, and I've kept monitoring both sides on and off. There's a lack of collegial behavior on both sides of the debate but it had stayed civil enough and consenusly cooperative. I haven't caught up on the last few days worth of changes and the particulars of the incident that led to this ANI report, but through last week didn't see anything suggesting or requiring action.

However, perhaps fresh eyes will see a problem where I didn't - I was ok with where it settled down, but perhaps I was too close to see the longer term pattern evolve. Someone else taking a look may suggest a better balance point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page moves by Zonly

Zonly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made numerous page moves, often contrary to naming conventions and punctuation rules, including [4], and these two after final warning: [5], [6]. He/She NEVER discusses moves or responds to warnings, despite many pleas to do so and warnings to stop, including this final warning. I suspect he/she does it sometimes just to be annoying. I reported this at WP:AIV; the response was that this is a "content dispute" rather than vandalism. I don't consider nuisance page moves to be a "content dispute", especially with no discussion or response to attempts at discussion. I'm seeking opinion(s) from an admin, and possible action, even if it's just a comment from an admin on Zonly's talk page. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zonly made some useful contributions to Buckethead related pages ([7] [8] [9], amongst many other music related pages [10] [11]), therefore I invited him to join our project, which he did ([12]. He's only around since December and may not speak English well since he's from Brazil and quite active on his own language's wiki ([13]). So please be at least a bit patient with him. Give him a clear but friendly last warning or a short lasting block, but please give him another chance.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He's had several warnings (including a final warning) and many requests to discuss his page moves. It's his absolute refusal to discuss moves before he makes them or to discuss concerns expressed by other editors (and not just me) that is problematic. Not understanding that's he's making mistakes is one thing; refusal to discuss or pay attention to messages is more serious. If he does not understand English well enough to comprehend the warnings and messages he receives, then he needs to be adopted by someone who can help him. But he has to want to cooperate for that to happen, and I see no evidence that he intends to listen to anyone. Maybe some of his edits are good, but his inappropriate edits need to be addressed, and he needs to respond. If you have interacted with him, maybe it would help if you sent him a message about this discussion and try to get him to respond. I have no interest in "punishing" him if he will stop his pattern of moving pages inappropriately and without discussion, but if he stays on the same path he may need to be blocked to get his attention. Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have made only one, relatively harmless page move ( [14] moving GG Allin to G.G. Allin ) after the warnings. And only one other disruptive act (a page blanking) since then, which on first impression was probably just an editorial mistake.

Please read WP:BITE policy - we are supposed to make a good effort to talk to and educate new users. That includes new users who are blundering around a bit and need to slow down and get into the groove to avoid disruption by accident. He's only had the account for three months, and there doesn't seem to have been all that much constructive feedback left on his talk page so far other than that set of warnings, which clearly slowed him down somewhat.

ANI is for hard cases where someone is either seriously disruptive in the short term, or corrosively so in the long term. This is not evidently someone out to break the encyclopedia - yeah, he's done some damage, but he needs and deserves more friendly mentoring before we start to consider him a menace or anything.

I left him another notice explaining what issues he's gotten into. If more people try to talk to him constructively it would also help. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Correction: He made two inappropriate page moves after I gave him a final warning. Look at my message above.) He got a standard welcome and several polite requests. If that's biting the newcomer, then let me clear the air a bit. With all due respect Georgewilliamherbert, no wonder Wikipedia is the laughing stock of the world. When I had been registered only a couple of weeks a few years ago, I got a block for a 3RR violation, and with almost no prior warnings. But I didn't complain about biting the newcomer. It was a justified block, and it had its desired effect of teaching me a lesson and making me a better editor. But over the years I have become an embittered editor because of incidents like this. I won't belabor this point because this is not the appropriate venue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there maybe anyone who's capable to talk to him in Spanish/Portuguese? I've got problems enough with English, not to talk about German or French and do not want to try out some sort of online babel fish...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to find a user from Portuguese Wikipedia, that might be possible. But I honestly doubt that would help. I think he realizes he is receiving warnings. If I got a standard warning in any other western language, I probably would recognize it as a message that there is a problem even if I didn't understand many of the words, simply because of the standard images contained in them and the bold font. I suspect he simply doesn't wish to go to the trouble of figuring out the problem so he can continue doing things his way. But I think explaining things in Portuguese is a good idea as a last resort if that could be arranged. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there nobody here who can speak both languages? Where's all the illegal aliens? ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors who participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal probably know the language, if anyone is interested in trying to contact someone. I, myself, will not do so because I don't think it will change anything, but I would like to be wrong about this. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I have not much hope left: see [15]... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, and I agree it does not look good. I don't think he wishes to change his editing pattern. If he continues the page moves and an admin will do so, it may take a block just to get his attention. But I would like to hear from another admin or two. If he is blocked, I hope it can be explained in both English and Portuguese, just to be sure all the bases are covered. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a high chance he'll be pretty fluent in Spanish as well. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted WPs Brazil and Portugal, that should be enough. Meanwhile I've lost all hope anyway...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw the notice in WikiProject Brazil talk page and I'm interested in helping. I'm not perfectly fluent in English, but I've got enough skills to communicate, I suppose. Just tell me exactly what you guys need me do do. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the most important thing is to convey to Zonly is the seriousness of the above discussion and ask him to respond here. He needs to explain whether he understands the many warnings he has been given, understands why some of his page moves are inappropriate, and whether he intends to stop making page moves without discussing on the article's talk page first. If you could also explain that if he does not respond here and continues his same pattern of editing (especially page moves) that he almost certainly will be blocked. Then we can see whether he responds and figure out what to do. It might be easier for him to respond in his native language, and, if so, we might need your help. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll contact him. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeWilliamHerbert has a point. We should do everything possible to ensure a valuable contributor such as Zonly remains. Think of all the wonderful work he could do, adding malformed pidgin-English to that handful of pages here which are sadly lacking in terrible prose. And in case my point is not perfectly clear, might I relate my wonderful experiences back when I worked at the U.S. Mint? In the course of my position, hiring manager in charge of engravers, I'd make sure to hire any people suffering from Parkinson's disease that I came across, to reassure myself and my co-workers that we truly were a welcoming work enviornment. Sure, it was a lot of work correcting all the horrific errors they would scratch on the dies in their many uncontrolled muscle spasms, and yeah, I guess you could argue there are plenty of jobs better-suited for somebody with that particiular skillset, but occasionally they'd engrave perfectly acceptable circles. Eventually I got to having some of the more skilled fine-motor enabled engravers hold the hands of those with Parkinson's. And that made all the difference. Until my jerk supervisor claimed I was wasting the productivity of the fine-motor enabled engravers and fired me. Anyway, now I'm working with UPS, I've got to train this blind guy who I hired as a driver. I'm sure en.wikipedia would approve =) Badger Drink (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SIRH.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've left a Portuguese language note at his talk page, giving a brief panorama of the situation and asking what Ward3001 suggested me to ask. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• George William Herbert does have a point, indeed. "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm on board!" is not an attitude that we foster, and new people who contribute badly in good faith can, and often do, improve once they learn from those people who have been here longer. Drawing a parallel between simply not knowing the ropes well and having a crippling disease is both absurd and highly muddy thinking. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I must ask: are you really as intellectually impotent as the last half of your statement makes you out to be, or are you just trying for some sort of vague, unwritten, "So There" points? In terms of contributing content to an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia, for those of us unaware, being a collection of knowledge in written form), written in the English language, I would daresay that an inability to communicate in English is, in fact, a crippling attribute - just the same as blindness would cause one to be rather ill-suited for the act of driving a truck, or Parkinson's rendering one at a disadvantage when seeking a job as an engraver. I'd even flat-out call it a "crippling disease", inasmuch as it pertains to creating an English-language encyclopedia, but unfortuantely I'm not so sure we're yet emotionally or intellectually equipped to handle such levels of intense metaphoric imagery. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Preceding "are you stupid?" with "With all due respect" doesn't transform the insult into a civil statement. Neither is "your thinking is absurd and highly muddy" anything more than a dressed-up "you're being stupid". I suggest you both follow WP:CIVIL or disengage. -kotra (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It was perfectly civil. I have no idea whether Badger Drink is stupid, and if I'd intended to say that, I'd have written it. Of course I wrote no such thing. What I actually wrote, quite clearly, was that that parallel was muddy thinking — i.e. that it was a very badly thought-out argument. It's the argument that's being addressed here, not the editor, and the point stands that the argument is poor in the extreme, and ill-conceived. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, we don't know how good his English really is. But if he's ignoring a warning in his own language we certainly know that he's unwilling to play by the rules - which would be very similiar to your behaviour here...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And actually, he's still doing useful edit, see [16].--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting. He knows that Wikipedia punctuation rules are different than many other writing styles, but he doesn't know (or appears not to know) punctuation rules in moving articles. Oh well ... if he'll stop moving pages he'll probably be fine. Only time will tell. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the rules for whether a full-stop goes inside or outside of quotation marks are things that one could learn without coming anywhere near Wikipedia. Indeed, the preference for "logical" punctuation is not exactly uncommon on the World Wide Web. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ignoring the ad hominems and addressing the remaining substance: There are plenty of people here whose communication skills in English are less than a native speaker, it being their second (or third, or Nth) language. See Category:User en-1 to Category:User en-4, for example. Some have even reached administrator status. They do useful work, in translation and other areas. You don't even have any idea of what this person's ability in the English language is. That's just guesswork at this stage, and your whole argument, in addition to drawing a highly absurd parallel between not knowing the Wikipedia ropes (such as our naming conventions) and having a crippling disease (and an equally bad parallel between not being an English speaker and having a crippling disease), is a house that is build on the sand of HexaChord's guess that this person doesn't speak English. The only evidence so far that could support that guess doesn't in fact support it.

      We encourage people that don't know the ropes, and thus contribute badly in good faith. We teach them the ropes, so that their good faith and enthusiasm leads to good contributions. We encourage people whose skills might be of service in translations, accessing sources in other languages, accessing material in other parts of the world, and so forth. We don't pull the ladder up behind us, now that we ourselves may have learned the ropes. And we don't bite the newcomers. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I made the comments about punctuation. I did not make the inappropriate comments about a crippling disease. And you're right, we don't know his English skills. But please remember that he has received messages in both English and Portuguese, and he has yet to respond to either. And that's fine as long as he'll stop his problematic page moves, as I stated above. I agree with you and Georgewilliamherbert that we should not bite the newcomer, and I don't think we have in this case. In fact, I think we've gone out of our way to accommodate this newcomer. I can't say that the long-time regulars haven't been bitten in the process, however. And that's why, even though Wikipedia might acquire some good editors out of its crop of newcomers, it loses that many experienced and skilled editors. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify from my side: I didn't guess anything. I pointed out that he's from Brazil (see his userpage at pt.wp, linked above). I also pointed out that we only have real evidence for him being a vandal if he ignores a warning in his own language. No need to attack me, and no need to attack Zonly at his talkpage (see [17]).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, I agree you were inappropriately attacked. Some people only see things in black and white. If we don't ignore Zonly's bad edits, we're attacking a newcomer. If one of us makes an inappropriate comment, we're all guilty. If we wonder about his level of English skills because he's from Brazil, we are "guessing" too much. Yet another reason we lose a good, experienced editor every time we gain a newcomer with good potential. Ward3001 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, I would appreciate it if you took this question in the spirit in which it is presented - said spirit being nothing more, nothing less than friendly, open exchange of ideas. Do you find yourself debating at the television every time the newsanchors refer to the recent "financial meltdown? If not, why is it that my statement (that bending over backwards to keep people with very limited proficency in English writing an English encyclopedia makes about as much sense as people with uncontrollable muscle spasms working as engravers for the U.S. Mint) causes you such grave offense? If you do, does the television debate back? Badger Drink (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Badger Drink, I would appreciate it if you didn't compare foreign people to disabled people.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Badger Drink, your comparison between the US Mint and Wikipedia would certainly make sense, if Wikipedia was a for-profit organization with schedules to follow and employees to pay. However, we have virtually all the time in the world to improve any good faith edit that is not in accordance with the policies. We are not paying people to contribute here, so every helpful edit is welcome. Of course there's a need to instruct the newcomers, I mean, they need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a translator or something, but there are indeed nice articles that came out of half-translated, Google-translated or even untranslated material. I can't really give you an example now, but do try to consider what I just said. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ultimatehooly

User is engaged in edit-warring, not appropriate for WP:3RR or other message boards, due to the nature of the material being added: material regarding YouTube Poop to Colgate (toothpaste). The consensus, and not just from me, but from other editors to this article is that this materiel is inappropriate to the article at hand. I've placed one templated warning, one manual warning, and finally another templated warning, yet user is unresponsive. User is also removing validly place {{fact}} tags with no real explanation for any of their motives. User has been noticed of this discussion, and hence, I request admin intervention. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor seems to have desisted (although it is a bit hard to determine their intent) so I suggest a watching brief should suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dredging this up from dormancy. Gonna file an SPI on him, as WP:DUCK compared to User:Moleman 9000 (and several MM9k socks). Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Victor9876 @ Talk:Charles Whitman

(After three editors spoke up in favor of these grammar / voice fixes which he keeps reverting, and now tagging:)

• "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system." [18]
• "It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!" [19]
• "We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing." [20]
• "I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?" [21]
• "Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?" [22]
• "More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do." [23]
• "Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein." [24]

arimareiji (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, this is another instance where WQA has sway, but since it is a recurring issue, maybe it does need to be addressed in this venue. I have already given Victor9876 the "yellow flag", cautioning him here at my talk page. There are various aspects of what is going on at Talk:Charles Whitman that I don't quite understand, but that still is no reason to abandon WP:CIVIL for an all-out "pith" volley. Admin backup on this is now formally requested, if for no other reason than to calm the tempest brewing here. Edit Centric (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, wrt the above - it has been at WQA twice in the past week. Once over Victor's editing others' comments, once over his gross incivility to Edit Centric. I followed another editor's lead at that page and took a break in the hope things would improve, but they haven't. arimareiji (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the recent WQA betwixt myself and Victor9876, we worked that one out, even before 3-O intervention. (I guess that's a hallmark of being in that role myself.) IMHO, Victor9876 has the potential to be a very constructive editor here, but the tendency to become flippant gets in the way of that, in this instance to an intolerable degree.

Now there have been some recent developments in this dynamic, involving one Snipercraft, which may or may not have exacerbated the ongoing "troubles" at the article(s) in question. I personally am still not convinced that the creation of the Snipercraft account, nor it's interactions in the articles were completely "on the level", as the timing and circumstances were way too convenient to take at face value. I might be wrong about this, but something didn't feel right about it.

That situation aside, this entire untenable situation between editors needs a more forceful solution at this time. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the thread where the above occurred is Talk:Charles_Whitman#Request_for_arbitration. arimareiji (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother the admin that gets this with all of the volley's that Arimareiji has fired and get to the point. This occurred yesterday and today [[25]]. A new user, who followed my edits, reverted or totally changed the meanings of the content, requested Arbitration on the Charles Whitman Talkpage, claiming their writing was better than mine. (Please read it.) I have long suspected that Jwy and Arimareiji were in collusion together, to force changes that Jwy initially suggested and got involved in. After feigning ignorance or other issues, Jwy disappeared and Arimareiji showed up, later to claim as a 30 after he began taking up the same issue. Arimareiji is relentless and unabating in his passive-aggressive style of editing. He can not stifle himself, and will not reason with anyone and always misquotes or mis-applies WP:RULES to suit his purpose. There is no common sense application that he will listen to, and continues speaking, in what appears to be a war of attrition. You better give in or he will talk you into submission. At times, when a discussion has been left, he continues with a few more comments until someone returns, and it all starts over again. We went through a lenghthy RfA with Jwy, Arimareiji posted the content into the article, Jwy edited the content once it was in the article, so I changed the header to reflect what I felt the section read. At this point, I considered the talk page moot, and consensus over the past two weeks of bickering. I even conceded the argument on the talk page. Enter Snipercraft. Almost everyone, including myself, thought there was some merit to some of the edit. However, the disagreement grew back on the talk page, and Arimareiji reverted my reversion. The talk page was not resolved at that point. Follow the path of the few contributions of Snipercraft (note the name also fits the subject content), he cross posts to Jwy, he and Arimareiji have a conversation, and boom, the article page is open for another war. A newbie comes in and reaches a consensus with JWY and Arimareiji, after insulting me and another contributor Wildhartlivie. They were insulting and essentially mocked her and me. My belief is that they gamed the system, a CABAL, or whatever label applies. It became a war of numbers and Jwy and Arimareiji needed another player - enter Snipercraft. As Arimareiji notes in his revert, 3 to 0 consensus, because Wildhartlivie had not weighed in with her opinion of the content of the talk page. I mention on the page, that I do not trust the procedures and way this whole affair has been handled. The above replies to Arimareiji, were really meant to be humorous protests. He acknowledges humor to everyone but me. When I try to make light of something, there is broken rule or passive-agressive question for me. He answers direct questions for other editors, without giving them an opportunity to reply. Then claims WP is open for anyone to reply. I have been around the Whitman page longer than they have and have a grasp of the subject that they can never have. So I know what I can and can not put there. I do protect the page, and also know that I do not own it. So in closing, look at the catalyst today and yesterday, the previous issues went through two WQA's and were both resolved. The issues today and yesterday are about ego's and the suspicious appearance of Snipercraft. Wheeew! Thanks for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I made charges of Arima above and just want to show an example from the first WQA. Please note that after Bwilkens responds to Arima, there are additional posts by Arima that have no response. Finally, when Bwilkens does respond, the tone is the same that Arima drew out of me with his peristence and lack of ability to stifle himself. Below is the exchange.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(The following x-posted by Victor9876 as thread history, I'm simply providing encapsulation)

Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(end encapsulation / separation) Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have exhausted my WP:AGF on this one. Good thing I'll be away for refill it. A few exchanges on my talkpage related to this incident as well. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW - I genuinely don't know, but openly seems the best way to ask this: Would it be fair to say that since you typed the responses quoted above, that Victor's actions have cast him in a much-different light? Your initial impression, if I understood correctly, was that these could be innocent mistakes and that I was only jumping to conclusions. Do you still believe he's making innocent mistakes, given his responses to Edit Centric and his responses at the bottom of this thread (which is the topic)? arimareiji (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Apparently moot for the time being, as his page reaffirms that he's not here to answer.) arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CliffNotes version of why I believe BMW is likely to have changed his mind about regarding Victor's actions being innocent mistakes since the first WQA. The enclosed are in addition to the comments listed at the top; same pattern of "I was only joking":

arimareiji (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

edit warring at Edoardo Agnelli

Resolved

 – Blocked both for quacking Toddst1 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two accounts, 77.42.179.51 (talk · contribs) (stable ip) and brand new account Qiswi (talk · contribs), have been edit-warring over days to insert a conspiracy theory into the article, without good sources and against consensus. I bring this here because experience says that reports to SSP don't get action and a report to AIV is likely to be declined because there aren't three reverts by the same account in the same 24 hours. I will notify these two accounts of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a related 3RR report here with relevant diffs. Phil153 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both for quacking loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New sock shows up and is indefed; block expires on Qiswi (talk · contribs) and edit warring resumes immediately. Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner

Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long term problem editor, is presently edit warring / POV / tendentiousness on two Barack-Obama related articles[31][32][33][34]. The editor has done this several times before over the same material (is up to 8th or 9th attempt to insert it), and was warned multiple times about edit warring, incivility, and article probation over the course of months. The editor is also presently edit warring over trying to insert derogatory material into a BLP as well.[35][36][37] Called a well-respected administrator a "troll" for the administrator's warning the editor to quit.[38] Is making no useful contributions and seems to be deliberately trolling / provoking on Obama-related topics, possibly with respect to all edits on the encyclopedia - so I do not think a block or referral to dispute resolution would accomplish anything. I've asked the editor to stop editing Obama-related articles, and I am requesting an administrator-enforced topic ban per Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The allegations here seem to be going off in several different directions, so I'm not sure what, if any of this, is worth responding to. I'll just respond to the last point about "all edits on the encyclopedia." I am the primary author of Star of Bethlehem and ao dai, both of which have gained recognition as good articles. I am also the primary author for gook and Vietcong, although I haven't submitted these for recognition. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your other contribs are not what is being disputed here. So let's go one by one (I agree, it can be a bit tough reading a whole paragraph with a bunch of diffs in). Wikidemon has said that you:

1. Are edit-warring over inserting the section Although Obama had been in the U.S. Senate for less than two years when the book was published, he portrays himself as veteran, using such phrases as "the longer I served in Washington" and "the more time I spent on the Senate floor." into a variety of Obama-related articles.[39][40][41][42]. Wikidemon further notes that you have been warned; the diffs are: [43], the warning noted again by Wikidemon here, warned again by Wikidemon here.
2. You have been warned by an admin for edit-warring[44], followed by blanking the warning from your talkpage (which is allowed) with an edit summary of "Troll elsewhere" (which isn't, really)[45].
3. You were told here that quote sections are not allowed per WP:QUOTE, and have continued to editwar to keep them in[46][47][48].

In short, that you have been editing in a non-collegial manner, and editwarring to push your own point of view, while ignoring all warnings you have been given and indulging in some incivility to an admin who warned you.

Under the sanctions related to Obama articles, which you were notified of, you may be topicbanned by an administrator from anything Obama-related if you do not indicate that this tendentious editing is at an end.

In order to avoid being placed under sanctions, the article probation page suggests:

• Do not edit-war;
• Interact civilly with other editors;
• Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
• Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
• Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
• Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
• We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
• Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.

Further, when someone is brought to AN/I, it behooves them to carefully read what has been said about their editing, and address it accordingly, not simply dismiss it and defend themselves with completely unrelated contributions. You may wish to read through the list above and address each thing individually. I would urge you to do so. //roux   07:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I can present this issue in way that allows people to make some sense out of it. Back sometime around Feb. 6, I read the Barack Obama article and noticed that it did not make any mention of Obama's "present" voting as an Illinois state senator. I thought this omission hard to justify in view of the fact that it was a rather prominent issue during the election campaign. I sought to remedy this situation by adding material from various sources and in various formats, but was each time reverted. The only explanation given was that this was "trivia." I gather that a group of editors were so incensed by my activity that they followed me to other articles where they would revert me and engage in personal attacks. This seems to be how the frivolous complaints about quotes and Obama's status as a "veteran politician" arose. Kauffner (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After you were reverted, did you go to the talk page to discuss your proposal further? Did you attempt to discuss any of your changes? From my calculations, you only edited Talk:Barack Obama once in the last 3 months. Was there consensus for your edits? Was there any attempt to raise consensus for your edits? Were you aware of the article probation on this topic? To me, it seems like there is absolutely no excuse for edit warring under these circumstances. It was blatantly obvious that multiple editors had concerns regarding your edits, and instead of trying to discuss your differences, you waited a couple days and then tried to force your edits again and again.... do you not understand how edit warring is harmful (and forbidden)? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's such behavior is nothing new to me. His cut-and-paste renaming (he claims "merging") of highly controversial article without informing to involved communities is disruptive as well. --Caspian blue 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User: 林元曌 and User:PBC0623 and User:Peopledom of Vietnam

These users, suspected sockpuppets of User:台灣共和國萬歲！, have been making various changes to articles about Vietnamese people, adding irrelevant Chinese characters (see Joseph Cao). This user had been doing the same thing in vi.wiki and creating sock accounts every other hour. Please block these accounts or semi-protect the article Joseph Cao until they go away. DHN (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Cao sprotected for one week, autoconfirmed edit warring editors can be reported to WP:AN3 and further protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This person had created at least 4 sockpuppet accounts today (User:林元曌, User:PBC0623, User:Peopledom of Vietnam, and User:丁玉環), all with the single purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. These sockpuppet accounts need to be blocked. DHN (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the named editors have been tagged as suspected sockpuppets. I presume that there is an ongoing WP:SSP case? All further socks should be reported there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These are all socks (including the sockmaster) of Nipponese Dog Calvero. I've done some digging and blocked some sleepers. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandalises articles relating to Judaism and Islam or Jews and Arabs: littered amongst regular non-malicious edits, he continues to either remove Islamic or Arabic references from articles completely, or replaces them with references pertaining to Judaism. Check his edits, but check these most notable ones done recently to see what I'm talking about: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. He also recently attempted to classify the indigenous Arab population in and around Jerusalem as 'settlers': [57], [58], [59], [60] and created a new category for it . He has been warned about vandalism in the past (see his talk page). 82.17.236.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here; there's no need for admin intervention, and none of the difs you gave are blatant vandalism. Please take this to an article talk page or to dispute resolution; ANI is not the place for content disputes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was told to come here from WP:AIV, so I did just that. Did you actually understand my problem with his edits and look at all the links? Let me explain some of them. The Well of Souls relates to the Dome of the Rock, but he removed the image of the Dome of the Rock [61] and the Islamic Architecture category [62]. The Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem is the largest and most populated part of the old city, and hosts the third holiest site in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi decided to delete the links to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock from the Muslim Quarter article, and replaced them with two links to the Shomrei ha-Chomos Synagogue and Birket Israel [63]. Do you see the problem yet? If that's not clear cut vandalism, then I dunno what is. Here he deleted the figure for Palestinian deaths in the recent Israel/Gaza conflict, and replacing it with his own biased statement [64]. How is it not vandalism? I'm particularly surprised that you didn't pick up on the "Israeli-Arab settlement" issue, regarding the attempt at categorising the indigenous Arab population as 'settlers'. First he made this change [65], which is a blatant act of working his own bias into the article - under international law, all Jewish settlements in the West Bank are acknowledged as being illegal, and those who live there are referred to as settlers. Then he went ahead and made the changes to Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem to make them out to be settlements ([66], [67], [68], [69]), which they are not considered to be at all, by any law, including Israel's own. How is that not vandalism? I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject and understand the problem before you can make a judgement regarding the topic at hand. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say his edits were right; I said they're not vandalism. Not every form of bad editing qualifies as bona fide vandalism. Please take a look at What is not vandalism. This is a content dispute and needs to be worked out someone else, not at ANI.

Also, by the way, please don't insult my intelligence ("you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject") just because I don't agree with you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an awkward accusation; please don't take offense. I just meant it was important to have more than cursory knowledge of the situation since it's such a complex issue. A person can still be intelligent and not have knowledge of a particular subject; I wasn't questioning your intelligence at all. Anyway, the vandalism is clear - I wouldn't say it's a subjective opinion; it's either vandalism or it isn't. I've explained his edits and shown that what he did was malicious, so what else would you call it? It's not just 'bad editing', and I don't think it falls under WP:VAND#NOT; which part of it should I be looking at? I've spelt it out as best I can. I've also just found another dishonest edit, also on a contentious subject, which will take some explaining.

I hereby award User 82.17.236.83 the Sherlock Holmes Deerstalker for solving the Jerusalem quarter's map anomaly. Chesdovi (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (P.S. If you have a problem with any of my edits, please, let's discuss it. I am open for debate. Let's do it at the talk page.)

Before bringing this topic to light, I reverted Chesdovi's edit on the Muslim Quarter article [70]. He just undid my edit, and gave the reason "these places are not in the Muslim Quarter". I disagree with that, and so would a lot of other people, hence the 'contentious subject'. But forget about my stance on the matter for a second. If you look at the map on that page, you'll see the Muslim Quarter appears to be outlined in a green border, and the Temple Mount area is separate, which would indeed give weight to his argument that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are not in the Muslim Quarter. Notice the smaller map showing the boundaries of the quarters at the bottom-left corner of the main image. It's split into 5, but it should be split into 4 - the old city is made up of the four quarters, not five fifths. Take a look at the upload log, and you'll notice Chesdovi uploaded the image. Now compare it with the other maps of the Jewish, Armenian and Christian Quarters. You'll notice the Jewish Quarter map also has the inset map split into 5, and again, the map was uploaded by Chesdovi. Look at the Christian and Armenian maps, which Chesdovi did not upload, and you'll see that the boundaries are split into 4. I looked for the source of the original Muslim Quarter map, and found David Bjorgen. Take a look at his talk page, and you'll find a discussion from a while ago where Chesdovi requests an image. The source images are provided to him, and if you take a look at them, you'll see that neither of the original maps of the Jewish or Muslim Quarters have the same boundaries as the ones uploaded by

Chesdovi here on Wikipedia. This obviously means Chesdovi edited them himself to separate the Temple Mount in order to provide backbone to his case that the Temple Mount is not in the Muslim Quarter, and which therefore stops me or anyone else from arguing, among other things, for the inclusion of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque links in the Muslim Quarter article. His whole argument is based on material which he fabricated himself. Do you still maintain that his actions are not malicious? 82.17.236.83 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been a lingering problem on both Swedish and English Wikipedia. On Swedish WP he has been blocked both for insulting administrators and for edit warring[71]. Over here, he has been warned twice about WP:STALK, see [72] and [73]. He has been warned about disruptive behavior[74] and editors have expressed concerns over his incivility [75] and I have myself cautioned him about this[76]. I know of at least one great editor that he has pushed away from WP. Now he is again incivil and lashes out with spurious allegations about some kind of "Nordic gang" on WP[77]. Considering all his warnings, I think the best thing to do would be to give him a punitive block, but I hesitate to do so since I have been involved in the discussion. Are there any opinions about what should be done?--Berig (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a "Punitive block" is unlikely to meet much enthusiasm here. Beyond the Nordic gang diff, you'll need to produce more diffs illustrating offences ... rather than warnings issued by yourself and a few others, two of which are from 2007 and all of which could be part of content disputes. This is needed if you want to increase the likelihood of intervention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On Commons, I have found that Pieter Kuiper exudes a great deal of hostility without actually breaking the letter of policy, so at the moment I do not see much that admins can do. Some cases are better handled by editors collectively deciding to ignore someone who is consistently hostile.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the dung heap were people are at liberty to dig up dirt about people from their contributions on other wikipedias? I was not even notified, and see this only by chance. Probably the only interaction that I had with "Goodmorningworld" is commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Witt and Hitler.jpg; he wanted to have an image deleted, I think it can be kept. So we disagreed, but I do not think that I was very hostile there. My relation with Berig, however, can be considered as consistently hostile, see Talk:Ongentheow#Linking to Swedish WP for an example. There she is repeatedly removing an interwiki link that he/she does not like. And to clarify for non-Swedish speakers: Berig's link to my block log on Swedish wikipedia does not show four blocks. It shows two blocks that were rescinded by the blocking admin himself and by another administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations

I’ve been accused of gaming [78] [79] [80] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement after I file a report for a breech of AE imposed sanctions.

On the report I filed it should be noted that I did not ask for any sanctions to be imposed. When I drew Black Kite attention to this they were decent enough to strike their comments and accepted that I was being reasonable. However, despite this acknowledgement of my being reasonable, Deacon of Pndapetzim decided to engage in a personal attack and suggested I be blocked. Both Black Kite and Deacon of Pndapetzim accept I did not breech the 1RR restriction but both still advocated blocks none the less, possibly based on the accusation of me gaming an editor.

So on the gaming accusation, it has already been noted that I was in fact being reasonable, and never requested sanctions. In addition, in response to the accusation by Deacon of Pndapetzim I pointed out that I had in fact informed the editor before they ever reverted and having been informed, they reverted anyway. In addition to this, we have my report and what I’d like to happen which was “ Colin4C self revert, that Admin’s tell Colin4C that the article does fall under the AE sanctions and they breeched them, and that if they want to add a Chronology they get consensus on the article talk page.”

As a result of my report Deacon of Pndapetzim did inform the editor they breeched the sanctions and Black Kite unfortunately reverted the edit on the article and correctly reconsidered their revert and included again this accusation of gaming in the edit summary.

What I’d like from ANI is to have the accusations struck out or substantiated which I consider reasonable. In this I am supported by a respected Admin who it must be said has on occasion been a right thorn in my side. Deacon of Pndapetzim has raised an indef probation and indef block as mitigating against me, despite both being overturned not to mention “([dare I say] gaming).” I’d like to know is an editors block log a mitigating factor regardless of the merits of an individual case, and should their block log be raised on each and every occasion regardless. Finally is it possible to have a block log reviewed by an independent arbitrator? The reason I ask is could an editor be gamed as outlined in this essay by using their log against them as “Being blocked also increases the chances of future admin intervention coming down against you.”--Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• When there's a 1RR/24h notice on an article and you revert twice in 25h, you leave yourself open to such accusations, and really you should know this by now. In the same way that WP:3RR isn't a bright line and editors do not always have to make four reverts to be blocked, nor is 1RR/24h - the intention behind it is to prevent revert warring on Troubles articles, and regular editors of those articles should be well aware that they risk blocking if they do so, even if they haven't technically breached the temporal limits. Black Kite 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• When I let someone off for a 3RR vio, which is fairly common, I will revert the violating revert for the sake of fairness. Black Kite doing so was fine and good practice even for 1RRs. On Black Kite's self-reversion, I have no opinion, but Black Kite was right in the summary, as Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage, and this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern. Posting more outrage in another forum doesn't ameliorate that. What would ameliorate that is if Domer would use his extra experience on wikipedia to encourage good-faith collaboration, even with those whose ideologies are at odds with his. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only two options with accusations, 1) withdraw/strike or 2) substantiate. You have done neither. Not asking for sanctions against an editor who has breeched 1RR despite being given notice is to encourage good-faith collaboration. Making accusations against an editor, who gave notification of sanctions before any were breeched, and regardless of them being breeched request no action be taken to be then accused of gaming is not supportable. “Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage.” Where is the advantage? Where is the assumption of good faith? “this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern.” You have your chronology wrong here Deacon, it runs like this, notify, revert and report if there is a breech. That’s just like every other editor here is it not. I made a straight forward report and you managed to turn it into a drama. Neither of you can support your accusations, so I’ll ask you to strike them. Neither of you used diff’s either to support your comments either, which is also common could you not do so now? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to "substantiate" something which is clearly my opinion on the issue, as stated in the AE thread and also in my reply above. If you think I am wrong, that is your prerogative. I certainly won't be striking anything though, that would be hypocritical. As I said, there was nothing wrong with your report, but reporting a user for two reverts when you have effectively done the same yourself is inviting examination of your actions. Black Kite 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "I think you're being reasonable, I just don't believe there's much to do here. If an edit-war develops or a single user is breaching 1RR repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to take action" striking your comments and then accuse me of gaming is hypocritical! So I'm correct, unsubstantiated accusations, the only problem is it is also your prerogative to block editors based on just your opinion and that is what you and Decon were suggesting. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Personally, I believe that this is akin to gaming the system (and clearly Deacon does as well). Others may disagree. However, I usually try to sort out these issues without blocking anyone, and you'll therefore note that I haven't blocked anyone, though I wouldn't have disagreed if someone else had done so. And yes, sometimes admins need to make value judgements on blocking. Regardless, I don't see any admin action required here, so I'd suggest this thread be marked resolved.Black Kite 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the bird's observations and comments in the first three diffs above.. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong other than they were wrong about me requesting sanctions and had to strike it and wrong that the article should not fall under the Troubles purview and evidenced by the notice placed on the editors talk page. In my opinion they were also wrong about me gaming the system evidenced by the fact I pacifically asked for no sanctions, and informed the editor of 1RR sanctions before they breeched them twice. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:69.243.191.241

69.243.191.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to harass me about how i spell "does" and how i spell it "dose" sometime this have been in every comment they have made to me including on my talk page and it does not appear that it will stop anytime soon. I would really like something to be done about this user it is really staring to get annoying. Here [81] [82] and [83] Kyle1278 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the last report to WP:ANI there seem to be two (arguably one) further incidents here and here. I see two possible options:

1. Report the user at WP:WQA.
2. Ignore them, and try to remember to spell it "does" in future ;-)

I'd probably go for option 2: it's pretty sad being obsessed with another editor's spelling. Pity them, ignore them, move on.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, after the last report here I watchlisted your talk page. If they revert your deletions in future I'll revert and warn. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ill go with the second one for now but if it get to extreme i will have to take the other route. Kyle1278 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just let it be. If getting yelled at for bad spelling is the worst thing that happens to you all day, it really wasn't that bad a day, was it? PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not getting yelled at i care about this person has been harassing me since i disagreed with him/her on something and now they just keep it up i don't plan on doing anything endless it gets a lot worse. Kyle1278 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP has been tolded that it ain't so much beter with teh wurdz than the rest of us ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence giving the IP a does of its own medicine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:My President is Black

Resolved

 – Indeffed by Black Kite Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at his/her short history and userpage incl. his/her "real-time conversation" with user:TheMatty today (which makes me believe they are the same or at least very close buddies. I have no intention to put more input in that but rather thought to point it out so admins and editors are aware of this and can take a closer look if necessary. That's all. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts have very short histories, too short to tell perhaps. User:My President is Black user page, with "the negros take office" linking to Obama at the top (I removed it), is not too encouraging. Could be taken as slightly offensive. Not sure if I'm that happy either with the file he uploaded, File:Jew_emoticon.gif, as I can't see any great future for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply editing my userpage and you keep vandalizing it. I'll remove the header, but don't take everything as offensive next time, sheesh. My President is black 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your use of wikipedia to attack groups of people [84] [85] suggests we should not take your assurances at face value. I'm sorry that you cannot see there is a problem here, but be clear that you are now under the closest scrutiny. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is now proceeding to troll - would someone please do the honours? — neuro^(talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your baaaawwing is a terrible showing on Wikipedia. My President is black 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Clearly not here for any positive reason. Black Kite 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block. (Who's "baaaawwing" now?) Although the user page has been cleared, his talk page is fairly offensive, and someone might consider clearing it and protecting it, or at least clearing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section, if that's what you mean. — neuro^(talk) 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the main offensive part, yes. The rest of his talk page is not overtly offensive, it's just pretty much of a train wreck, which shows how much someone can "accomplish" in just 10 days on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. P.S. You've got one of the calmer demeanors among the editors here, so if he got you riled, he was destined to quickly be toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only Wikipedia, getting riled over something as silly as this would be a fruitless idea. As for having a 'calm demeanor', I would beg to differ :P — neuro^(talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. You're a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners. You may quote me. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He was hinting at making an unblock request so I saved everyone time by declining it before he made it. --Deskana (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. A pre-emptive strike. An inspired move if ever I've seen one. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Slides into the room from the other, still tapdancing madly; exits, stage right* HalfShadow 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the blocked user's main theme, that's kind of an ironic metaphor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't...stopdancing. Call...911! HalfShadow 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edoardo Agnelli

A sock-puppeteer has been repeatedly trying to push a conspiracy theory on this page. Several ip addresses and accounts have already been blocked [86][87][88][89][90] and the page is semi-protected but the editor is back with an account that was created over a week ago but only used today [91]. I would request blocking of this new account, and, as the editor seems to have prepared in advance for coping with blocking and semi-protection by creating sock-puppet accounts, maybe a period of full protection would be in order for this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is protection you are after, you might want to look at starting a section at WP:RFPP. — neuro^(talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user continues editing

Blocked user (probably) Boost3000 is continuing to edit as an IP 170.140.183.4 in this edit

He has done this previously as IP 170.140.110.179, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:Boost3000/Archive

Marek.69 ^talk 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just confirming Boost is blocked, since Marek seemed unsure. — neuro^(talk) 01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent trolling

Resolved

 – Block extended. — neuro^(talk) 01:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please levy a serious block - preferably a hard-block - against 67.55.70.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's apparently the same as Michaelccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[92] It appears to be a static IP and is now following up blatant vandalism with a trolling campaign.[93][94][95] A lot of time is being wasted. Thank you.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That IP has a long history of bad edits and past blocks, including the recent blatant vandalism/trolling, and appears to be statically-allocated. I've given it an extended block. -- The Anome (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA Backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. — neuro^(talk) 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello....there seems to be a bit of a backlog in Usernames for administrator attention. If a couple admin could have a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 2, 2009 @ 01:05

I'll go and take a look, see what can be dealt with through tagging. — neuro^(talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out not much. — neuro^(talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked like a backlog to me...sorry about that. Carry on :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 2, 2009 @ 01:28

Need pages semi-protected

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Two pages Marquis Cooper and Corey Smith, may need temporary protecting due to a recent incident involving the two players. Anon editors keep placing date of death or changing career to past tense, without referances to any death. A temp protect may help please.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is what you need. — neuro^(talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru on Larry Sanger

User:QuackGuru has been consistently disruptive to editing of the Larry Sanger article. Mountains of attempts at discussion on Talk:Larry_Sanger have been met with cut-and-pastes of the same comments over and over again. We've tried WP:RfC and WP:3O, and I've even tried quantifying a few of his complaints and brought them to the appropriate forums at the original research and reliable sources notice boards.

QuackGuru's comments on the Talk page are difficult to interpret as anything other than complaints, and his edits are wholesale changes to the page without discussion and without consensus: [96][97][98][99]. Other editors have repeatedly warned this editor that such edits are tantamount to vandalism.

The whole effort could be interpreted as an attempt to push a particular POV about the differences between Wikipedia and Citizendium: text which quotes Sanger's opinions is repeatedly replaced with "facts" about the differences between the two projects.

Rvcx (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has clearly made four reverts[100][101][102][103] and has violated 3RR.[104] QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered the repeated wholesale rewriting to be blatant vandalism. There's not a single issue raised by QuackGuru on the talk page which has achieved consensus. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left several comments about this behavior on User_talk:QuackGuru (including warning templates) but they were immediately deleted. Tried raising the problem in initiating discussion as a wikiquette issue but was referred (back) to RfC. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the Larry Sanger bio as suggested by Rccx. For example, improving the lead to comply with Wikipedia's WP:LEAD is good editing. The lead has been drastically shortened by Rvcx. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. I articulated this at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The productive changes to the lead were restored after reverting the complete rewrite of the article. Rvcx (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The counter-productive changes to the lead were made by Rvcx in a revert. The article suffers from several problems as explained at the discussion page including a drastically shortened lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has repeatedly accused me of vandalism[105]. These allegations by Rvcx are false. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The "other editors" cited in the three diffs by Rvcx are User:Ched Davis and...Rvcx himself. Furthermore, replacing the article with one's preferred version in a content dispute is not "blatant vandalism", it's disruptive editing at worst. The noticeboard reports did not yield conclusions of very much weight either way. It's clear that Rcvx has made more than four reverts to the article within a 24-hour period, without mitigating circumstances, and that editor ought to be blocked. What is less obvious is what the article should say; this is not a matter for administrators to decide, and the usual channels of dispute resolution ought to be pursued. QuackGuru is engaging in talkpage discussions and has made unambiguous improvements to the article as well as controversial changes; as such, I don't see what a block of that editor would achieve. Skomorokh 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IP user --pushing Stormfront POV & vandalising

Resolved

- reverted Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:99.9.85.194 -- looks like this editor is here to protect the Stormfront (website) article, and to to be sure that Stormfront-related issues are represented positively in WP. I would guess there is a WP:COI He has made 14 edits since 4 January, and there are 3 notices given on his talk page. Here are some highlights:

[106],[107]- (-Replaced content with 'nigga you gay?')[108] [109] [110] [111][112], and [113]

I don't see this person as a productive editor, rather simply disruptive- and suggest a block might be in order. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, edits include changing the definition of Anti-semitism to say that Anti-semitism "is a term used to describe aversion to the idea of Jews being shown special or privileged treatment." This is not a sign of a productive editor. He even has his apologetics mixed up between racial groups. However, the IP address does have at least minor productive edit.. Still, the edits about Stormfront and Anti-semitism really don't make this look like someone we are going to want to keep around. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be given escalating warnings and given a chance to reform, even though that does not look likely; reverts and block are cheap, potentially productive contributors are not. They at least appear to recognise that talkpages are not a forum for discussion. On a technical note, is it likely that the juvenile video game vandalism and the content dispute edits are the same individual? Skomorokh 04:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• not entirely clear that the ame person has used the ip for all edits but this was distasteful enough for me to just revert the comment. No point blocking buut definitely worth ignoring Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, I'm not at all sure that this is the same person, the subject areas and more tellingly the edit styles are quite wildly different. Is this a static IP or one that could be used by numerous unconnected people? I don't know who to check (something to do with whois, the rest is a bit grey!) --GedUK  09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:76.252.224.121 and US/British spelling

76.252.224.121 (talk · contribs) seems to have found his niche on Wikipedia in fixing spelling and has not heeded requests to cease. At which point does this warrant a block? --Swift (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does. Show some diffs where it is wildly appropriate and the user has been given warnings.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/76.252.224.121. All of his edits; appears to be a static IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Only two warnings. Suggest escalation of warnings and report to the proper noticeboard if continues. Non-admin suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about Flag of the Earth you might want to take a second look. Most of the article is US based. This appears to be the first edit to use a US/UK spelling, "color", and here are the three edits that changed "color" to "colour" and for some reason piped the name of the US based publication, Whole Earth Catalog with Catalogue. Also according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#English spelling comparison chart, both organisation and organization are valid. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Build the web again

continued from #Build the web above

Please can someone with time to look at the issue in some detail come and sort this out (WP:Build the web). It is ridiculous that a group of determined cynics, even including an admin, are allowed to continue this campaign of edit-warring against consensus and reason.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again Kotniski is telling his version of the events. What is ridiculous is that a couple of users can claim a "consensus" between them to dismantle a seven-year-old guideline, and keep maintaining this claim despite numerous parties disagreeing with them, clearly demonstrating that there is no consensus. If anything, his continual reversions of the article are what bear investigating. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once agin, Earle is simply lying, I don't know how else to describe it. It is not a "couple of users" and it is not "dismantling" a guideline, it was merged with others to make a much better one. Earle and the others are simply craeting noise to distract people's attention from the fact that consensus was reached, and recently confirmed, in detailed and reasoned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. To quote an edit summary, "you can't just get rid of a seven year old guideline after 40 hours of discussion on an unrelated talk page with no community notification". You proposed the merge on January 9th, and did it on January 11th. That's not enough time to qualify as "detailed and reasoned discussion" on a guideline of this age. And now a number of editors have found out about your merger after the fact, and are unhappy. That is not "creating noise". The "couple of users" are you and Tony1, who can be seen in the edit history of BTW repeatedly demoting it despite having it pointed out to you numerous times that until a dispute over a guideline is resolved, it retains its status with the addition of a "disputed" tag. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was done after many weeks/months of discussion, and everyone was very happy about it until someone decided that it would suit his immediate purposes (no doubt from somewhere in the Kafka-esque workings of the ArbCom date linking case) to undo part of what had been universally agreed. And to say it's just me and Tony is simply untrue and you know it - you were part of the discussion where the decision to merge the pages was confirmed, and you know that there were far more than just two people, and you might also have the integrity to admit that our arguments were far stronger (instead of just leaving the discussion when you can't answer them, only to return later with nothing new to say). Really, I've never seen anything like this before from experienced editors and admins - when something's been decided, we accept it and move on. OK you can try to develop a new consensus based on rational argument, but it's totally disruptive to simply deny all knowledge about the consensus that has been reached. This is the same attitude, as far as I can tell, that has led to the date linking issue still not being settled. Whatever people decide, just refuse to accept the consensus. Make noise; admins won't look at the details, they'll just assume each side is being as bad as each other and you stand a good chance of getting what you want. This isn't how WP should be working. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: you two stop sniping at each other and start providing diffs. //roux   16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs would you like? That there was unanimous support for the merger can be seen from the discussion at WP:Linking (and the most recent archive). That there was strong support to keep it merged can be seen from the current WT:Linking. That Earle and co have been made aware of this can be seen from later exchanges there and at WT:BTW. That they have nevertheless kept reverting to the non-consensus state can be seen from the page history of WP:BTW. That they are not even attempting to discuss or provide counter-arguments any more (except the traditional "no consensus" nonsense) can be seen by the absence of such. It's not a case of one or two diffs. If you want to sort it out, you'll need to spend a bit of time investigating and discussing.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide specific links to those discussions. A past revision of the page would be fine as opposed to just a diff--something that shows the discussion specifically. What you're saying is like saying "There was a discussion on ANI, go spend some time investigating." To put it more bluntly: support your position with specifics or walk away. Thanks. //roux   16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• See link to the discussion from October in my comment below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was "unanimous" support because many believed you (myself included) when you said a poll had already been conducted on the merger itself. What you failed to mention was that the poll was held over a span of 28 hours (proposed at 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC), closed at 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)), involved maybe ten editors, and was not even advertised on WT:BTW (meaning people who watchlisted that page weren't even aware of the straw poll!). That's not consensus, that's a hijacking. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, I ask how many places are you going to have this discussion going at one time? You've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Build_the_web#Overruling_consensus and above at Wikipedia:ANI#Build_the_web. Then you brought it up (while the other discussions were ongoing) at WP:AN, where it got moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_edit-warring_the_way_we_establish_consensus.3F. Now you've started a new section here. I'll make the friendly suggestion that you either pick a single place to have the discussion or start a RFC. Whether you intend it or not, when you start the same discussion in so many places, people will start to think you're forum shopping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one discussion is about the general principle, specifically not about this incident. One discussion is pretty well complete and (IMHO) demonstrates clear consensus. I had to come here because that consensus was ignored/disputed. The higher discussion on this page is closed and linked to this one. So this is really the only ongoing discussion at the moment (apart from attempts to reach agreement with various people). Will provide diffs when I get time. --Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger)

Resolved

- speedy deleted because there was a clear consensus and the article author was attempting to out the nominator. We don't allow that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

At WT:COI, User:Ikip effectively accuses me of violating Wikipedia rules because I made this nomination of autobiography, even though he is the only editor that is keeping it from being a WP:SNOW. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest simply because I disagree with the politics and self-promotional edits of the author, who has since run around Wikipedia complaining that I am part of a right-wing conspiracy against him. (Indeed, if Mr. Johnson had a good-faith Wikipedia-based reason to nominate my Wikipedia article for deletion, I would not accuse him of COI.) I submitted to AfD an article that was eligible for speedy deletion under G7 G4, which seems, if anything, remarkably restrained because I submitted it to the community. I also withheld bringing my first WP:SPI until yet two new accounts appeared to start editing the article. But if anyone else believes I have a COI, I will withdraw the AFD nomination and let someone else make it.

Frankly, I believe that this is the same campaign of WP:HOUNDing that got User:Ikip blocked 48 hours ago, and perhaps the culmination of this weird threat he left on my talk page. Guidance is appreciated. THF (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not comment on the rest of the dispute, but I deleted at the AfD (and at two other locations) an attempt to out THF by DcourtneyJohnson, and the post by Ikip at WP:COI is closely related to the same attempted outing. My deletion at the AfD has left an awkward contribution history there, so please be aware that there are (apart from the attempted outing) three edits in the history whose contents are still on the AfD, but where the history can no longer be seen on the history tab. Fram (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamc714

Resolved

 – indef block Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not yet. See below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamc714 continues to engage in vandalism and editing against guidance. Was previously blocked in November 2008. Engages in outright vandalisms here and here then reverts them back a minute later. Creates bogus article here and here. Commits vandalism on Jill Biden here under misleading edit summary, then very recently per article history repeatedly attempts to load intro of that article with terms prohibited by WP:CREDENTIAL.

Casts spurious AfD opinions here and here. Always wipes talk page clean, so that other editors don't see past history of misbehavior.

Was previously running a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Adamc714, my guess is Adamc714 is itself a sock of some more experienced user, whose purpose here is just to annoy. Whatever the game this, this editor does more harm than good. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Very strange. Seems to be mixing minor corrections, subtle errors, nonsensical !votes and outright vandalism. I don't see why editors should waste their time keeping an eye on him 24/7 to revert silly edits of the sort. Does anyone think we shouldn't indef? yandman 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate disruption. (compromised account?) Already blocked once. Indef this time. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adamc714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Note his common interest in certain IP addresses apparently emanating from Truman State University. Perhaps he has given us a clue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This audit trail in particular [114] looks kind of fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TungstenCarbide

TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had a WQA raised about him/her here. This user's response to this WQA was this edit. Being warned/advised by non-admin users obviously has no positive influence on this user's behavior, so I believe admin intervention is warrented. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Premature to transfer this to AN/I, in my opinion. I refer to my comments at WQA. TungstenCarbide went nuts and insulted editors. I do not condone his outbursts but they are psychologically understandable as the other editors were obstructing his good faith, useful efforts at improvements and even today as we speak the first sentence of the article is a horrible mess due to their obstructionism. If TungstenCarbide is punished for making insults then his opponents should be punished for actively preventing much-needed improvement of a WP article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in prinicple, and I am not out necessarily to get anyone blocked, but due to the response of this individual to non-admin advice on altering his behavior, an admin at least should talk to this editor. The WQA demonstrates how he responds when non-admins advise him about civility. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to WP:AIV also. The guy is a newbie with apparently no clue about the concept of civility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Being WP:RIGHT is not an exemption from being WP:CIVIL. If the policy is to mean anything, this edit (on WQA!) should result in an immediate block. THF (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment "we are here to write an encyclopedia" doesn't sound so much like something a newbie would say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors he responded to. I tried to be civil with him and gave him a stern warning, but perhaps what he did warrants a block regardless. He seems to dislike overly long sentences, and anybody who disagrees with him is a "moron" or worse. that being said, I don't think he should be indef blocked as he means well for the encyclopedia, even if its hard for him to communicate that. Themfromspace (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That edit requires some serious admin action. In my opinion, a block is in order. We're not children, at least most of us aren't, and we shouldn't act like children when something doesn't go our way. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this gem, one of several in this one article: [115] As far as coddling this guy, there needs to be a policy, if there isn't already, about wikipedia not being a nursery school. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 3 days. [116] He could use that time to review WP:CIVIL and discover that his assertion "we're not here to be polite to each other" is not altogether correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relistings of AfDs by non-administrators

Relisting of AfD nominated by IP/SPA vandal

Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81 vandalized Garrison Courtney. IP was warned. IP then requested assistance in nominating page for deletion. This was declined. At the same time (06:48), Pilkington1984 registered. See Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984.

Pilkington1984 then nominated Garrison Courtney for deletion, improperly as an MfD. Zetawoof then helpfully created the AfD on behalf of Pilkington. The nomination made no proper deletion arguments, the only alleged issue was the verification of the title, which has subsequently been thoroughly confirmed. However, please do not debate the notability of the article here, do so on the AfD page if you wish to participate there. My only concern here is process. The defective nomination is mentioned because helping inexperienced editors to create a disruptive AfD is, itself, disruptive. However, the original AfD proceeded with little attention. Nevertheless, the nominator voted in it, again (besides nomination), as the original IP editor who had vandalized the article. Without that sock !vote and the SPA nominator, the !vote was 2 to 1 for Keep. This AfD would normally have closed as Keep or as No Consensus.

However, 5 days having elapsed, [[User:Ron Ritzman] relisted the AfD. This was a blatant disregard of AfD process. I have warned Ritzman. AfD when notability is marginal, can be highly disruptive, wasting great amounts of editor time for articles that are, by the conditions of the problem, marginal. Ritzman is not an administrator, and a relisting "to generate more thorough discussion" by definition wastes more time, and is only warranted when there are only a very few !votes for Delete, or no !votes at all other than the nominator.

A vandal/SPA has managed to disrupt the community, with the assistance of two editors. The clearest problem, though, is Ritzman's relisting. That AfD should have been left to close normally, which would have been minimally disruptive. AfD is bad enough without this serious misunderstanding of "consensus" as it relates to AfDs. Special:Contributions/Ron Ritzman shows a series of these abusive relistings today. It should stop immediately. Please confirm my warning to him and undo improper relistings. I will undo what I can, please ask me to stop if I'm in error. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some of the relistings may be appropriate. I haven't actually undone any yet, and I've got other stuff to do. I'm still a bit concerned about what "may be appropriate," I'd prefer to leave anything marginal to an administrator to decide. (What's wrong with just leaving the AfD there for a while? Otherwise we are generating debate for the sake of generating debate i.e., "finding consensus." --Abd (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the others but I think the relisting of Garrison Courtney that you use as an example was the right call. Whether a non-admin should have done it or not I don't know. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the vandalism and sock vote aspects? BTW, thanks for changing the section heading, it's a little better. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non admins have just as much a right to relist discussions as admins do. We discussed this the last time we tried to take a crack at changing the relisting policy. Consensus seemed to be that relisting shouldn't be done where a "no consensus" close is more appropriate, but that when a debate (Even a debate with 1-2 participants) is relisted, that isn't a guarantee of 5 more days. Anyone can close the debate once they judge that some consensus has been reached or is not likely to be reached. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of non-admin closings of AfDs (those closures often cause more problems than they solve), I have no problems with non-admins relisting, especially in a case like this. My take on relisting is that if there have been few participants or there is a good chance that a few more days will let a consensus form, relisting is definitely the way to go. It's a far better use of everyone's time to extend the debate a few days than it is to close as no consensus and have the article come right back to AfD in a few weeks. And if the relisting was a bad idea, an admin can always come along and close the AfD, so little harm was done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about non-admins, on principle. (I'd have However, AfD process can be abused. What would have been done if the nominator had been IP? Might as well have been! And a glance at contribs showed that the nominator had first vandalized the article? I have a simple request. Please look at the evidence presented with the report before stating that the relisting seems okay.

I came to have a separate question about relisting process, I haven't paid much attention to AfD process over most of the last year, and maybe I didn't have such a good understanding of it in the first place. But it seemed to be designed for minimal disruption. Relisting prolongs debate, and extended debate over deleting articles often generates more heat than light. I.e., there may be some improvement to an article, and then it's gone. Wasted time. Or there is no improvement and lots of editors commenting. Wasted time, no improvement. In the end, it is only one article out of two million. I'm not distressed if it's deleted or if it is kept. I didn't like that the nomination implied a false claim of position with the DEA, and so I went to the article and sourced what is there, to make it verifiable, if it's kept, or even if it's not (it might come back, or, perhaps, as I'd prefer to deletion, it might be merged). Merge could have been accomplished by one editor with possibly no debate at all. We have serious matters of content that are decided by fewer editors than have participated in the AfD.

It's clear from the present AfD debate that the community is divided on Keep or Delete, the likely outcome is No Consensus at this point, but it's the luck of the draw, sometimes. Now, what would have happened without the relisting? Not much different, except that maybe the result would have been Keep, depends. Without relisting, the AfD might have sat overtime, or not. What I find problematic is the idea that there is value in trying to find "consensus" when clearly the community isn't ready for it. As I understood it, the default situation with all articles is Keep. There are countless articles where some substantial segment of the community would want to Delete.

Relisting is a decision by an editor that we need to find consensus on the issue; in this case, that the community should bring broad attention to the suggestion of an IP vandal. Otherwise, leaving it alone leaves it to a responsible closer. Relisting postpones that and just adds more debate. In any case, if someone doesn't like the result, there is DRV, or there is simply waiting (with a Keep, more often) and renominating after a decent delay. Often by that time a consensus has developed. By that time the article might be more mature. Etc. Like I said above, I thought I understood the process. Maybe I didn't. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother to read most of this discussion since I only really have one thing to say. Relisting an AfD does not cause harm. If an admin disagrees, they can close it. This is really a non issue. It does not "waste another editors time" since you are not obligated to prolong discussion, nor are you required to follow the reslisting templates suggestions. Have a nice day. Synergy 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion with a small number of participants taking sharply opposed view, relisting is a very useful course and should be done more frequently. It always attracts the attention of other editors not particularly involved in the topic who can provide their possibly more objective evaluations. Trying to judge consensus on three or four comments is often difficult. It's better to have one afd and decide. Relisting is also appropriate if there are major improvements late in the discussion, or if nobody at all has made a policy based argument one way or another. It decreases the number of articles that need to go to deletion review. The times when it is wrong is when there is clear consensus from a number of editors with a substantial discussion of the points, and it is hoped by someone that a different consensus might develop. Closing as nonconsensus without relisting is for those cases where there has been a full discussion of the issues, and it is clear that there is no agreement likely to be reached., In this particular instance, the relist was correct. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Correct if the vandalism, the avoidance of the inability of a new editor to create an AfD, and the sock voting in the original AfD is considered? I do disagree on the benefits of relisting, but we can discuss that elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on merge of orthomolecular psychiatry into orthomolecular medicine

There are 4 editors at orthomolecular psychiatry (now a redirect to orthomolecular medicine) (Orangemarlin, Verbal, Keepcalm, and ScienceApologist) who, in a forum-like thread entitled "This article was a POV-fork", decided that since they agree to a merge, there is therefore consensus. They have edit-warred against 3 different editors to do so at this point. Despite the forum-like tone and title of the thread, Colonel Warden and Coppertwig objected. I didn't (I avoid these types of threads on article talk pages). Since there is currently (based on a loose count of opinions voiced in ) a 5 support (counting SA) vrs. 7 oppose (counting Gohde) opinion on the merge, and there was no no properly titled straw poll, there's clearly no consensus. We have a Requested Moves forum which should be used for controversial cases; at the least both articles need a proper notification with non-forum like titles on both pages. Despite this, the group has continually edit-warred to keep doing the merge, inserting statements like "per consensus" ... removing POV pushing" [117]. The bad faith, personal attacks, and view that people who don't share your opinions don't count is typical but nevertheless surpisingly bold in this particular instance. The objections are mainly based on size and structure, and are entirely legitimate. There are plenty of sources on OM psychiatry as distinct from OMM, and the OMM page is badly organized. The editors pushing the merge should be reminded that editors with opposing viewpoints count in keeping with good faith, and that standard procedure and consensus is required for major actions in Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 19:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention that ScienceApologist's view can be read at the AE note he raised, or at a FTN thread. Ironically from where I stand, it can be summed as "the opposition is tagteaming". The solution to this issue is simple: the editors who believe the merge is necessary should list it at Requested Moves and abide by the consensus (or lack thereof). These perpetual battles are not productive and waste a lot of people's time. II | (t - c) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is game-playing. ImperfectlyInformed should probably be topic banned for this kind of behavior. Or maybe even banned completely from Wikipedia since he has never contributed anything of value during his time here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is WP:SHOPPING in order see a change pushed through against consensus.

His use of WP:FTN in this is quasi- canvasing as well, given the known biases of that messageboard. Artw (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two distinct subjects here, with significant interest and sources of the psychiatric aspects. There merge seems to be done on the unspoken principle that the fewer articles on fringe subjects, the better. As for POV, both articles fail NPOV. DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just an "unspoken principle", WP:CFORK, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:Walled garden speak directly to the ideal. In any case, the "significant interest and sources" are not very well established, all of them lacking third party scrutiny. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate DGG's input, but my understanding of OMM is that it was started by a small group of scientists in the 1950s and 60s, mostly Pauling and Hoffer, although we could certainly rattle off a list of several other important figures. There was no distinction made, as far as I can tell, between orthomolecular medicine and orthomolecular psychiatry as separate fields. The approach of megatherapies was fringe even at that time. When third parties couldn't replicate the claimed results, the OMM people stopped bothering with the usual scientific process and established their own journals, their own groups, and took their findings to the public directly, anticipating the current preserve of orthomolecular medicine, the infomercial. This approach is commonly called "quackery", and reliable sources also give OMM this (and other) names. Wikipedia takes the point of view of the medical community, and on this one, the medical community's position is, currently at least, very clear. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban of ImperfectlyInformed

Requested Community Ban for ImperfectlyInformed who is a single purpose account who simply shills for alternative medicine paranoia including water fluoridation opposition hysteria and a true belief in orthomolecular medicine. Wikipedia would be a better place and easier to manage without his game-playing as witnessed above.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • From his user contributions, I simply do not see this exclusive concentration: I also see a substantial editing effort on economics and insurance topics. And alternative medicine is a very broad field. Nor do I consider all or even most of the efforts on fringe science disruptive. What I do consider unproductive, if not actually disruptive, is the present accusation against him. DGG (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Would ImperfectlyInformed happen to be a wikifriend of yours, DGG? In any case, a topic ban might be a good start if you think he does good work in economics/insurance topics. However, I've looked through those contributions too and all I've seen is a very problematic edits there as well Note the change to "problematically defined term" which is obvious POV. It's time we start letting people know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Enablers of this kind of behavior need to wake-up and smell the coffee. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nope - not disruptive enough, only has exhaused the patience of SA not the community. So, II like fringe theories? so do I. I think they are mostly crap, but I like them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I like them too. What I don't like is the sort of behavior seen exhibited above. Agreed he's exhausted my patience. The only reason he hasn't exhausted the community's patience is because the community acts like ostriches with their heads in the sand when it comes to such articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there is also lots of ambivolence around the reduction in articles that you generally advocate. I think you'd get more mileage by focusing less on removal of articles on fringe topics, and more on inclusion of reliable source material on the articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • There is the obsession that some Wikipedians seem to have with maintaining the raw number of articles that exist rather than maintaining the quality of the articles that exist (look at all the silly hoopla over the 1 millionth and 2 millionth articles). We all know that it is just as important to get rid of bad content as it is to maintain good content, and because readers land on individual articles from doing searches, they are not necessarily on the best content. We have WP:CFORK idealizations for a reason. I will continue to advocate redirecting and deleting problematic articles so as maintain efficient documentation and quality control. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can recall II is not among the people I know here personally, or who have written much to me. (For the record, SA, I do know you in person, and I consider you a wikifriend despite some disagreements.) As for the fundamental issues, I very strongly do not share II's views on the science-related subjects he works on. I very strongly share your views on the actual merits of pseudo science, but I disagree with you about the extent & manner to Wikipedia should cover such topics, and the appropriateness of covering notable but not very-notable figures and organisations in the field. My own view is that NPOV articles will necessarily show them absurd, and people landing on such articles will be enlightened. DGG (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

editor whose only activity is adding links to arxiv.org categories

This spammer needs to be blocked and reverted. Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Those links actually seem kind of useful. --Dynaflow babble 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I left the "spammer" :) a message about linking to pages with specific content instead of linking to categories listing lots of papers, and a linky to WP:EL. P.D.: (I changed the title of the section, per WP:BITE and WP:AGF) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the three that I checked were appropriate. It looks to me like the work of a bot rather than links a person actually looked at. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him indef--this looks like some kind of weird spambot. Anyone else agree? Blueboy96 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a bot to me; not nearly enough edits to suggest a bot and bots don't usually make secondary edits. HalfShadow 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a physics student with access to some sort of database he or she wants to share, but who who obviously doesn't "get" EL policy (nor got a chance to -- first warning after last edit, then blocked). --Dynaflow babble 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)