Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket #  and VRTS ticket #  for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice^✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice^✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice^✉ 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice^✉ 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Thuranx, I don't read his statement that way. I read it as him being honest and non-delusional about his own innate motivation and world outlook and recognising that it will take a big and constant effort from him to adapt to our collaborative way of doing things.

But I do think that this is a dialogue that you (and possibly others) need to be having with Callmebc himself - which is why I would strongly plead again for his talk page to be unprotected right now. Alice^✉ 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A little late to the party (been away for Christmas) but I'd just like to add that I support an unblock and am willing to do it myself. I'm going to leave that action up to Haemo, of course, but I wanted it to be clear that there are admins willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's three admins who have clearly stated they are willing to unblock and I concur that unblocking is best left to Haemo who says that he is in constant contact, but what about the page protection? We need to be fair not just to Callmebc but to those who have reservations and wish some dialogue so that they can be reassured (or otherwise). Would one of you admins please unprotect the talk page right now as I can not see any objections being voiced to that unprotect after more than a week of discussing Callmebc's block and user talk page protection. Alice^✉ 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the torrent of abuse that he previously let loose on his Talk page, I'm not willing to unblock the page. He's in contact with Haemo so that's fine as far as communication. My own unblock offer does not require discussion, just a simple yes or no (which can be communicated by email). Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing productive that can come from this user on the Killian Documents issue. He should be unblocked only on condition he stay away from that topic, per Guy. Otherwise he'll go right back to insisting on including his original research in that article (and I'll be happy to return from my Wikibreak for the express purpose of stopping that from happening). - Merzbow (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I emailed him a little while ago to try and wrap up this whole thing. I will keep everyone posted! --Haemo (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alice^✉ 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and I know that this section will shortly be archived (into oblivion if there are no further edits) so, would it be possible to drop me a line on my talk page (or by e-mail) when there are any developments with this particular Callmebc theme, since this whole page falls off my watchlist after 9 days? Happy New Year! Alice^✉ 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

I was asked to take the issue to ANI instead of commenting on 3RR, so this is what I'm doing. Today there was a 3RR report against User:Jaakobou by User:Bless sins. In the discussion that ensued, an impartial administrator stated that two users were edit-warring (Jaakobou and Eleland), and action must be taken against either or both, because neither is completely innocent (or guilty).

There was also a small discussion which I consider fairly irrelevant, but whoever is reading this will probably want to read it as well. In any case, even though the 3RR case was disputed and wasn't a clear violation, an administrator (User:Tariqabjotu) decided to block the accused party (Jaakobou) for 84 hours (a very long block, although understandable because it's not his first). He also didn't say anything against Eleland, who was involved in the edit war, not even issuing a warning on his talk page, or anything of the sort.

The obvious initial problem is that an admin acted against only one user in an edit war, whose 3RR was disputed, and against the wishes of another admin. Normally, I wouldn't say anything, because who am I (a non-admin) to question this decision? However, the problem here is the User:Tariqabjotu is highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians, and clearly is not an impartial admin. At the very least, he could have left a comment and asked another admin to do the block.

I am therefore appealing the decision and hope it is fairly reviewed by other administrators. I also invite uninvolved users to comment on what seems to me like a conflict of interest.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey omitted the fact that, as I said when I responded to the 3RR report, Jaakobou has been edit-warring on several articles over the past several days (such as House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know). After blocking Jaakobou, I took a look at Eleland's edit history and saw no such pattern of edit warring. One must note that the discussion on WP:AN3 only surrounded the edits of Jaakobou and Eleland on one article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm okay with objections to the block (although I firmly believe the block is justified), but accusations of conflict of interest are misplaced. Ynhockey's latest comment on WP:AN3 shows what obviously is him jumping to conclusions about how certain admins react in response to touchy subjects. Contrary, apparently, to what Ynhockey believes, I don't pigeonhole people as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" and make decisions based on those assumptions. So, I would prefer Ynhockey not do the same to me. Ynhockey does not know what I believe about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and as well, because my beliefs, especially on that subject, have no bearing on how I act within this project. His assertion that I am "highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians" is an exaggeration and, more importantly, I am not involved in any conflict with Jaakobou (on any of the aforementioned articles or elsewhere). Decry the block if you must, but this idea that anyone touching Israel-related or Palestinian-related subjects is editing and acting from a biased standpoint is harmful to the welfare of our articles related to these subjects. It's no wonder many of our Middle Eastern articles have repeatedly been the subject of fierce edit wars. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I did not imply that you were either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, sorry if it came across this way - indeed the other two users I mentioned were clearly pro-Israeli and another clearly pro-Palestinian, that does not include you. I was merely commenting on the fact that you are highly involved in articles related to Israel and Arab countries (and by extension, Islam), and if 7 of your 15 top-edited articles are on these subjects, and you helped bring 2 to FA status, does not mean you are highly involved, then I don't know what does. I just thought that an involved admin, even if not in the specific article being disputed, should not pass judgement over articles they're close to. I probably would've disputed your decision even if you protected the page, for example, which would've been my suggestion/decision if I was an admin.

Secondly, it is wrong to say that Eleland does not have a history of edit-warring. Clear examples which come to mind are Saeb Erekat (for which he was reported for 3RR) and Battle of Jenin, although I'm sure I could dig up a dozen more if I actually went over his contributions.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong interest in the Middle East, but that still does not equal being highly involved in every Middle Eastern subject. Involvement in (for example, as you mention in your latest comment) Islam-related articles is still quite a leap away from being involved in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, there is far more to Israel and Jerusalem than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinians. Although those subjects are certainly related to the articles, you will see I stay away from articles more central to the conflict (such as, for example, Israeli-Palestinian conflict). As far as I am concerned, a conflict of interest is only of concern for a block or protection when there is a conflict with a specific editor or article. Neither is the case here. You have provided evidence that I edit articles related, in varying to degrees, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you have provided no evidence that this has impeded my judgment, or made me biased, in blocking Jaakobou based on entirely different articles. If anything, the fact that I have been able to contribute substantially to Israel and Jerusalem and bring them to featured status is a testament to my ability to keep relatively neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, take out the conflict of interest claim and you leave what I believe should be the real purpose of the discussion – whether the block was fair, my interest in the Middle East notwithstanding.

Eleland's edit-warring on Saeb Erekat and Battle of Jenin dates back to (as recent as) December 4 and September 30, respectively. Jaakobou's edit-warring on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know dates back to (as recent as) December 29, December 29, and December 29, respectively. I have no doubt that Eleland has edit warred on several articles during his time on Wikipedia, but the proximity of Jaakobou's edit-warring across multiple articles is the real issue. Jaakobou's response below further reinforces my point that there is an problem; he does not appear to understand that his edit-warring is unproductive, and claims he hasn't been edit-warring at all. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's edit-warring on Palestinian right of return, on the other hand, is from December 30, and includes a violation of 3RR, so it is clear that he is edit warring across multiple articles, and that this behavior is current, not some ancient history. For the sake of even handedness, you should either cut short Jaakobu's block now, or block Eleland, whose behavior is identical. 213.239.207.90 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like both users were edit-warring and since both have a history of making contentious edits on these sort of articles, both deserve similar treatment. However, I think jaakobou was acting in good faith, and not trying to push his POV and when I just looked over some of Eleland's latest contributions I saw at least one case of obvious POV-pushing that cannot be reasonably considered as good faith and loads of personal attacks. It seems that when we have 3 editors on one side of an issue and only 1 editor on the other side watching an article, the numbers "win" and the one gets blocked when really both deserve to be handled similarly, as just because someone didn't revert more than three times (and didn't violate the letter of 3RR), it doesn't justify his edit warring. Yonatan ^talk 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post this on behalf of Jaakobou. Nick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [1] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[2] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [3]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [4] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [5] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [6], incivility [7], pov accusations [8][9][10], and pov violations [11].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [12], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jaakobou's description of the facts is simply not accurate. The reference he added to his edits at Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian did not address the concerns I raised regarding his rather polemical insertions of material there. I have sinced retained the reference he added but removed the unsourced additions, while adding a source for an item he tagged as lacking in sources and doing a general copy edit of one of the sections in question. He has also been edit-warring at October 2000 events, changing a sentence sourced to two references to read as he pleases, despite my attempts to reason with him on the talk page. Tiamut 14:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that tariqabjotu made an error of judgment in his reason to block Jaakobou, but not Eleland. I don't believe there should have been any block for either since both have made exactly 3 reverts on this issue within the article and have started discussion on the talk page. I'd also like to suggest that many good editors go 3 reverts (not 4) on the Israeli-Palestinian articles without expecting to be blocked and it would be an interesting development if suddenly we are going to change the way blocks have been implemented thus far. Please, if there is a policy change on this, let us all know about it beforehand. That is my opinion anyhow, from reading and following these articles he was involved in of late. Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record Jaakobou made 4 reverts not 3. Eleland made less than 4 reverts (else I'd have reported him/her too).Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must not be making myself clear: Once again, I blocked Jaakobou for the sum of his edit warring, not for the edit warring on just House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please get the facts straight. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC

It is my perception of the WP:3RR intention is that reverting an editor on different issues does not add up into a single issue, meaning that, each count as separate issues (imagine 5 editors arguing over a 5 issues). Therefore believe it was only 3 reverts and not 4. Also, Jaakobou explained the true nature of the "sum of his edit warring" and I honestly believe you have made a judgment error here blocking only one of the two, incorrectly declaring him as a rotten egg, while missing Eleland's activity on articles such as Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also now where he helps User:Bless_sins avoid 3RR by reverting for him with the same dubious justification at the Islam movie article. Seeing that discussion were already on their way on talk, I think you should have only protected the article. The block will certainly not resolve the content dispute and everyone must wait 84 hours in anticipation. Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

YnHockey, I can understand when you say User:Tariqabjotu has edited, in the past, Israel/Arab related articles. You also agree, with tariq (and myself), that he/she is a completely neutral editor, neither 'pro-Palestinian' nor 'pro-Israeli'. In that case I don't see any conflict of interest. The fact that tariq is involved means he/she is very familiar with types edit warring that takes place in such articles, and how admins usually handle this. In that case tariqabjotu is a suitable admin for the job.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the use of 3rr as a weapon in a content/POV push dispute. It certainly seems like some members of the community are keeping it as a weapon to beat their opponents with... Rather than blocking editors, who seem to be disengaging from the edit war, shouldn't the blocking admin have protected the pages in this case since discussion on talk pages had been occuring? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages are generally protected when there are several different members in each of the edit-warring parties. In this case it appears to be a case of Jaakobou alone against 3 editors. Also, insisting that a user follow wikipedia rules is not a 'weapon to beat opponents with'. You are forgetting that the 'opponents' wouldn't be in this situation if they observed wikipedia policies like WP:3rr.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What Happened

A number of users (Timeshifter, Tiamut, Eternalsleeper, and MathKnight) sought to add new content to the article Second Intifada which a number of the editors (Michael Safyan, Armon, Jaakobou, and Tewfik) deemed objectionable and in violation of WP:NPOV. Many of the editors sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Jaakobou made considerable efforts to resolve the editing conflict in this manner. However, some of the less scrupulous editors sought to push the new and biased content. Jaakobou followed proper protocol by reverting these controversial edits while the issue was being discussed on the talk page.

If anyone ought to be blocked, I think it should be those editors who ignored the ongoing discussion on the talk page and who sought to push their objectionable new content. Although those who support blocking Jaakobou attribute the block to a prior edit regarding wikilinks to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Second Intifada article, this conflict took place a long time ago and is not the actual motivation for the block.

In conclusion, I object to the blocking of Jaakobou on the grounds that:

1. Jaakobou followed proper protocol in reverting controversial edits and sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page.
2. Those seeking to block Jaakobou are equally, if not more, guilty of edit warring given that they disregarded ongoing discussion and instead sought to make their controversial edits.
3. The alleged reason for blocking Jaakobou (wikilinks to House demolitions) is quite different than the actual reasons for the block.
4. The alleged reason for blocking transpired a long time ago which, by any reasonable statute of limitations, ought to be disregarded.

Please see the Revision history of Second Intifada, the objectionable edit, the Second Intifada Talk Page. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what are you calling the "alleged reason" versus the "actual reason" for the block. -- tariqabjotu 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By "alleged reason" I mean the stated reason which was used to justify the block to the administrative board. By "actual reason" I mean the reason why the block was sought in the first place -- that is, Jaakobou's reversion of the controversial edits. That the block was sought for this reason is evidenced by the fact that the stated reason involves a dispute which transpired a long time ago and by the fact that threats to block Jaakobou were first raised in the discussion of the controversial edits which Jaakobou reverted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the reason for blocking. I thought it was a 3RR violation of Second Intifada regarding wikilinks to the House demolitions article rather than a 3RR violation of the House demolitions article, itself. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou is a hugely problematical editor with almost no understanding of the policy of the encyclopedia or scholarship - or indeed the English language. His bluster, ownership of articles (and TalkPages) is totally inimicable to the project. He has consistently escaped censure for rampant abuses - and we can again see the personalised attacks that have allowed him to get away with it for so long. The admin in this case has looked at the evidence and (as best as I'm aware) applied a reasonable sanction for the breaches alleged, likely unaware of what went before. Having discovered the blow-back he may feel severely bitten, but it is to be hoped that other admins will not be as spineless as those who've become aware of this situation before, and failed to do anything about it. 3RR is almost the least of the problems. PR^talk 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued ban evasion by Arthur Ellis

contribs) 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 – IP initially reported is stale; new reincarnation has been blocked Kla’quot (talk

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 209.217.93.84 (talk · contribs). I think we need a block here (which would be his fourth this week). For more background, please see see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly bear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden in mind? There may be a case for letting him edit this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you read the Proposed Decision page of the case that you just cited? Arthur Ellis was banned by Arbcom from editing articles relating to Canadian politics and the blogosphere, then had his ban widened for having violated the first ban by editing Rachel Marsden. Then the community hardbanned him for continued ban evasion, and the Arbcom rejected his appeal of the community ban. You might also want to check out the vandalism in the edit histories of the Arbcom pages that you just cited; most of it is from Arthur Ellis IP ranges. If an edit needs to be made to that article surely someone other than a long-term Wikipedia vandal and serial BLP violator can do it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the Rachel Marsden RFAR the ArbCom judged Ellis's edits to be in accordance with BLP. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether Athur Ellis is a serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying he's unlikely to be violating BLP on this article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all people mentioned in an article. He violated it today with this edit:[13] But moreover you are missing the point of banning someone from the project. When someone has given us a stream of vandalism and harassment, we want that person to and stop interacting with us and to forget about Wikipedia. Back to my original point: If an edit needs to be made, anyone can make it and defend it. If you need more eyes on the article, why not ask the thousands of active editors in good standing to watch it instead of inviting back (of all the people in the world) a long-term vandal and serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to continuing the above discussion, could someone block this IP please? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC) He is at it again... I will leave it be since I do not want to get involved in this. Brusegadi (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis is more right than wrong on the content issues, at least with respect to the edits made from this particular IP address. Ellis refuses to play by our rules, which is a problem; unfortunately there are rather more people interested in making sure everyone plays by the rules than there are interested in watchlisting biographies of minor public figures. The article originally spent many words elaborately painting her as a sexual stalker, all from reliable sources but all negative and out of all proportion to her importance. That has been repeatedly trimmed but now we have 400 words on how she has lost her two most recent jobs, again portraying her as disturbed without coming out and actually saying so. (The tactic of saying "Joe Smith vigorously denied rumors of X" is a very clever way of being able to say "Joe Smith is X" without out actually saying it.) Frankly this has gone on too long already. Thatcher 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the entire article has been deleted though? Marsden is a notable person that seems to have attracted a person that has a strong dislike for her. I would think stubifying the article and semi-protecting it would be a better option than deleting the article of a notable person.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, when most people break the rules around here they do things like revert 5 times in 24 hours. When Arthur Ellis breaks the rules he does things like replace the user page of a female editor with the C-word. (You probably didn't know that his behaviour was this bad; in the spirit of WP:DENY I have avoided bringing it up until now.) This is not the kind of guy we want hanging around here, period. I would really appreciate it if we could show some solidarity in making this person feel unwelcome. I respect your point of view on the content issues. However please make your arguments about content without implying (perhaps unintentionally) that Arthur's ban is based on technicalities. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Arthur Ellis and I have never replaced anyone's page with the "c-word". It seems any time Canadian editors have a fight or problem the blame is laid to me. I also see a list of Arthur Ellis sockpuppets. Yes, some of them are mine, some are not. I refused to accept a 1 month block imposed when I WON the arbcomm case on this article a year ago. Clayoquot and a handful of other editors got me banned forever. Fine. But I won't let them define the Internet reputations of people I know. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis certainly has behaved in an unwelcome and disruptive manner from time to time, and I do not mean to condone that behavior. That should not blind us to the problems of an article that has been stubbed or deleted at least 7 times due to unresolved BLP issues. Thatcher 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, do you see anyone in this thread saying that Ellis's conduct should blind us to problems anywhere? What I see is a request to have a banned user blocked, which then turned into a discussion about an article while the block request has been ignored. I am seeing 209.217.75.171 (talk · contribs), who 10 hours ago declared himself on this very noticeboard to be a banned user, still editing. Good grief. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. Thatcher 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

This user is making useless edits to bypass redirects in violation of Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. When I explain this, he calls me "an insensate policy wonk". What should be done? --NE2 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or articles concerned? Avruchtalk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec]FCYTravis (talk · contribs) is making perfectly valid points on your talk page. I don't see the issue with changing a piped link that heads to a redirect into a piped link that goes directly to the target article. This is a completely pointless revert and an edit war worth WP:LAME if it continues. Please find a way to solve this dispute that needs no admin intervention... — Scientizzle 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that they are useless edits, and should not be encouraged. They also increase page size. --NE2 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more useless to edit war and argue over harmless, if useless, edits. — Scientizzle 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If it stops the useless edits, it might be worth it. --NE2 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Edit warring is by defenition more harmfull then a harmless edit. The only reason WP:REDIR states not to change links is to prevent confusion over future articles that may be created in the context of that link. The edits you are warring over do not fall under that reason, as these redirects only apply to spelling of a link, not it's meaning. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo (talk · contribs) & Ungurul (talk · contribs)

Moldopodo complains about Ungurul

User:Ungurul, before vandalising the article Balti steppe, has never said anything on the relevant talk page. Further, this user has simply replaced every word "steppe" with "depression" and also added diacritics signs everywhere. None of these edits were justified. For none of these edits has user Ungurul tried to reach a consensus in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Ungurul, also present on German speaking Wikipedia (according to me, as uses exact same insults and numerous personal attacks)de:User:Cultura, de:User:Forta - ref. [14], [15], on French speaking Wikipedia fr:User:William Pedros ref. [16], [17], [18], [19], on Romanian speaking Wikipedia ro:User: 125.245.199.2 (was blocked for obsceneities written in Romanian) ref.[20], [21]. User Ungarul was asked to stop personally attacking me under the above mentioned user names on all Wikipedias, to stop insult/personally attack me and vandalise disussion pages by repeatedly deleting sections containing discussion and research of consensus on the proper city name in the cocnerend language, namely on French Wikipedia).--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Further explication of User:uNgarul's actions may be also found at my talk page, and namely at its edits history (the same applies for other language version Wikipedias). thank you for your time.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Ungurul complains about Moldopodo

Can one look about the behaviour of this user? He was blocked for a week, now is again trolling and being disruptive. I mean this guy is not accepting official name of cities and he's been blocked in others wikipedia as well. See French wikipedia for example. Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Ungurul (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for harrasing Moldopodo (talk · contribs). These two just can't get along... — Scientizzle 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not harrasing him, I just asked him on his talk page something. One can see my edit there. A very innocent question. Ungurul (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia projects are completely autonomous, at least in regards to user conduct, so whatever actions Moldopodo has undertaken on other projects should not be taken into account here. Whether he accepts official names or not is a personal matter. What should matter here is his conduct in seeking or following consensus and generally abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. I agree that Moldopodo has not been the ideal editor in those respects, but to be fair, you have also breached various policies, and Moldopodo's actions should be seen in the light of these mitigating circumstances. TSO1D (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he's being very disruptive. I see that others from other Wikipedia also dealt with him properly. By blocking him. Ungurul (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I blocked him once, and I'm not going to do it again on your say so. You can both get along, or you can both be blocked. You are being as bad as each other. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because I simply revert his POV pushing and I respected the rules. He didn't accepted even the consensus on talk page. See that he's reverting. Ungurul (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See his disruptive trolling on Talk:Bălţi 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the statement that I did not look for consensus. Please check relevant talk pages on any language on Balti, Balti steppe, everywhere I engage in the research of consensus and discussion, everywhere I always source my edits, and may be I am too strict by requesting the same from others. Also, User:TSO1D please provide a diff for your statements and namely where I personally attack User:Ungurul. To avoid repetetive attacks from user Ungurul, please find below a copy of my unblock request, where all is explained with diffs: Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, without any single reference to a verifiable source, nor any other type of explication (talk page is empty), which is moreover, their personal invention called 'Balti depression'. How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression). Please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balti_steppe), check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itself, as edited by myself last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balti_steppe&oldid=179776522). User Ungurul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. User Ungurul has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungurul kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side as I was continuously adding new text, pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic). Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also references on the Balti steppe article itself(http://www.biotica-moldova.org/ECO-NET/part6-2-2.htm) and and Britannica Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9012051/Balti), but also: Scientific Ph. D. Research dated 2006 on Fertility of Chernozem in Balti Steppe (Beltskaya Steppe/Бельцкая степь in Russian)(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/files/theses/2006/5617/stanislav_stadnic_abstract_ru.pdf), press article in the major Moldavian newspaper (http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/06/03/0000.html), travel company site(http://www.spectrumtravel.md/eng/country.php?c=3&cid=13), Draft Assessment Report for establishing a national environment and natural resource information network compatible with the UNEP/GRID (http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/moldova/md_assm.htm), Beltsy Steppe(http://www.justmaps.org/flags/europe/moldova.asp), Belcy Steppe in Columbia Encyclopedia 2007 sixth edition, link to European Commission mentioning Balti Steppe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_emerald_network/Pilot_project_Moldova.asp), National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md (http://www.cnaa.acad.md/en/thesis/5617/), Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement (http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/moldova/Biodiv.htm) etc. etc... Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. User Ungurul clearly violated the 3RR and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to the article. Please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the disruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungurul, as suggested initially by User:Dc76, and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one week and User:Ungurul for 24 hours. I would also like to check users for socket pupetting User:Bonaparte, User:Ungurul (uses exact same agressive style, does not listen to arguments and does not provide any sources, edits exclusively on Romania and Moldavia related topics), Utilisateur:William_Pedros (on French speaking Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros) (exact same style, calling me right off "vandal"), User: 89.185.33.40 (exact same editing style, calling my sourced edits "vandalism") and User:Dc76 (initiator of the page move); also User: 89.185.33.40 used exact same language as Dc76: "pushing POV, bordering vandalism, and edited only on Romania and Moldova related articles, namely to make sure that Dc76's edits or ideas are brought back. Thank you very much in advance for your answer and most importantly: "Happy Christmas!" (even if you do not celebrate it today)--Moldopodo (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

There is no way I'm reading that whole thing. Can you just discuss it without edit-warring or making personal attacks? Is that really so much to ask? Avruchtalk 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you can see all how disruptive he is. Imagine how he destroyed all the articles with huge talk pages like this one. Yet, he said he never attacked me or he was never beeen disruptive. This guy is a troll, and a vandal. No wonder he was blocked so many times. Ungurul (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there was no single personal attack from my side regarding User:Ungurul, however, there were plenty from his side in my regard, and the last one just here[22]. Please, do take some time and have a look through my arguments and presented diffs. --Moldopodo (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Everyone can see, now you'll be blocked for good. People are tired of you and your vandalisme and trolling. --Ungurul (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

and User:Ungurul continues:[23], aslo check how User:Ungurul renamed this whole section "Banning user Moldopodo"--Moldopodo (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Don't worry, you're just a vandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo

• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

Time to block both?

New section header so this doesn't get lost in the flurry of polemics above. I propose that these two editors are both acting disruptive. If each continues to rail against the other here (and in other forums, such at article talk pages and admin talk pages fishing for blocks) they would best serve the project by losing editing privelages. You two have a content dispute, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the proper forum. — Scientizzle 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking when reviewing this mess of a thread. I'd support a block of both for mutual disruptive unpleasantness and wastage of WP:ANI bytes. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd support a double block; neither of them seems able or willing to just discuss their disagreement like reasonable adults, and I'm tired of them looking to us to referee this lame edit-war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept to be blocked for one month if Moldo is blocked also. Anyway, I was the good guy here, because I didn't accept to change official names and I was not disruptive and I didn't fill huge talk pages like he did. One can check. Ungurul (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And also please remark that everything was OK until he get unblocked. He was blocked for a week last time. Ungurul (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a child. Shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a child. But he is not. Ungurul (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked them both for 14 days. When the blocks expire, anything more disruptive than good-faith dispute resolution, if necessary, won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scientizzle. Moldopodo and Ungurul, when your blocks expire you're welcome to contribute to the peaceful resolution of this content dispute at Talk:Bălţi steppe. Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Account of Moldopodo unblocked. You failed to look into user contribution history. For last 7 days I see no disruption of wikipedia editing. This is an outrageous abuse of admin privileges. `'Míkka>t 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An "outrageous abuse of admin privileges"? I fully disagree. I won't revert your solitary sysop undo of a supported (see above) admin action without discussion. But I'm nonplussed. These two, continually bickering over many, many pages, was considered disruptive by several editors. — Scientizzle 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has be no discussion or support for an unblock, nor has an attempt been made to contanct the blocking admin prior to it. Wheel warring is considered improper behavior for an administrator.--Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this unilateral unblock, which I think is in very bad form, and about your comment, which I think is unbecoming an administrator. I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair. Also, a statement such as "outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is way out of line considering the support expressed for this action above. Mikkalai, I recommend that you retract that statement and reinstate the block of Moldopoldo. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend y'all stop wikilawyering upon me and address the issue: for the last week there was no any disruption of article ediing from the side of Moldopodo. Your refusal to admit an error confirms my opinion about certain attitude about way too trigger-happy administratitis. The fact taht he person is kinda inconvenient does not mean taht you have to hit in on head after the first cry wolf wthout looking into the essence. If you disagee with me please provide example of the disruption and we shall talk. It is especially outrageous that an attempt to involve more people to resolve a conflict between the two by posting in this page was an argument in favor of block instead of help. What is wrong with you people? Did they spoil your holiday supper or what? <sadly shaking the head> `'Míkka>t 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The expression "I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair" makes me wonder: who of us is crazy? Or wikilawyers already concocted a policy that you may ban a person for last year snow? `'Míkka>t 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One important note: There was no disruption from Moldopodo for a week at least partially because he was blocked for the week of December 23-December 30. I'm willing to concede that maybe Ungurul (talk · contribs) was a bigger problem in this case, but Moldopodo not being disruptive on articles during his or her week-long block for edit warring is hardly a strong argument for an unblock. I'm a reasonable guy and will listen to reasoned arguments, and had this been brought up to me directly I may have been convinced to unblock the account myself. — Scientizzle 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor can see thusfar that this discussion as has the previous ones, contradicts an unblock. and by no means could this discussion be consrude or intrpereted as a consensus for an unblock. More troubling is your confrontational attitude, and rejection of community input and its consensus process.--Hu12 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a reasonable editor and I have to say I was uncomfortable about the block of Moldopodo. What exactly (with diffs please) did he do wrong? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this unblock, because whereas I have often disagreed in the past with user Moldopodo, and he always describes me as his nemesis, I think that in this case he did not really do anything severe enough to deserve a two week ban (or any ban for that matter). However since both he and Ungurul were blocked simultaneusly for their mutual conflict, I think that since Moldopodo has been unblocked, Ungurul's block should also be reviewed and shortened if not completely set aside. TSO1D (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ungurul was persistently teasing and harassing moldopodo and I am strongly against the unblock. On the contrary, Moldopodo was discussing unguru's ridiculous edits mixed with lies. This very thread was started with false accusation by ungurul. Super-admins decided to play annoyed unstead of looking into the matter. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. No one (including myself) looked into the matter deeply enough. I am strongly opposed to unblocking Ungural who was clearly only trying to get Moldopodo blocked; clearly disruptive in my book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that ungurul's actions were more severe and that he should not be immediatly unblocked. However, since both users were banned for engaging in a disruptive conflict more than anything specific, it seems hardly fair to pardon one of the users and let the other serve the full block. So I reduced Ungurul's block to three days. If any of them starts edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, the original block should be reinstated. Actually it might be wise to do a Checkuser on Ungurul, he could be a sock of Bonnie and then the result would be clear. My actions were based on the assumption that he was a new user. TSO1D (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

←A few points, some I've previously stated above:

• Ungurul (talk · contribs) was clearly disruptive and a block to this account appears to be well-supported, even if it has been shortened.
  • Any sockpuppet suspicions should have been brought up much earlier and much clearer. If this is possibly a banned user causing trouble again, that would have been nice to know yesterday.
• Moldopodo (talk · contribs) was sucked into this by the frenetic accusations of Ungurul, and I'm willing to concede that Moldopodo appears was less deserving of a block (of any length) than Ungurul. Moldopodo's statements and actions in this last round were light-years more appropriate than Ungurul.
  • That said, the statement that Moldopodo hadn't caused any disruptions over the last week is misinformative, as Moldopodo was blocked for a week on December 23 and couldn't cause any disruption during that time.
• I am sufficiently ignorant of the details of Eastern European geography that I am ill-equipped to analyze all of the "factual" statements thrown around in this and other forums. The content disagreements between these users that has previously resulted in numerous edit wars and blocks for both. The repeated characterization of each others' edits as vandalism and trolling had the distinct feel of an overly heated content dispute, one in which neither party was willing to tone down the attitudes or rhetoric.
• Moldopodo has starred in previous ANI threads: edit war with Dc76 (talk · contribs)[24]; complaints about TSO1D (talk · contribs)[25]; complaining about admin Nat (talk · contribs) as well as TSO1D[26]; more TSO1D v. Moldopodo[27]; and more here and here and here and the most recent iteration. And there have been at least suspicions of abusive puppetry by Moldopodo, too. In any case, I did see much of this prior to my enacted block (despite claims otherwise): Moldopodo has displayed some tendencies of the classic tendentious editor, focuses all efforts on a particularly tendentious arena, and has certainly conflicted with other tendentious types. This sort of resume, admittedly, often makes other uninvolved editors (myself included) less patient with drama-producing (or alleged drama-producing) edit warriors in more esoteric fields. This is futher compounded by Moldopodo's communication style that makes it difficult to wade through his/her side of the various issues. All of this combined quickly sapped my patience, I admit.
• Finally, I object to a few things specific to mikkalai (talk · contribs):
  • My block summary was not a "false reason" as you claimed in your unblock summary (though I should have selected "disruptive" over "edit warring") and the lack of disruption in the prior week is a sham of a defense (vis-à-vis Moldopodo’s week-long block during said period).
  • Making statements like "User ungurul is an ignorant arrogant person and suspected sockpuppet" does nothing to defuse the situation (without evidence or elaboration on the sock allegation) and can appear to be evidence of a bias on your part, deserved or not.
  • Characterizing my action as "an outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is more than a touch hyperbolic.
  • Had you brought any of this up on my talk page or via email before unblocking I would have listened carefully; I am very comfortable admiting and resolving any mistake I may make. I hope you and other editors will not hesitate, if necessary, in the future, to contact me prior to any unilateral action opposing or undoing my adminstrative activites.

— Scientizzle 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• All this smoke and mirror does not address the one and only basic question: which exactly disruption happened during the last week that warranted a very long block. BTW a nice move to turn tables and turn discussion into how bad I am. I describe the action in question as blatant abuse of admin privileges and you did nothing to change my opinion. And I will act exactly the same way when I see the one next time, and you may sue me. I may give a slack to a childish anon vandal and warn him 3 times before blocking, but we are talking about inappropriate acions of admins here. I could have understood that you alone misjudged in a hurry, but when I saw several of you banding up into a lynch mob chanting: "I don't want to read all this bullshit he wrote, just hang him high block him deep and done with it!", it really ticked me off. `'Míkka>t 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And your stubborn attitude is glossing over that I have admitted to some mistakes and also explained some of the mindset in which I worked. A good-faith mistake is not the same as abuse. There's no smoke and mirrors here. I am in no way describing way in which you are "bad", I just noted a couple of specific things about your response that could have been done differently (better, in my opinion) to reduce drama, namely discussing directly with me your opinions. I see nothing more that needs to be done here (all blocks are set to everyone's satisfaction?), but I'll welcome any further comments on my own talk page. — Scientizzle 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I admit that I was not reading very carefully your preceding detailed response and your admission of mistake was lost from me. For that I apologize. I have already explained that were you alone, I would not make any fuss of it. The real problem is how you managed to get an unanimous support in this page. I understand that one person can make a mistake sometimes. But really worrisome was that several people here happily displayed a mob attitude without minimal inspection. It took me only 3 seconds do realize that moldopodo cound not have possibly done something bad during last week. And it does not really matter whether he was blocked or was busy boinking his girlfriend. I may only conclude that the miltuperson decision was made based on a hearsay and vague memories taht yes this guy was nuisance in the past, let's nuke him now. And this is way not the first time I see this attitude. I don't care what opinion you will have about me after this, as long as you and other who reads this be less jumpy to conclusions next time. `'Míkka>t 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks, has anybody checked if Ungurul isn't just another Bonaparte sock? Bonaparte has been after Moldopodo for a while, and the style fits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jim62sch (resolved)

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

---

Resolved

 – Referred to ArbCom and RfC

NB. The Videmus Omnia aspects of this thread have been referred to ArbCom. Further discussion should concentrate on addressing the original post by Chris Cunningham. Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See this edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC) to reinstate a diff provided by Chris Cunningham when opening the thread. dave souza, talk 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC) User:Jim62sch disagrees with my editing style, although he didn't see fit to really explain why in my sole previous encounter with him (and, per his comment there, was quite flippant about the idea of providing a reason in an RfA). However, this sort of comment is beyond the pale. I'm being treated like some sort of vandal, or serial abuser of the system, and don't deserved to be talked about derisively in the third person on random article talk pages.

His last comment on his own talk page, along with the general attitudes conveyed within, suggest that this is indeed what I should expect from him in future. I'm not sure how to handle this, especially as I'd rather not go through the same torrent of personal abuse and pointed insults as I did from the group of editors in question as I did during my RfA. However, while walking away from homeopathy entirely was okay (first step: back off), I'm not prepared to simply keep retreating every time I'm attacked like this. Suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit you cite is out of line, although I don't see the relevance of the other two edits. I've given Jim62sch a WP:NPA warning, and a link to this thread. Sandstein (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than handing out a template warning I'd have been inclined to ask why Jim, who joined Wikipedia over two years ago and has over 8,000 mainspace edits, should consider that drive-by edits without discussion are characteristic of Thumperward. YMMV, of course; I have become so cynical that my first reaction to any report by a user I do not know is to investigate their behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll hear Jim's side of the story soon, and I have now changed my template warning to a more personal one. Still, even if Thumperward should turn out to have conduct problems of his own, edits such as this are not acceptable under WP:NPA. Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the "assuming good faith" part. I joined WP more than two years ago and have > 10k mainspace edits. The links I provided show why Jim responded like this: a spat with User:Orangemarlin over homeopathy three weeks ago which resulted in a heavy battering of my RfA by sympathetic editors (including Jim62sch) with whom I'd had no previous interaction. I'd hoped to resolve this by walking away from the article, but that's apparently not working. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking away from which article?

In any case Chris, when you make substantial edits to an article, edits that significantly change the article (especially a featured article), and neither leave messages nor engage in any discussion on the perceived merits of your edits it is quite difficult to WP:AGF. The edits appear to be just as I said: hit and run changes. I'll note that PL, an excellent editor and the main writer on the article, has left very cogent statements here. Apparently the merits of your edits are escaping both of us.

Finally, given that I made an observation of the behaviour of the editor, not of the personality of the editor, I fail to see how NPA applies. No offense, Chris, but the manner you went about making the changes was simply wrong and keep in mind that at no point did I claim that you were a vandal or serial abuser of the system.

Note, Chris, I could claim a vio of NPA on your part given your comments above and the fact that you felt the need to include unrelated diffs in an effort to "sully" my reputation. Of course, I won't, as I'm not into silly tit-for-tat games, but I definitely could. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the way I was editing: I'm following WP:BRD, and I've replied to PL on talk now that he's explained his reasons for reverting. I feel that your attack on me on the Nostradamus talk page is a continuance of my previous (albeit vicarious) interaction with you on the homeopathy article and my RfA. Misrepresenting my edit history in a manner which is clearly intended to be derogatory ("glad you caught him") was clearly meant to be insulting, and bringing it up here (when frankly I didn't feel safe bringing it up on your user talk) is in no way a personal attack. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly bullying, given what passes for civility these days, and the NPA warning seems excessive. Again, admin warnings require having a sense of proportion in addition to diligence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So, Chris, you can read intent? Really? So much for that there WP:AGF stuff (at least as a universal concept, anyway). You don't feel safe on my page? I'm sorry Chris, but I don't even know how to address that one ... to the best of my knowledge my page isn't booby-trapped and the same folks that frequent my page frequent this page as well, so I'm afraid I just can't see the genesis for any fear. Nope, I just can't.

Oh wait, was it this? Well, quite honestly, yes the teacher will find his career ended when the school board informs him that it is in his best interest to resign. See, that's known as exercising one's political power -- just like the parents did in Dover. The board members found their careers ended. If someone harms my children in some way, you can be sure that I'll take legal action to rectify the injury (as I did with a school disciplinarian who is no longer employed by the school district). Not that this has anything to do with Wikipedia, but since you brought it up ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean Chris Cunningham is pressing this An/I because a bunch of us voted against him in the RfA???? Are you serious???? You were battered at the RfA because of YOUR behavior at Homeopathy. My friends did not show up to batter you, it is in fact a group of editors here who observe a whole host of articles, making certain that the NPOV is strictly followed. I would suggest heartily that you spend a few moments to consider that these baseless accusations against very good and very prolific editors are only going to hurt you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the RfA comment thing, but, now that you mentioned it (the RfA that is), there is something I'd like to reclarify:

As I posted at the RfA, "I don't think explaining one's reasoning is imperative, or even necessary in the case of RFA's as they are functionally elections. Explaining one's reasons in such a venue may be a nicety but it is hardly a requirement."

Explaining oneself on article discussion pages on the other hand is, if not required, damned close to it.

Odd, I hadn't even realised the connection between Chris being mad at the outcome of his RfA and this AN/I. I must have been exercising too much of that there WP:AGF.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see the RfA material being dredged up again. I was hoping, and I still hope, to support Chris in the future when he is put up again for admin. In fact, that has been my plan. However, if this is going to be used as an excuse to blow every tiny dispute up into a huge mess and for recriminations to be slung around, this makes me wonder about maturity levels, and readiness for more responsibility here on Wikipedia. Chris, just try to show some class so I can support you wholeheartedly next time around for admin, ok?--Filll (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been the victim of Jim62sch's off-wiki harassment techniques in the past; this is something that has even been called to Jimbo's attention (and Jimbo promised a blockban, though it unfortunately never happened). I'm willing to provide the evidence by e-mail to any established user that asks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're going to bring in outside evidence? Oh, yeah, I remember you. You battled Jim and others over your aggressive stance on images. That's just a content dispute. Let's get real around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another member of the club. You don't believe Jim would engage in off-wiki harrassment? Jim threatened to contact my employer on a suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network. After viewing his e-mail, Jimbo said "In my opinion, that's enough to ban Jim62Sch right there. This is not the kind of person I want participating in Wikipedia, period, full stop.". Unfortunately there was no followup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I'd rather see it than believe it, where's the diff? And let's see if there was any context. Because Jim is here. And what club? And did I say Jim wouldn't engage in off-wiki harassment? Honestly, how much drama do you enjoy having around here? Since I'm a huge supporter of protection of Intellectual Property rights of owners (for example, I don't think music should be freely shared without explicit permission of the copyright holder), you will note that I rarely supported anyone who "steals" intellectual property. Moreover, you could have my support in these disputes over images, except you aren't very nice to those who "oppose" you. I think you are the perfect example of WP:KETTLE with respect to Jim. But since this isn't about you, and it's about Thumperward getting overly upset about Jim, let's stick to that issue and only that issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've forwarded the evidence to the ArbCom mailing list, as it includes addressees whose names should remain confidential at their request. However, I'm now starting to wonder if I was just being jerked off in the responses to my earlier complaints to to keep me from raising a stink, seeing how exactly nothing has happened in response to pretty serious allegations, except for some "I feel your pain" responses. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri)(legal threat removed by TK)&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this, some kind of blackmail attempt? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go to arbitration ... seriously. Contacting employers of good faith Wikipedia editors (or threatening to do so) is unacceptable. --B (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(intimidation removed by TK) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez B, I thought you quit and you'd only worry about that 3rd rate technical school in Virginia. Now you're threatening Jim, and he doesn't care about the 3rd rate technical school in Virginia either. But as for contacting employers, yeah too bad, (intimidation removed by TK) And if Jim is using federal computers to come here, then turnabout is fair play. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't wasted your tax dollars, I've only edited while off-duty. I even double-checked following Jim62sch's earlier spurious allegation to make sure. So I'm not susceptible to extortion in this regard. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Extortion? I though you said it was blackmail. In any case, I asked you a simple question, (intimidation removed by TK) All you needed to do was respond that you weren't doing so and that would have been the end of it, I would have apologised for assuming in the face of much evidence that you were. Very simple really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we take a step back here and think about what kind of environment we want to edit in. I'm well aware of the federal government's policies on computer use; many, if not most, private employers have similar (though usually less draconian) policies. Yet I would venture to guess that quite a few editors contribute during their work hours. Do we really want to suggest that any of these users, should they make the mistake of providing too much identifying info, be at risk of real-life disciplinary action at their job as a result of good-faith contributions to Wikipedia? If that's the precedent we set, then it's going to create an atmosphere that drives away useful contributions and editors. I have a lot of respect for Jim and OrangeMarlin, but I'm really uncomfortable with the direction in which this is heading. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I do not edit using government computers. What anyone else does is on them. Admittedly, I could have phrased the question more delicately, but given that federal employees are the target of many waste fraud and abuse charges, it irks me to see them violating federal policies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it irks you or not sending an email like that is harrasment ans not allowed here. Do you understand? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion -- that is that it's harassment. Your lack of comprehension of legal matters is both sad, and not my problem. Wikipedia is not its own universe. I've tried to explain this to you elsewhere, to no effect. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone (Jimbo?) can confirm VO's claims, I think this user should clearly be banned. I usually agree with you on articles, OrangeMarlin, but you seem way out of line here. Maybe the SA block and all of this drama has gotten to you. I think you should take a brief wikibreak for your own sake. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd object to a ban on the grounds that I've yet to see any evidence of actual bullying. I'm not even sure of why think anyone here would need to take a wikibreak. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for arbitration. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin appears to say that threatening government employees should be acceptable because he pays a lot of taxes. I think the argument betrays a lot of accumulated wikistress, and sincerely and sympathetically believe that OrangeMarlin should celebrate the New Year away from the internet. Cool Hand Luke 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think you need to go get drunk and quit putting words in my mouth. Happy New Year!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth? All I see in this thread is just nonsense being blown way out of proportion. What does any of this sniping and stupidity have to do with writing an encyclopedia?--Filll (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to see what your buddy Jim62sch has been up to? Should I post his extortion attempts right here at the noticeboard? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds serious. Have Jim arrested, drawn and quartered!!!! Happy New Year!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[We don't allow posting of private emails. I've deleted it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]

Yes, let's hide the evidence, even though it came through Wikipedia's e-mail system. Maybe I should also include Jimbo's quotes regarding it, though they weren't good and indicated Jim62sch should be banned. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already quoted Jimbo. Let ArbCom deal with it. In fact, seeing as ArbCom are looking like they will accept this case quickly, I'm going to archive this discussion now. Further arguing here will not be constructive. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia reverted my archiving, noting that there are other issues being discussed here, which is fair enough. I still feel the Videmus Omnia-Jim62sch aspects of the thread should be wound down, and Chris Cunningham's original point addressed instead, and have added a note at the top of the thread to that effect. Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To see respected editors cheer on an attempt by another editor to blatantly blackmail a member of the US armed services in this manner makes me sick to my stomach. A happy new year indeed. - Merzbow (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to contact an enployer in order to cause a wikipedia editor real life stress is absolutely a blockable offence, and if that's what Jim62sch did he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Orangemarlin's defence of such actions is appauling. What on Earth are you thinking? This thread needs to stop now as people are behaving so badly. Let the arb com deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott, you seem to be jumping to conclusions on the basis of an extract from a discussion, cited out of context by the complainant whose side you're taking. Such speculation should be treated with due caution by arbcom. Best return to the subject of this section. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was basing my comment on what Jim62sch said in the thread above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiight. The first diff (which had gone missing) shows an arguable civility problem, taken here rather than following the suggestions at Wikipedia:Civility. The second diff appears to indicate that any unexplained 'oppose' vote at an RfA is taken by Thumperward/Chris Cunningham as something of particular note, and the third is a point made in a discussion between Jim62sch and other editors, which Thumperward/Chris Cunningham had not participated in. It was on Jim62sch's own user page, and he made the point that he would not tolerate a teacher breaking the law by attempting to indoctrinate his children in an unconstitutional way. Why Thumperward/Chris Cunningham thinks this suggests "that this is indeed what I should expect from him in future" is unclear. As for suggestions on how to handle this in future, my recommendation is to take care to provide edit summaries and raise any potentially controversial issues on the talk page at the time of making the edits. WP:BRD can readily escalate arguments unless care is taken to explain actions. That's hardly "retreating". .. dave souza, talk 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A small group of editors, most notably Orangemarlin and Jim62sch, has been demonstrating an extreme lack of civility, combined with regular personal attacks and what I would describe as a "pack mentality" - tantamount to playground bullying- towards those that they disagree with, for some time now. They are aggressive, the assume bad faith constantly, and at times their behaviour towards other editors is so obnoxious as to very nearly veer off into self-parody. That's not an attempt at a personal attack, that's an attempt to state the situation as it is. Abundant evidence can be found by anyone who cares to even briefly look through contribs. This behaviour is unacceptable, it poisons the atmosphere, it drives good-faith editors away, and it is anti-wiki. The real life harassment claims, if true, are utterly unacceptable, but that is a matter for the arbcom. The incivility and wanton aggression can be dealt with here. This has been going on for some time, and I'm sorry to say that because they haven't bullied or insulted anyone important, nothing has yet been done about it. I have posted on this board before regarding a similar situation and it was ignored. I would like to think that I'm a good faith, albeit casual, long term editor of wikipedia with a few thousand unspectacular edits to my name. I don't relish being afraid to contribute to articles or talk pages in case I get battered by a bunch of bullies. I should point out that I am somewhat familiar with the editing of this group and they are dedicated encyclopaedists with numerous substantial edits. It is their behaviour on talk pages and in edit summaries that poses the problem. But either WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF etc. mean something or they don't. If they are meaningless, let's stop pretending that they matter, repeal them all, and make Wikipedia a free for all, with all the consequences that that entails. But if we still want to preserve them, then we as a community need to do something about editors like this. I certainly do not want to see anyone blocked or banned unless imperative. What I do want to see is some recognition that abuse towards other editors is wrong and a genuine commitment to alter behaviour appropriately. This issue is one that has been simmering for some time and perhaps Chris Cunningham's post above provides the catalyst for a wider resolution.

I fully expect to now be ripped to pieces by the editors concerned, as has sadly happened a number of times in the past. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sensitivity is appreciated, but you're going to have to show that your interpretation of discussions is correct before escalating this discussion. I've always taken considerable care to be civil and polite, but can recall having been accused of breaching WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF etc. when cautiously pointing out the actions of other editors. . .. dave souza, talk 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you are a close associate of OM, Jim62sch, and their colleagues, but in my experience at least, you have always been perfectly civil, genuine, and acted in good faith. Can I ask you to give your own take on things? What's your view of the behaviour towards others of OM and Jim62sch, for example?

Detailed diffs are abundant and there are many, many examples of incivility, attacks and the abrogation of good faith. I'm not going to spend an hour picking out examples and formatting them for this discussion on New Years' Day. As a general point, I think it would be useful for any any editor who actually takes an interest to take a look through the contribution histories of Jim62sch and OM and form a general impression of their conduct and style of interaction with others, rather than me taking a number of individual edits out of context and placing them here. Do we as a community think it's now acceptable to behave this way or not? It was not when I first began editing here a couple of years ago, but Wikipedia has changed and maybe I haven't changed with it. I am genuinely interested to hear peoples' opinion on the subject.Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak of anybody involved in this but I have twice warned Orangemarlin about breaching WP:NPA and WP:CIV and he is unrepentant, not seeing anything wrong in what he says. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I suggest finding some diffs as evidence and starting an RfC. If enough people support an outside view that some of these editors are being incivil, then that will be an important step in dispute resolution. Alternatively, if enough people support an outside view that these editors are not behaving as you've said, then this will also be an important step towards resolving the disputes. If you do this within the confines of an RfC, that should avoid any pack mentality that may or may not exist. It is also the case that experienced editors can get jaded and start taking shortcuts and exhibiting a siege mentality. That does need to be addressed when it happens, but diffs are needed to demonstrate that it has happened. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree with most of what ChrisC and Badgerpatrol have said about Jim and OM. They do overstep the mark at times and become uncivil. I have seen this myself. However, to be scrupulously fair to them both I would also say they can be very dry and witty and even hilariously funny at times. In that sense they can be viewed differently according to one's own mood, stress-level and attitude. When interpreted in this dry and tongue-in-cheek manner their comments do seem much more harmless and just genuinely funny. Maybe the attitude of the reader contributes to how their comments are interpreted? So maybe they do need watching but a ban seems a tad draconian at this stage to me. Just my ten cents FWIW Peter morrell 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above by several contributors. If an editor confronts the same complaint by the 20th or 50th incarnation of the same sock puppet in the last couple of months, one can experience burn out and perhaps not always be as polite as one might be otherwise. It is not always appropriate, but it is quite understandable. I think that blocking for the examples I have seen seems excessively Draconian. This is unfortunately the consequence and other side of the coin of demands that trolls, POV warriors, sock puppets, meat puppets etc be given more respect than established productive editors.--Filll (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, I'm quite sarcastic. Peter has noticed this and we've enjoyed some interesting sparring because we are both sarcastic (just on different sides of the alt med issue). But, because of that very enjoyable sparring, I have a lot of respect for Peter -- his crazy alt med ideas notwithstanding.  ;) I'm sorry that others can't see that sarcasm very much reflects the mind of the individual, and tends to point toward a certain level of intelligence.

It's funny, sarcasm appears to have been developed by the Greeks, satire by the Romans (our intellectual forebears), and we find it necessary to reject both on sensitivity grounds. Sad. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like administrator action is forthcoming or warranted, in light of the associated content disputes and the conduct review at ArbCom. I've archived this thread. Avruchtalk 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A Favour Please

Resolved

We have a new User:I LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO. He started out by making changes to Beatles'-related articles like this [28], which I reverted leaving pointers in the edit summary. Having put advice on policy on this talk page, he then blanked it & redirected to The Beatles and carried on his unencyclopedic additions. I left him with a VW3, since I think he should have had the message by then, and a Welcome pointing him the direction of policy. He then did this : [29]. I am reluctant to engage if this is his tone and ask if someone will leave a note about WP:CIVIL and the use of Talk pages for him. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've honestly never seen such a reaction like that. I think his edits to the mainspace are generally good-faith, just misguided.J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i left a level one warning about civility towards other users, its just the generic attack1 warn, so if someone else wants to leave him a message feel free. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to keep an eye on his contributions as he is showing signs of a vandal account. If anyone is doing the same remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to monitor User:ILOVETHEOC (contribs)as well. Similar usernames, similar editing style.Kww (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems to have the same issues re WP:OWN, not to mention edit summaries (is this a record for the number of cumulative capitalised "fucks" in a summary?). Added to the list. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - User has sense not edited, it is a possibility (s)he has left.Tiptoety ^talk 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, didnt mean to be so much trouble. I was just a little upset and I figured f bombing my own page wouldnt be such a big deal, (and I did slip on 2 other pages, sorry about that). Anyways, didnt mean to scare anyone away..

About my name: I originally chose I LOVE THE BEATLES, saw it was taken, then tried to choose I LOVE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO ,but accidently left the "THE" in. I noticed the mistake after I hit send, thought "Hmm, looks kinda clumsy, but screw it, whats done is done." Sorry about freaking you out there, Rodhullandemu....PS, if you really want me to, I'd be delighted to break the f bomb record in an edit summary..LOLI LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Block by admin User:Sandstein

This involves a 3RR report I filed here. A relatively new user is trying to exclude a certain paragraph largely because he doesn't like a word in it. I told him on the talk page and in edit summaries that this content was sourced and that was not a reason to exclude it. He ignored my warning against edit-warring and reverted four times. I reverted three time. In response to my post about the 3RR violation, Sandstein blocked me for "edit-warring." Would other admins please comment on this action, and give their policy for blocking. "Edit-warring" is vague and subjective. It is unfair that admins block other users based on subjective judgments when other users would not be blocked for the exact same behavior in other situations by other admins. Arrow740 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Each decision is made on a case by case basis, apparently. Is there any webpage, where I can get more information about such blocks?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the policies applying would be WP:EW and WP:3RR. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, that's the point. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein blocked Imad marie (talk · contribs) as well, and that is what I would have done as well. It takes two to edit war. The fact that Imad was the first to revert should not disadvantage him, and allow you to call him out for doing the same thing you were doing (edit warring) simply because he hits four first; as WP:3RR says, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". It was just you two reverting, with no edits in between. If you had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. If Imad had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. So, you should both be blocked for edit warring; you both committed the same infraction, numbers notwithstanding. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I didn't violate 3RR, he did. Maybe you'll admit that. I already know your opinion; I should be blocked whenever I reach 3 reverts, even when combating sockpuppetry. By the (not quite coherent) philosophy you're espousing here, anyone who uses even two reverts could be blocked for edit-warring. You're giving yourself too much power. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh common Arrow740, why do you think these fellows wanted to be an `admin` in the first place? Obviously to exercise power, of course they will give themselves `too much power`..And dont use too much confusing logical reasonings when dealing with Tariqabjotu or Sandstein, they wont be able to follow you, and you might end up being blocked again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.217.15 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents Sandstein's wrong. I took a look at the 3rr report and you've reverted vandalism 3 times. According to 3RR , removing vandalism is an exception to 3RR.

The 3rr shows, just as you said that IMADMARIE was removing sourced content and you were restoring it. The block needs to be removed - 3RR on ARROW740 never happened, per policy. Just my .2 Cents The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all removals of "sourced content" are necessarily vandalism. See WP:VAND. P.S: Could you please shorten your signature, as per WP:SIG#Length? Sandstein (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and I didn't see what you were referring to. Either way, Arrow740 was

reverting vandalism. Imadmarie was vandalizing the article by removing properly sourced content on the grounds that he didn't like it. Arrow was restoring vandalism. Thus, according to policy, he's exempt from 3RR. Your block is stil wrong.
The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation
ps: About my signature - WP:SIG#LENGTH never explicitly states what constitutes too long of a signature - in one spot it states that signature should not be over two or three lines long - but that's as close as it gets to a length. Mine is less than two lines long. (1 1/2 lines in 1240 X 1084 screen size :) So, it looks like I'm safe with the sig for now :) )

Nrswanson article hijack attempts

Nrswanson (talk · contribs) and 2-day-old likely socks Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs) and Voicequeen (talk · contribs) are attempting to replace the established article Voice type with tne Nrswanson-written Voice classification. (I have no opinion on which version is right or wrong; however, Nrswanson has been asked to contribute to the existing articles rather than attempting end-runs around WP:CONSENSUS.)

Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new(/sock?) accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge")[30] in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type,[31] copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.[32])

A sock puppetry report has been filed here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

I'm bringing this to ANI because this user is disrupting quite quickly. Nrswanson has already been rebuked for a similar stunt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto, yet shows no interest in changing, continuing to edit war by restoring his Falsetto register fork of the Falsetto article [33] [34] (with help from his sock[35]).

I should cite WP:OWN in here somewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's amazing. I note diff over a span of edits on 5 Dec, Nrswanson builds UP the article, adding his version, then methodically strips away all the old stuff, making it look like good faith edits, but by the end, it's all his. Ironically, he slaps an 'unicted' template at the top. Then he protects it via edit warring, sets up a redirect... what a mess. It should be reverted to the 1 Dec version, befoe he took it over. It's defintiely WP:OWNed by him. That level of action, I'd support a block, as an editor who finds the sneaky methods used to be disturbing. Finally, The actual content cahnges are problematic, because he takes out examples, and explanations, assigns gender roles without citation (it is true that only men are allowed to be basses, or are men basses by biology, not women?) and so on. His whole rewrite smacks of game-playing, and should be disallowed. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for full page protection on Falsetto register (which should be a redirect to Falsetto, per the AFD). I'm not sure the WP:RFPP staff get what's going on, so I'm not confident this page will be protected. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the forking of voice classification and redirected to voice type, I will review the rest for OR and other issues, I don't know how current Miller's The Structure Of Singing might be in terms of current mainstream thought, so anybody who knows please let me know on my Talk page, as that would be my major source for a review of his contributions. I've watchlisted Vocal resonation, which superficially seems OK but is woefully think on citations for the amount of text. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Just voicing full support for Guy's reversion ofthe article to its' pre-Nrswanson state. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reverted Nrswanson's reversion on Falsetto which discarded the merge decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. (Nrswanson gives the same reason he gave reverting Falsetto register: "premature merge". Can we block this editor yet?)

I don't know what to make of this, but Nrswanson is applauded by Moreschi (talk · contribs) [36], and defended faithfully by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) (WP:SPP/Nrswanson [37], [38]; Talk:Falsetto[39]) Both of these editors are regulars in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, seem wiki-familiar with Nrswanson, and have a history of fixing Nrswanson's poor edits (such as creating all-caps titled articles). I don't know if Nrswanson's edits are somehow imposing a "WikiProject Opera" bias upon these articles, but there is no evidence of puppetry involving these supportive editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Look, gentlemen. This fellow's made very fine edits to countertenor and whistle register in particular, and we shouldn't really throw that away on the basis of unverified allegations. I think he knows what he's doing. I also take exception to being accused by implication of spreading such a ludicrous notion as "WikiProject Opera bias" and meatpuppetry. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of diffs here to verify "allegations", and your comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson implies you may have read the thing. I don't see how you can defend this behavior. Albert Einstein would get kicked off Wikipedia for this kind of editing. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see Morschi supporting off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry. Whether you percieve it as 'good' or 'bad' forthe project, it's not how things are supposed to work. Off wiki cooperation and plannign happens, can't be stopped, probably shouldn't be, and often helps the project. However, when it's all about a conspiracy to force OWN and POV on the WP, that's a problem, and needs our attention. ThuranX (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on DarkFierceDeityLink--too lenient?

Can some other admins look at the 24 hour block I just placed on DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It relates to the user's increasing belligerence and incivility topped off by this gem. Now that I look back at the edit that set it over the edge, I'm thinking maybe I was a little too lenient. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've only looked at his block log so far, but since he has already had a short block for incivility which didn't seem to curb him my first thought would be to up ot to medium term. Say a week. But like I said I haven't looked into the history. What provoked the ourburst? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL warned EveryDayJoe45 with a vandalism warning and called him a "waste of sperm". I came along and changed the heading on that and warned DFDL for incivility. This prompted this discussion on my talk page. EveryDayJoe45 responded to DFDL with this which had a personal attack in it. EveryDayJoe45 was upset because he was warned for an article he has never edited and because he was attacked as a "waste of sperm" by DFDL. I warned him about the personal attacks which is when DFDL posted this to my talk page which prompted the blocking.

DFDL had been on my radar for the last couple of weeks because of vandalism to the Jamie Lynn Spears article and talk page which were completely out of line and violated BLP. Thoughts with this background information now? Metros (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL's on my list after placing an {{indefblockeduser}} tag on User talk:V-Dash, although he was not indef-blocked. Good block. -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll keep an eye on him too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fastnaturedude threatened

Please look at User:Fastnaturedude (if it hasn't been reverted yet). An anon has threatened this user. The user had contacted me personally, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with this, and I'm not available to edit because of real life plans. Anyone care to investigate further and follow through? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant diff is this one, to make it easier for everyone. WHOIS shows the IP is registered to comcast in Michigan, so probably static. Would probably be easy enough to report to the appropriate police department if anyone cares to. While normally these things are shrugged off, Fastnaturedude has identified himself as a Michigan resident, so there's a good chance this might have actually come from someone who knows him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the user saw the threat (as evident from this), I'd say if the user wanted authorities contacted, s/he would have done so. I don't really think anybody else needs to do anything, except give the IP a block. A look at the contributions from it show that whoever has been using it since the 13th of December isn't being constructive, at all. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuse me, but why is it this guy makes a deaththreat and isn't blocked?Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure is a good question. For quick and easy blocking (by whatever admin gets here first), here are the links: 69.246.79.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP (for anonymous use only) for one year. I've never dealt with a death threat block before so if another admin with more experience in these matters cares to vary that, I'd have no complaints but would appreciate a note so I can learn from the experience. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comcast IPs are generally dynamic so I shortened it to a month. It should have a new owner by then. Mr.Z-man 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- if you're happy, I'm happy. A month it is. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed by this. The same IPs have edited Fastnaturedude's user page at another wiki and he has not complained there. In fact, there's this edit tying the user to the IP. Color me confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this edit specifically states that 69.246.79.189 is one of Kitsune's IPs, which is later confirmed by Kitsune/Fastnaturedude while logged in, here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Debbiesvoucher

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Those aren't diffs, by the way. To get the diff links, copy the "last" URL. JuJube (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

HELLO?? As far as I can tell, this is the only entry on this page that hasn't been addressed by an administrator regarding the complaint. The only response I've gotten was to tell me how to fix the diffs I provided. This is the 3rd noticeboard I've posted on recently that has gotten no response from those that run it. Will someone address this matter, please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Elonka

I, PHG, am placing this request following a suggestion by Admin and Bureaucrat User:Wknight94 [40]. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for 4 years, have contributed hundreds of new articles, as well as created 7 FAs. I have been however in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now, since I started an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance back in August 2007. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history (see also FAs I created, such as Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greeks, Imperial Japanese Navy, History of Buddhism etc...).

The subject of Franco-Mongol relations seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether these was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her agressiveness in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). Mediation was started but came to a halt a the mediator Tariqabjotu felt that "further discussion was improbable of producing result." (here).

Now, Elonka, newly elected as an Admin, continues trying to raise and inflate any issue she can find to threaten me with the worst. From my Talk Page: "Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia." (Elonka 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [41]), "Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop." (Elonka 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [42]).

I would like to require a warning and reprimand against Elonka for harassing a well-meaning and prolific contributor. Please help find a way to stop the agressiveness. I am just here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters in regards to this incident(as they only have a few more technical features available to them than a sysop), but User:Wknight94 is an admin but not a bureaucrat. Dureo (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has now been informed of this thread's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I note that Elonka's comments about POV-forking, as per the last but one para, appear to be justified and supported with links / diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree. The allegations of pov forking are based on the incorrect assumption that one position is supported by an academic majority while the other is not. I still think that Elonka should discontinue any involvement with this topic at least for a little a while.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't turn this into a redux of the last 50 page AN/I report concerning these editors. Thanks. Avruchtalk 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent disgusting vandalism (resolved)

Resolved

I went to User:Judgesurreal777‎ and some anonymous IP put something on it that may be a virus or something, but my browser (Internet Explorer) changed and had an obscene image on it. Please remove this or revert it, but again, I urge whoever to be cautious as when I went to that page it temporarily messed up my browser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Didn't see what it was though. I went straight into the history of the user page, reverted, then looked at my diff to see the changes. —Kurykh 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's goatse. —Kurykh 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A different anonymous IP has reverted back to the obscene, browser changing image. When I clicked on the user page, the regular Wikipedia page shifted into something with swear words and a semi-blurred nude image that took over the whole browser. Anyway, another IP is at. It may be worth protecting his page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done the minute before you posted. —Kurykh 07:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the fast response. By the way, what is "goatse" or do I not want to know? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year!

goatse.cx - it was a famous shock site / trolling image - Alison ^❤ 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should have figured we might have an article on it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for reporting this latest rash of vandalism. Does anyone know of a way to remove said images from my userpage history? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've deleted it from your history; this isn't often done but since it was requested and this was particularly bad vandalism I saw no reason not to. —Random832 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LHC link addition

I've brought this here for another admin to review the problem, as I think there is potential for conflict of interest as I work at CERN. User:76.89.246.73 is adding what I believe to be original research to Large Hadron Collider. The editor was given uw-spam1 by User:Closedmouth, then uw-spam4 by myself. He left a message on the talk page to which I responded here, and has since re-added the links and Closedmouth as reverted again. Could someone else review the problem and take any actions required, to avoid any accusations of impropriety on my part. Thanks. ^Khukri 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK now it's getting serious please see this ^Khukri 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor claims to be David Hochman, "a journalist from the new york times". The IP address appears to resolve to New York, but I find it improbable that a journalist from a publication such as the NYT would edit Wikipedia in this manner (see also the IP editor's comments at User talk:76.89.246.73). It appears more likely that the IP editor is acting on behalf of http://www.lhcdefense.org, links to which site he has been repeatedly trying to add to the article. If no further activity of this sort occurs, no administrative action would seem to be necessary, otherwise a block for spamming and harrassment might be appropriate. In addition, someone who manages to find Mr Hochman's e-mail address (I didn't) might want to inform him about the weird edits someone has made in his name here. Sandstein (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I have nothing to hide with respect to my previous edits, or my work, the threat of being outted leaves me feeling quite uncomfortable. OK it's most probably a hoax, as I can't imagine such a well respected journalist leaving so many grammatical errors, but nonetheless I do take it quite personally. ^Khukri 12:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tenkasei Ryo

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

This user states he is 13 years old and appears to be Italian with limited command of English (though his vocabulary seems more extensive in the specific area of invective). For some reason I can't really fathom he seems to have picked on Ryulong, launching a series of diatribes, vandalism and attacks from this account and a number of IPs. User:the_undertow blocked the user, rightly IMO. It seems to me that, whether or not the attacks are taken as meaningful or not (and frankly calling someone a pedophile will warrant a lengthy stay in the sin bin, for my money), in my judgement the individual is simply too immature and too confused to make anything like a productive editor at this stage. I have tried to explain this, but others may wish to pitch in. As unblock reasons go, "THIS USER DON'T LIKE TO BE BLOCKED" does not get into my top ten. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block and Guy's explanation of the block. This does not appear to be a productive editor by any means. However, the undertow did not handle the situation in a sufficiently professional manner. It would have been helpful if the block summary had contained a reason for the block, and block notices such as this one and protection summaries such as this one just leave me scratching my head. Sandstein (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it was informal language targeted at the user's level. Whether it was a hit or a miss is open to debate. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This user originally showed up at one of the articles I've been working on by putting in a lot of mainly incorrect information under 79.21.76.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) where his first edit was to put in the incorrect information and attack me. He came back to the article multiple times, undoing whatver attempts I made to try and improve the article, by actually finding a reference that refuted what he had been putting in and {{reflist}}. The full list of IPs used can be found here. He had registered as Ryurenjaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and performed similar edits, until I attempted today to try and see if he would listen to reason. Instead, he remained stubborn, vandalized my talk page, the talk page of the article, and his own talk page. I had asked him to act like an adult under one of his IP editing sprees, to which he added this epithet, called me a drunkard in Italian, something I don't know the proper translation for, and generally was a pain in the ass when I was trying to discuss things with him. His actions led me to semiprotect my talk page as I was getting tired of having to rollback his attacks every minute during the New Years celebrations with my family. The last thing he did was blank the article talk. This user is on an Italian ISP that appears to give him a lot of leeway in coming back as he pleases. I would have blocked this user myself, but I was trying to see if he would stop acting like a petulant child. I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this guys is, indeed, teh suck. — Coren ^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. He's teh suck. the_undertow was on top of his game on this one. Lara❤Love 16:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyric the whatever, back as anons - harassment (Resolved)

Resolved

86.156.113.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

205.250.116.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

60.242.32.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Continues to revert closed AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Design Panel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK

I suggest they be protected for a while.

see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Cyric the All - harassment

--Jack Merridew 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

76.195.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK; this is likely coming from some off-wiki forum. I hear-tell this commonly occurs on the likes of 4chan. --Jack Merridew 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 219.77.82.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the ARK Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 79.68.178.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the Zlango Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note I've indefinately fully protected the three afd's listed since they are only historical records there isnt any need for further edits anyway. Gnangarra 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:

• 66.25.95.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now reverting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode) as above. --Jack Merridew 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikep2008a

Hello,

I find the first sentence of his userpage not really appropriate with our scope (building an encyclopedia). Would you agree with that ? I put a message on his talk page but I think it would require some people to track that. Thanks. Poppy (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the use of non-free content on userpages is not allowed. I've left a message to that effect. -JodyB _talk 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too - and I've removed the first sentence and fair use stuff. diff Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User is repeatedly re-adding the non-free content to his user page, despite the warnings: here and here. I've once again removed the content ,which has now been done a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 times by different editors. I've also left a 3RR warning for this user. I see a block in the near future if he continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back further, User:ImageBacklogBot (User:ST47) also removed the non-free content. --Jack Merridew 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 hour by User:JodyB. Probably keep an eye after the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that whole User page one big copyvio, since it's a cut and paste from the Kylie Minogue article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock(pardon) user:71.149.161.91

Yes, can I have a admin to pardon user:71.149.161.91 on the act of making "death threats". The act of "threats" was caused my idotic moron friend that came over to my house to "house sit" while I was shopping at Best Buy . I didnt know he was going to mess with my pc okay. I told to keep "watch" of the house. Okay. I didnt place a "death threat" to the user:baseball bugs. Okay, that was not me. I am applogizing on his behalf. I didnt know he was on the computer at the time okay. I know he screws around wikipedia, I told him to stop yesterday, and he is not my friend anymore okay. I am sorry for this okay. Administrators of Wikipedia I say to you reading this I'm sorry for this that has occured. I'm sorry for the user that was "threaten". It not a funny, nor was it joke. My friend was just being a idoitic drunken fool that was listening to music and typing bull crap on wikipedia article talk pages. Again I'm sorry to those that were affected by this maater. If you want to talk to me you can do so on my user talk page . Thank you for you time.75.8.80.102 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very simple way for you to solve this: get an account. _TheIslander 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that I was away from the computer at the time. I didnt know about this until I saw the admin message.Eldorado91 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't really me it was my friend/neighbor/brother/coworker/dog" is one of the oldest of excuses used and is almost invariably false. Edward321 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard it before too. Both the above user [43] and the IP address in question [44] are now blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt do it there I said it okay. I'm sorry for this "incident". Can I be forgiven. Can we have a peacful solution to this matter. If this is solved , this will never happend again.I guarantee it.And also can Baseball Bugs stop saying that I have sockpuppets I dont even know what he is talking about , I never ever created one before. Nor have I have done okay. Stop making that accustation that I have a sockpupper Bugs. My demands to this ordeal to end peacefully are all follows

1. A pardon on the blocked users names 2. Accepted applogy from Baseball Bugs and the other person that blocked the ip 3. I shall make sure this never happens again, it was just a one time thing , my idoitic friend did okay. So Baseball Bugs, and the other guy that blacklisted me I am sorry what has occured ,and I am waiting for someone to accpet this applogogy that have I have stated. This was a mistake. I am sorry for my friend caused on the Bhutto page my friend did okay. I wasnt there, he messing around on there to. I am sorry for that to. I was aware of that until I read the talk page. I am tired of everyone "pointing fingers" at me. Okay, I'm sorry there okay. We are only humans, we all make mistakes. My friend didnt was not serious about the "threats". Okay. So I am sorry for that.75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's supplied us with a couple more IP addresses that need to be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, before you ban me right here. Let me say to you man to man. I am giving to an appology my idoit boy friend is to stupid to do. "I'm sorry", Okay there. Can you accept. I am not a sockpuppet I dont even know what your talking about man. Eldorado91 is my personal user name dude. I am sorry for this "incident". 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what User:Edward321 said above; you've had a history of making personal attacks before... Who's to say that it wasn't you in the first place? You've said "it wasn't me" - but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it was you. Please just accept the admins decision to block your account. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you dont agree with then I'm sorry for what ever my friend did on the computer. I appolgize. Also I'm requesting a mediation/conflict dispute. Okay. I want this to be settled calmly okay. We each talk this calmly okay. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming all of this stems from this user [45] with whom I and someone else (also vandalized) were having a problem, on some Bhutto pages. Also, the admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but using an IP address to get around a block is probably considered sockpuppetry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Bugs, I never herd of this user named Mosura. What are you talking about. Mosura who in the world is he. Okay , bugs first of all I dont know what or who is a Mosura. Second, I said to your many times I'm sorry, and Lastly if my forgiven I will not make vandalism again , or nor my friend. Okay. My friend made the "threat", but not really able to do it. He is just a idoit. So I'm sorry for that. Bhutto , vandialsm I am sorry for that to. I am asking for a second chance in 2008 . Can I be forgiven in the halls of the Wikipedia I am asking you all and God for a second chance. Well we all make mistakes I know that. I am just sorry for what happend there. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is having difficulty keeping score (I know I am), the following are now all blocked:

1. 71.149.161.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Death threat
2. Eldorado91 (talk · contribs) - Incessant begging and trolling
3. 75.8.80.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - More incessant begging and trolling before block
4. 75.13.16.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Eldorado91 evading block:

—Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A death threat has been made - what other option is there apart from contacting the authorities? Otherwise the excuse of "it wasn't me" will be made all the time. Let the user explain the situation to the police, it should be in their hands by now. Whitstable (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the best option. But I think it's up to Bugs to make that decision seeing as he was the one threatened. Although, as the community, we could have an obligation to contact the authorities anyway. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what appropriate action I would need to take, other than reporting it here (which we kinda already did). If you mean going to the actual police... well, that could open the door to that character finding out where I live, and I don't need that. As he appears to be in San Antonio, maybe I could sic the Texas Rangers on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an incident with death threats before on here; Jimbo himself recommended contacting the authorities about it. If you're worried about him finding about where you live, I don't think the Police are allowed to reveal personal details about you and visa versa. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll take this offline with Wknight94, once I'm back at my home PC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a user

Not sure if this is the right place to put this - but I'll give it a shot: By chance I have come across a user who is persistently using images with copy violation. The bots are spotting it. They are putting warnings on his talk page. He then blanks the talk page and starts over again. By the look of it, this has been going on for some months. I get the impression that various users have also mentioned this to him. But, again, he blanks the talk page and then carries on. I'm not sure what to do. Suggestions/Admin intervention most welcome! Marcus22 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence so it is possible to investigate further. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, Marcus22 is referring to User:Max24 Whitstable (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, yes. I didnt really want to name the user. But if you look at his talk page history, it looks like this has been going on on a major scale for at least all of 2007. There are other issues as well, but I think this is probably the most important for Wikipedia as a whole. Marcus22 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually my only sin is to blank my own discussion page instead of archive it properly. That's all. User Marcus22 is angry at me because of All by Myself article and that's why he came with this copy violation thing. Actually, the latest bots warnings were about the All by Myself article (because he removed the infobox with the covers). Anyway, I wish you all happy New year! Max24 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I dont think anyone is angry at you. Fact is you have repeatedly used - on countless articles - copyright images. When notified of this by the Bots, you have deleted the warnings and, by the looks of it, reinstated those copyright images. That could drop a whole lot of trouble on Wikipedia. So why do it? Other users have also warned you about doing this - and other things - and yet you have pressed ahead. Please refrain. Marcus22 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gralou (talk · contribs) and uncivilness

Resolved

 – User blocked

This section in a nutshell: User:Gralou is making personal attacks and attempting to command me to do their bidding.

This user showed up at Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes earlier today with a brief message in response to a (now-defeated) merge proposal: "I have a good idea! Delete this article! It sucks!"diff So I politely pointed them to AfD. diff I then told them that "This article sucks" is not a valid reason for deletion. diff Then they told me that the article sucked because it didn't have the UK premiere dates for the episodes. diff So I told them to go ahead and add them and that while I didn't have a problem with it, other editors might. diff They then vandalised my userpage. diff I promptly gave them a level 4im warning (too harsh?) because I consider userpage vandalism to be the worst form of personal attack. diff They then told me that it was unfair. diff I then told them that if they didn't want to get blocked, then they shouldn't vandalise. diff (Here you may notice that I am getting agitated. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with people like Gralou.) Now, back to the talkpage. They posted a (probably agitated by the warning) message about how everything is US-centric and how he commands me to add the dates (despite the fact that I clearly don't live in the UK) because I act like the boss of the article. diff (In reality, I think I'm one of the only people with the article watchlisted and I end up replying to talk page questions). I really don't know what to do at this point. I'm almost afraid to respond for fear of worse userpage vandalism or a personal attack. Thanks in advance to whomever responds. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user was indefinitely blocked for pretty much the same thing with the same arguments on the same article. I'm buggered if I can remember their name though. Seems to me this could be a "sockpuppet-type scenario". --WebHamster 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Im A Shark? The ironic thing is that they tried to order me around there too. Blocked 72 hours for uncivilness. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked: Clearly here to troll. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page used for personal attacks

Hi, blocked user 71.99.81.194 (talk · contribs) uses his talk page for personal attacks as a retaliation for block [46], [47], [48], [49]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last and protected the talk page for the duration of the block. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User not observing WP:NPOV and WP:OR after posts on user talk page, article talk pages and edit summaries

Editor Henq is repeatedly inserting original research into the following articles: House of Windsor, Saxe-Altenburg and Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen. When I remove the original research (which sometimes has lots of weasel words and personal hypothesizing) he reverts without going to the talk page where I posted and now isn't even using edit summaries other than "rv". Now, personally, I know a lot about the subject matter in the articles, but I won't even put what I know without sourcing it properly. I don't have any history with the editor, but given that he and I edit in the same types of articles it seems, I would like to have this dealt with so editing can continue peacefully. Here are some diffs of the original research: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] and [57].

For a background as to why all of this is not only original research, but incorrect, see Ernestine duchies. These territories were always shuffled when a line became extinct so there were always multiple, equal heirs, not single heirs as Henq contends. That too, however, would be original research and the heirs should not be identified because they cannot be determined. Particularly for the House of Windsor article, Henq is hypothesizing some things and stating them as fact (for instance, the status of brides). I still maintain that he needs sources for these allegations which are best left out lest they be proven as false or unanswerable.

I will be happy to answer any questions if clarification is needed. Henq should be formally notified of the policies and that he should abide by them and he should remove his edits until he can source them with reliable sources. Charles 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this discussion: [58]. Sadly, I am finding that Henq does not have a particularly civil attitude about this, which may explain his constant reverts. Charles 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are seeing consistent reverts and insertion of unsourced information, that falls under edit warring and dispute resolution. You could seek a third opinion or mediation as well. If the edit warring continues, you could request temporary protection at WP:RPP. Avruchtalk 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Email Spam (resolved)

Resolved

It seems User:rskellner is using article history lists as mailing lists in order to advertise. Here's an email I received:

→From: <email address removed> El_C 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"I noticed one of your edits on the Wikipedia article about Hitler, and I thought you would be interested in this YouTube video by a young woman in Israel. The video was inspired by a Wikipedia article about Friedrich Kellner, a German justice inspector who campaigned against Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. During the war, Friedrich (who was my grandfather) wrote a secret diary to record Nazi crimes. Here is the YouTube web link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kJLE9zvo44

Next year, the Kellner diary will be on exhibit at the Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Library, and in November it will be at the United Nations to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. A Canadian documentary about the diary will be shown at the United Nations during the exhibit of the diary.

I apologize if I am intruding in any way with this email, but after reading your Wikipedia post I thought you might want to see this video.

In any case, let me wish you a Happy New Year. Scott Kellner (Dr. Robert Scott Kellner, College Station, Texas - my Wikipedia name is rskellner)"

While I sympathize with the intent, I don't want to see Wikipedia's email contact system and article histories being used this way. Please take whatever precautions you deem necessary to insure that this doesn't continue. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:16, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone doing anything about this? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Are you the only one that received the e-mail that you know of? And what would you like done? Avruchtalk 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the user's talk page it seems I'm not the only one. The email also reads like spam, as in a mass-mailing, and not to mention, I haven't edited the Adolph Hitler article in quite some time. So it seems that this user is utilizing the history of that article as a mailing list. If you see nothing wrong with that, then please don't do anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at his talk page notifying him of this thread (as should have been done earlier). It looks like some editors appreciated the e-mail, but I can see how unsolicited e-mails through Wikipedia could be negatively received. Lets see what his comments are, and in the mean time assume he sent them in good faith. Avruchtalk 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I did not mean to break any Wikipedia rules, and I will stop sending such messages. I am not trying to solicit anything from anyone, other than to share information with people who seem to have an interest in it. I could not find a particular noticeboard on which to post such messages, so I thought it would be okay to send it via email. But I do understand your concern, and I apologize, and I will not continue. Thank you again for communicating with me about this in the way you did.Rskellner (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and for your apology via e-mail. There's no need to feel bad -- I wasn't offended or even bothered by this. My only concern is that Wikipedia's open email system not become a tool for mass-emailing, in general. It seems that nowadays, anywhere on the Internet where you post your email address is a place where people will scrounge to compile mailing list. I don't want to see this happen to Wikipedia, and allowing this practice even on occasion for benign reasons could mean opening the door for the gradual allowance of such a practice on a grander, more annoying scale. Informing people of things outside of the improvement of Wikipedia is not really something that should be handled through Wikipedia. You may want to find an online forum or other site more suited to this purpose -- or if you must, perhaps use the article's talk page instead, as a less-intrusive method of announcement.

I assure you there's been no harm done. Best of luck -- Equazcion •✗/C • 20:58, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make public another user's email address without their explicit consent, Equazcion. I removed it from the opening comment above. El_C 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:30, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Permanent block of 67.71.142.187 (Resolved)

The address 67.71.142.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been permanently blocked, apparently due to being used by a banned user who had engaged in serious harassment (over a year ago). However (according to Eleland (talk · contribs), who has been affected by the block), it seems to be a dynamically assigned IP and as such does little to stop the banned user. At the moment I have solved the issue by changing it to a softblock. (Perhaps the block should be removed altogether; did the banned user attempt to return to Wikipedia recently?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask, as I've seen this term before, what's a softblock? Is there a hardblock? I'm just curious. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, nevermind. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To be completely clear, I changed the block parameters to only stop editing by unregistered users and registration of accounts; existing accounts may edit through the address. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the block length to 1 year. Indefs on IP's are silly as people change ISP's. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG misuse of page protection

JzG consecutive edits to Condensed matter nuclear science:

• [59]
• [60]

represent a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

I have notified him on his user talk page and asked him to remedy this: [61]. Since then, he has responded to others on his talk page: [62], but has not responded to my notice, nor taken any action with regard to it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with his two edits to that page, he's fixing a mistake and formating a source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, JzG's reasoning seems accurate. I see no abuse here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nature of the edits, I'd like to note that User:JzG did not fully protect the page; User:Doc glasgow did.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (eep. Didn't notice the redirect!)

Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Avruchtalk 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, has anyone actually read the diffs, or are we all going off FeloniousMonk's statement? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked - I don't see a problem with restoring a redirect on a POV fork and protecting it. The below information is transferred from a different thread above (As yet unresponded to) and is a little more complicated (and deals with a different page). Avruchtalk 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV judgement and is immaterial to the policies in question. Kevin Baas^talk 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was a bit worried when I started reading about how redirection is the same thing as "fixing a mistake and formatting a source". -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys might be looking at the cold fusion article history. JzG made the condensed matter nuclear science page a redirect to cold fusion. So you've got to backwards from the redirect: [63].

There was a series of reverts back and forth between an article with content: [64] and a redirect: [65], involving multiple people.

JzG is heavily involved in multiple disputes about condensed matter nuclear science on the cold fusion talk page. Page protection policy states that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people."

Before protecting the page, JzG reverted it back to the version that he prefers. Page protection policy states that:

• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Kevin Baas^talk 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, JzG violated wikipedia page protection policy in letter and principle. Kevin Baas^talk 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my case, you are quite right. I didn't notice that I had been redirected, and we had just been discussing the matter of the Cold fusion article at the help desk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG doesn't like "POV forks" and likes to remove them [66]. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was a POV fork. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a POV fork is itself a POV. The fact is that it's status as such is clearly disputed by multiple users (as one can see just by looking at the edit history). And JzG is involved in this dispute, thus it is against policy for him to use his admin power to protect the page. Wikipedia policy is clear and explicit on this issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From talk:cold fusion: a pro-cold fusion reference [67] says "... renamed their subject more appropriately, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". Add to this Ed Poor's history of creating POV forks, and honestly I can't see how nipping this in the bud was wrong for the encyclopaedia. A redirect is obviously the right outcome, per the source cited, and if he'd created one instead of trying to fork the content then we would be tanking him for helping out. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is protected due to the effects of a protracted attempt to insert fringe science.

Point 2: At least three POV-forks have been used to try to get around WP:NPOV and page protection; 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted, this was another, Cold fusion research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a third.

Point 3: Kevin Baas brought this up on my talk page and then came here only an hour later; sorry, Kevin, I'll stop visiting my father in hospital so I can respond to your demands in a timescale you find acceptable.

Point 4: I did not identify the POV forks, that was user:ScienceApologist this time, user:Michaelbusch in the other case.

Final point: Am I sick to death of special pleading, cherry-picking and misrepresentation of sources, querulousness, farcical "straw polls" and other attempts to boost fringe "cold fusion" research? You bet. Anyone else want the baton? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)Firstly, this is not about the cold fusion article, it is about the CMNS article. Secondly it doesn't matter what you claim the reason for cold fusion being protected is, or what the what you claim the reason for the CMNS being protected is.

(2)Again, doesn't matter what happened nor how you characterize it. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(3)According to WP's user contribution logs, I posted the message on your talk page at 2008-01-01T12:33:56, and posted the notice on the noticeboard at 2008-01-01T13:30:48. In the meantime, you found the time to make these two edits: [68] [69], while, purportedly, "visiting your father in the hospital". Apparently, making these edits were not only more important than to you than responding to a notice about policy abuse that was left on your talk page, but also more important to you than visiting your father in the hospital. So either you got your priorities really screwed up, or you're lying out your a$$. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(4)It doesn't matter what you call the articles, nor what anybody else calls them, nor who does the calling. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I have refactored your comments so they leave mine with clear attribution. In response:

(1) CMNS was a POV fork created by someone on an ArbCom sanction for creating POV forks. I was not the one who identified it as such, the evidence is, however, presented here and there and seems compelling to me. The two are, after all, synonymous in the (admittedly very limited) literature.

(2) Yes, the creation of other POV-forks is relevant. This topic has been the subject of lengthy and determined attempts to promote fringe science as mainstream. That is still ongoing, I believe.

(3) My father is in the high dependency unit of Hemel Hempstead District Hospital, we had a phone call at 11pm on Sunday calling my mother (who is nearly 70) to his bedside because he took a dramatic turn for the worse, I have visited him today in hospital, but as you point out that was not the period in question, the period in question was, if I track back, while I was packing the car and the kids to drive home. Fact remains, you gave me less than no time to respond on my talk, not that it matters as I'm sure you'd have brought it here anyway. Lying out of my ass? Thank you so very much, I love you too.

(4) Yes it does, nyer.

So, who else wants this mess, or should we just let the POV-pushers run riot again and then maybe revert to the 2004 FA version after another year, as has happened twice already? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I really don't know the history of the article. I do know that the article was not deleted and no RfD was filled. If it really is a POV-fork, an RfD request should be filed. I really don't see what POV it pushes except the one that there is a field called "CMNS" in which some research has been and is being done, which is true. But that's besides the point. I do vaguely recall - though i may be mistaken, that a lot of the content in it used to be in the cold fusion article, but then i think a spinoff article was made per WP article split policy because the cold fusion article was kinda long, and people thought it should deal more specifically with the pons-fleishman setup, because that's what most people think of when they refer to "cold fusion", and the non-F/P stuff, though related, wasn't close enough to that. I believe the article had "good article" or even "featured article" status when it had a lot of that content in it, so maybe merging it back might be a way to go. In any case, an RfD would be much more effective at reaching a resolution than trying to strong-arm the article forever.

(2) As far as I know, the other articles were not reverted and then protected consecutively by the same editor, and certainly not recently.

(3) I'm sorry.

(4) If it matters, than show me the policy that says so. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you thought te article was a POV fork. The issue is that you treated it as such, and then immediately protected the article to keep people from changing it back. If you don't see why this is a problem, then you need to take a break from dealing with POV forks. -Amarkov moo! 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's not, after all, like I'm dealing with a bunch of POV-pushers who have been trygin for years to skew the article on cold fusion to represent a fringe view of a subject which is essentially discarded by the mainstream. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm dealing with! Well hell. So, what process do you want me to go through to get rid of these blatant POV forks, and how quickly can we get it done with so these people stop degrading the encyclopaedia with blatant attempts to pretend to a controversy that barely exists, a field of science that is all but abandoned, a review they interpret as a green light for more research but actually says nothing has changed in fifteen years, and a mess of free energy suppression nonsense reverted along the way? Only this is getting just a bit old, so a really good and permanent solution to this fringe nonsense would be really appreciated, and I do sincerely mean that. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you're also now dealing with me, and I am exactly not someone who has been trying for years to skew the article on cold fusion. BTW I disagreed with the POV-fork and would not have been against a redirect or merger. Very sorry to see this mess now. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a solution that permanently eliminates the controversy would be possible. It probably isn't. But even if you think there is such a solution, that doesn't justify anything you do towards the goal of stoopping the ocntroversy. -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do for the best here. If we restore the text I changed, it is wrong, misleading and confusing for the reader (which is why I changed it, because I checked the conclusion and found it didn't say that, but something subtly different and a bit wider in scope); this seems to me to be a silly piece of process wonkery, restoring something that is actually wrong just because some editors prefer it to be wrong. We could leave it, but then some people will burst a blood vessel because, for some reason I absolutely cannot fathom, it makes a Really Big Huge Enormous Difference to them quoting a selective para from a subsection of the report rather than quoting the conclusion - and incidentally if anyone could explain why, I'd be really grateful. Probably the best thing is if someone goes and just removes the summary text as redundant and more trouble than it's worth. But I am going to do my level best not to care which is done. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to protected page Cold fusion

The Evil Spartan [70] and I [71] [72] both asked JzG to self-revert his edit to protected page Cold fusion. His response was that it was a minor edit that no one could object to. [73] [74] [75]

However, it was in part due to JzG reverting other contributors' edits that led Doc Glasgow to protect the page. It seems unfair for one party to an edit conflict, being allowed to continue making edits, however "minor".

Action requested: Please suggest to JzG that he self-revert, or simply roll back his edits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he deleted a quote that I made, as explained here. I do consider his edit an abuse of admin power. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the same edits as being discused above, Ed, Condensed matter nuclear science was redirected to Cold fusion because it was one of your POV fork attempts. I still fail to see any issue with JzG's 2 edits, but I do with yours and you creating another POV fork since you are on probation for creating POV forks, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at the CMNS page history will show that I neither created it nor made any edits to it. What on earth are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not have created the page, but much of the content you did. Others have called it a POV fork and spoke to you about that directly [76][77][78][79] and I'm pointing out that you are on RFAR probation for POV forks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are wrong on multiple counts:

1. These are not the same edits as being discussed. This is clear from the fact that the edits are on entirely different pages. One discussion is about JzG protecting an article that he is involved in a dispute on (the CMNS article), and furthermore not protecting it on whatever version it happens to be on at the time. The other discussion is about JzG making controversial changes to a protected article (the cold fusion article).
2. You are in asserting the reason that cmns was redirected.
3. You are wrong for even discussing what the reason was, as it is completely irrelevant, AND it's the wrong article.
4. You are wrong to call it a POV fork, per Wikipedia:POV_fork.
5. You are wrong to assume bad faith on the part of Ed (and everybody else involved in this discussion), per wikipedia good faith policy.
6. You are wrong in stating what the incident being discussed is, both in this section and the one above. Both incidents are about wikipedia page protection policy, which is clear and explicit. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts do not agree with you here,[80][81][82][83][84], nor do I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a content edit, it's an edit to the summary of a link in a reference citation. The citation says see the 2004 DOE conclusion, but the text was not from the conclusion. I was sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text, but the editor in question is now implying that it was deliberate. Be that as it may, it's an unambiguous factual error. As I say, the text was in quotes, represented as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was a small paragraph from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."
original text, a small para from the response to charge element 3

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.
what the conclusion actually says

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Honestly, I saw it as a copy-paste error. I don't mind removing the summary text altogether, or if someone wants to suggest an accurate citation text, but it was simply and unambiguously wrong, a trivial copyediting matter that I happened to notice and fix when I opened the report to respond to a point on the talk page - and of course I noted it on the talk page there and then. I really don't see why such a huge big deal is being made of this. I've explained in detail, and there is active discussion ont he talk page, so I see no reason it should have been brought here, unless it's to try and gain an advantage in what I never thought for a moment would actually be a dispute! Guy (Help!) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. I noticed from my watchlist that there were edits. I didn't particularly find the first edit problematic, but I didn't agree with the second one at all. The question of whether the removed information was "unnecessary" was debatable at the very least. I thought it should stay in as without it the reader would be wondering what research areas the reviewers thought should be investigated further. I went to revert it so that discussion could ensue on the talk page. But the page was fully protected. I wasn't able to revert the edits and JzG hasn't reverted them himself, despite being asked to do so at least twice. I'm very unhappy with the situation. Please note that I consider myself as a neutral editor in the edit warring on this page. I don't want to see it advocating cold fusion, which was a problem a few weeks ago, but I am also concerned that a group of editors including JzG want to take it the other way so that it is completely devoted to debunking the concept. I do hope that there will be no further insinuations about editors trying to gain an advantage by raising this issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The second edit was to cut out "two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods." - and I did that solely because the great chunk of text was unwieldy, and the reader probably does not need to know to that level of detail in a citation summary. Actually the whole thing is probably redundant, it could probably just be a link to the report and be no less useful. I don't mind. I just fixed an error of fact, quoting something as the conclusion which was not actually the conclusion, because it gave me a "huh?" moment. I have no interest in debunking the subject, my best friend worked in the lab where the original experiments went on and played a small part in them, he was very excited, he's still an academic in electrochemistry, I asked him about it before I saw this article and his view echoed the DoE report pretty much exactly - something odd is going on, but probably not cold fusion, people need to conduct some rigorous basic science to find out the source of the anomolous results. On the other hand, the repeated hijacking by free energy suppression people and other oddballs over the years is clearly unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm getting this right - the link of the citation was to something other than the conclusion (the response) but it was an accurate quote of the response? Without judging the other issues, wouldn't it have been easier to change the link? Avruchtalk 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, like I said, it said "conclusions" so I pasted in the conclusions. Tat was the obvious thing, to me, since the conclusions are by definition more comprehensive than one single para from somewhere in the body (which may be out of context, after all, if quoted in isolation). It seemed easier to take the very short conclusion than to try to wordsmith a new citation based on why the original editor chose to use that paragraph, assuming it was not an error, which I thought it was. I've invited the editor, user:Pcarbonn, to say what he meant to put, but it's a recent thing so I don't think there's an answer yet. Pcarbonn has been a bit naughty about pushing the fringe side of cold fusion, but not to the point of forfeiting the assumption of good faith, for sure. As I say, it seemed really unambiguous to me. The summary said "conclusion", I went to the conclusion, the text was subtly different. I didn't even spot that it was from elsewhere in the report until I'd copied and pasted the conclusion text. As far as I care the quotation can go altogether, I don't see it adds much and I thik we quote it in the article anyway, I don't know why it's even quoted in the citation summary. The article's been hacked about a bit between competing POVs so it's a tad messy in places. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the talk page that the edit was controversial. Personally, I think you are altogether tight about the edit, the redirect above, and your views on the subject, but you should never have taken any admin action on either of those pages including using admin powers to edit after it was protected or to protect a redirect. Your discussion above about the merit of the edits & the redirects only emphasizes this. I don't think you even realize that this is wrong. DGG (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are spot on there. First, the redirect. Scenario A: We take it to AfD, wait for consensus, then go to ArbCom enforcement and get Ed Poor slapped with a trout for creating a POV fork. Scenario B: We quickly fix the problem, identified by more than one editor, spare Ed the trout slap, and end up with a useful redirect and a discussion of how to cover the new terminology in the article. Why is Scenario B worse than Scenario A?

Second, the edit. I fixed a summary in a reference because it was unambiguously wrong and thus confusing. I freely apologise to everybody who has wasted time on this, but the encyclopaedia is clearly better off if people don't find that the linked text says something other than what the summary quotes - and in "quotes" at that. Seriously, if it's such a big problem, take the text out and just leave the link. We are supposed to make trivial clueful changes without bureaucracy and I honestly do think that was a trivial change, matching the quoted text to the title. Of course I should have foreseen that Pcarbonn would kick up a stink, I should have recognised it as his pet sentence from the report that he wants to stand in place of the conclusion in every instance because he feels it better reflects his interpretation of the report than the conclusion does, but I didn't. Why would we pander to that idiosyncracy anyway? It was simply a misquote, corrected, move on.

I freely admit that when I am pissed off I sometimes do things which are rash, but I was not pissed off then, I just fixed what looked to me like a mistake. And having fixed a mistake, I am (being me) reluctant to make it wrong again just for the sake of process. Sorry, that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to common sense ? Clearly Guy is right here. Nuff said. Move on. Eusebeus (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Strothra (resolved)

Resolved

User Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps threatening me with absolutely irrelevant warning messages. It started with lying-summary revert of absolutely all good faith edits on Homophobia (which since then were re-instated by another user). He keeps leaving warnings despite my objection and response. Ignoring on-going discussion on my talk page re 1948 Arab-Israeli War he is leaving 'last-warning' message, branding my edits vandalism. I ask that user will be given appropriate warning and those warnings left by mentioned user be removed from my talk page. --87.198.133.62 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the homophobia edits were vandalism, but the edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War were rather POV (i.e. substituting "invasion" for "intervention"). bibliomaniac15 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits in question were, in fact, not vandalism and the warnings were inappropriate. Lara❤Love 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Laura - I noticed the anon IP's frequently contentious POV edit history on articles such as Six-Day War and assumed a vandal when I saw mass changes to the Homophobia article. Easy to jump to conclusions with the anons. We all make mistakes, I'm not the only one who has incorrectly identified vandalism : [85] [86]. Some should practice what they preach. --Strothra (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Page blankings by 121.45.181.31

This day, Jan 1, 2008, unregistered user from the IP 121.45.181.31 has done several edits, that should be treated as vandalisms.
In the article about Julian March, he did several unexplained edits.
In 06:10, he did several changes with nationalistic exaggerations, as well as [87].
At 06:13, he removed the lines without explanation [88]. At 06:14, he removed English version of the name without any explanations on the talkpage [89].
At 06:15, [90] he has removed the categorization that claims this region as geography of Slovenia and Croatia. Slovenian users might give their opinions here also.
At 12:38, he has blanked the content of a page Gonars (without explanation), in which there was info about the concentration camp Gonars in Italy [91] .
At 12:40, he removed the adjective "concentration" in the article about Rab concentration camp [92] (from WWII). He obviously has never read the meaning of term "concentration camp" (concentrating a group of people who are in some way undesirable in one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them). He probably treats it as any camp, like tourist camp?
At 12:44, following that, he removed the categorization [93].
In his following edit, at 12:46, [94], he inserts the line that completely misses the point. This edit should be in the other article, but by its style, his edit is much below the level of an encyclopedian article (grammar, essay-style).
His following edit from 12:48 follows the previous pattern [95]. Now we can say that his edits are intended relativization of this inhuman place.
Later in the afternoon, at 17:10, he continued with his edits. Here [96], he removed the paragraph and whole External links section. In that edit, he gave comment "Removed bs and made up nationalistic nonsense by user Zenanarh.".
Vocabulary like "bs" and calling the opponents' edits as "nationalist" (in the comments) was used by banned user Special:Contributions/Giovanni Giove.
Interesting, 9 days ago, on 23 Dec 2007 in 17:48, user:Cherso did similar vandalizing edit on this article (without explanation), when he blanked even more of it [97]. Note: the latter removed parts were dealing with serious political stuff, that spoke about recent revisionism, expansionism and irredentism of Italian high officials, and that section had refences to online sources (daily newspapers).
We should keep an eye on this one. Kubura (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the {welcomepov}} template on his page. If you think that he is abusing sockpuppetry, or a sockpuppet of a banned user, you should report it at the checkuser page. Some other action may be required based on NPA. Avruchtalk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Between 29 and 31 December from the IP address 121.45.41.47, a person who may be the same (ab)user made a series of highly inflammatory pro-Italian, anti-Slavic disruptive edits. Firstly, at 13:20 on 29 Dec this [98]; then, after changing Carlo Marochetti from a French to an Italian sculptor [99], he appeared at the talk page of Italianization describing the article as "This is very biased nonsense against Italy, the Yugoslav forced assimilation was much worse. They murder many people" [100] followed up a few minutes later by "Anto you seem to oblivious to the fact that your great uncles came to your present day lands via force, raping and murdering and pillaging all in their path. Barbarians were what you were called and that tradition was carried on after WW2 where your people murdered civilians because they were Italian, the first ethnic cleansing in Europe. We stuck you in school and gave you an education even if it was in Italian, we didn't kill you". [101]. This was followed by a highly POV edit to Partisans (Yugoslavia), removing sourced material and replacing it with allegations based on his/her personal agenda [102].Ironically, the last (so far) contribution from this IP address was to claim at the Partisans talk page that "There is a lot information on this page which have no references including the following which are extremely biased and little more then opinion". [103]
I think it is clear that we are dealing with somebody who is not a newcomer and in fact may have been around Wikipedia for a while. Whether a sock of a banned user or not, I don't believe that the edit history over the last few days signals anything other than trouble to come from this source. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Pandyan Kingdom (resolved)

Resolved

I reported (in wrong place,sorry) a few weeks back about an edit war on Pandyan Kingdom. The page was protected for one week,but no one discussed the edits on the talk page whilst the block was in place. Block has now been lifted, and edit war has resumed,including using the edit summary to insult each other.

I know nothing about the topic, so I would not be able to say what version is correct. Could someone please step in and defuse the situation? Thanks. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to visit WP:RPP and request that the page protection be restored, perhaps for a longer period of time. Admins don't necessarily have content expertise, so an RfC or other step in dispute resolution may be in order. Avruchtalk 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested page protection, as you suggested. I had a look at the dispute resolution page. It looks like stage 2 is the correct stage for me (as a non-participant in the dispute), which boils down to page protection,or reporting it here andleaving it for the administrators to resolve. I have also posted a plea for civility on the talk page - I will also see about adding a link to the dispute resolution page. Would someone mind having a look at my post and perhaps add to it, in case there is anything else I missed off? I apologise for stating that their behaviour was akin to childish squabbling, but I wanted to shake their attitudes up a bit. Sometimes people's actions become so focused, they lose sight of what they are actually doing. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. I've added the talkpage header, a controversial tag and archived past discussion as well. If it continues, an RfC is probably in order. Avruchtalk 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Pandiyann

Pandiyann (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Actually, looking deeper into this a little bit - I notice that this editor has a long history of abusive edits and edit summaries, including this page: Talk:1957_Ramnad_riots. I think this could stand for some additional review, and perhaps an additional step beyond the warnings already on his talk page. This type of SPA caste-warring is inappropriate at the least. Avruchtalk 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notifying Pandiyann of this thread now, sorry 'bout the delay. Avruchtalk 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

• 08:06, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (This section must be excluded frm this article as this is not an article abt tamil castes. The low caste scum, Paravar, will be gettin his share soon.......)

• 03:06, 20 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (I know my history too damn well, moron. If u r too damn sure of wat u r speakin abt, y use different ip addresses to post this crap. Afraid that u might get kicked! Better quit, fisherman!!!)

• 03:41, 19 December 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pandyan Kingdom‎ (The fool from Madras should think thrice b4 speaking abt this caste. Get the heck out of this site or go thru the aricle in wiki abt this caste and shut up!! -Nadar Sagham)

• 10:07, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170301361 by 203.94.202.95 (talk) The article must be protected from morons!!!!)

• 11:04, 8 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 170048828 by 203.193.184.206 (talk) y don't u get the hell out of this site...)

• 11:05, 31 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (Undid revision 168276090 by Tn pillai (talk) The coward is back to display non-sense...!!!)

• 14:15, 5 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:1957 Ramnad riots‎ (←Created page with '==Nicely written piece of shit to aggravate the fame of Kamarajar== The 1957 riot happened due to many reasons. This article was obviously written by some thevar to...')

• 14:16, 23 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Nadar (caste)‎ (The loser tn.pillai returns with baseless theories...)

These are just edit summaries... Avruchtalk 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Some interesting edits can be found:

• here

• and here

• and here (look at the above comments by him there also)

• here

Takes awhile to find typical contributions, because a lot of it seems to be revert warring. Avruchtalk 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My take

As someone from this region and belonging to none of the castes being discussed, I can state the following.

• As for the content dispute part, I've commented at Talk:Pandyan_Kingdom#Edit war reported.
• Pandiyann's edit summaries are clearly offensive to caste sensitivities.
• Some of the anon editors' (from the opposite camp) edit summaries in the Pandyan Kingdom page are equally offensive and provocative.

I'd prefer NPOV brought by removing claims from either group and adding any of them only after discussing in the talk page and only if citations are provided. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested block of socks

I believe that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 should be blocked for abusive sockpupperty. Both accounts are part of a COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. A checkuser confirmed the two accounts are sockpuppets. They posted messages on the Noticeboard acting as if they were unrelated, including one were one of the accounts thanked the other one [104]. They both made claims about the number of articles they had been involved in [105] [106]. HollywoodFan1 was asked if they had used multiple accounts, they stated they only had one registered account [107]. MetaphorEnt stated that were a representative of Metaphor Entertainment [108]. HollywoodFan1 repeatedly stated that they were not connected to the company [109] [110] [111] [112] including in a Request for arbitration. Three of the articles in the COI case were nominated for deletion. COI editors were instructed to mention any affiliation with the companies involved when commenting. HollywoodFan1 did not do so at any of them: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatimah_Adams, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Fuenzalida, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milena_Lukich. As most concisely shown in the Request for arbitration, HollywoodFan1 used the guise of being unrelated to Metaphor Entertainment to try to stop the work of the COI case so that the company could continue to inappropriately use the Wikipedia as a promotional tool. BlueAzure (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueAzure has been skipping boards, WP:HARASS for weeks now trying to get me to leave Wikipedia. This is the 2nd sockpuppet case he has brought up against me. The first one was settled [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/64.30.201.109]For the record, I worked on those articles because I was called out on the COI [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt] case. Many editors bonded together while User:BlueAzure was/is attacking. I am not MetaphorEnt. If anyone has any suggestions through the WP process to get this editor to stop WP:STALK and WP:BITE me, I could really use the help.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are MetaphorEnt, the checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LMA2007) already confirmed this. BlueAzure (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The 31 December update by Voice-al-all on the checkuser case page confirms that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 are the same editor. Given this result HollywoodFan1's previous statements in the COI case seem highly disingenuous. It's hard to take anything he has said up till now at face value, and it makes it even more remarkable that he filed an Arbcom case expressing indignation about how he was treated on Wikipedia, and casting asparagus on User:BlueAzure. As part of his statement to Arbcom, HollywoodFan1 says For the record, I have no relationship to The management company. I am in a completely different business. In the light of the checkuser finding, I hope he will come clean and enlighten us about the true situation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EdJohnston, with the CU and edits shown, it's hard to believe HollywoodFan1, but let's give him a chance here--please explain yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With no disrespect to Rlevse who is unknowingly stepping in the middle of this mouse trap, I don't need to explain anything, because I am not MetaphorEnt. You want to spend your lives and year making others unhappy, go ahead it's your life. You know what you did BlueAzure.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd vandalism (resolved)

Resolved

which I have found and can't seem to get rid of [113]. 86.147.70.107 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of that article is vandalism? Avruchtalk 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Its been reverted. 86.147.70.107 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Was showing a bizarre floating message, have reverted & now seems OK. Will check templates to ensure no-one's altered them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:C21YearInTopic, one of at least three templates that got vandalised by some ne'erdowell. I put up an RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wholives‎ based on the vandalism. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t

This article was previously deleted for failing WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:NEO and WP:OR and was redirected to List of Internet slang phrases. The latter was itself deleted and linked to wiktionary. I removed large sections of this article for being both original research and synthesis before discovering that it had been deleted, after which I placed the redirect there. Anonymous IPs continue to restore this text without explanation and (in my opinion anyway) in violation of those protocols. I'm not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, so I didn't think AIV was the appropriate place and I also don't know if the page would qualify for protection since it may not meet the criteria for WP:RPP. So I've brought this here to determine if my edits are productive or if the material should be allowed to remain. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think making it a protected redirect would be fine, it seems appropriate in this instance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, this word was selected as the 2007 word of the year by Merriam Webster (per this link and others). There might be additional material and notability that might contribute to an actual article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the AfD was over a year ago, and a lot has changed since then [114] Removing unsourced OR is fine, of course, but I don't think a protected redirect is appropriate; there probably is scope for an article on the term now. As an aside, I see that the article was cited by the BBC. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• With all the OR and synthesis removed, the article becomes a lead and a section about being the word of the year. If the only notability is in the context of being the word of the year, that information should be contained in Merriam-Webster's_Words_of_the_Year and not in a separate article being the word of the year. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, as a result of it being word of the year there's also sourced information available on its etymology and useage (see the BBC article, for instance), so it's possible now to write about those things in a non-OR way as well. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good pasta, it's the word of the year. Word of the year 2008: Pwn. We'll finally know how to pronounce it. Well, if we have some reliable sources, I don't have an issue with recreating it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ALA22222222 (talk · contribs)

The user on his talk page is requesting another administrator review his block (He posted an unblock request, but I declined it). Given his first edit was a straight gutshot to here, could someone uninvolved look into this? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems the only edits he's made were the one here, and the one removing the warning from his talk page. Maybe he deserves a second chance. However, would the long string of 2s be a problem with the username policy? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here and unblock. It's possible that the user registered an account to make a comment here after editing anon for a while. I'll keep a close eye on him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just say that I am becoming increasingly disgusted at the assumption that new users who turn up here are ban-fodder. That's it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be a sock and he may not be one, but either way, let's not bite this possibly legitemate newcomer. Let's assume good faith and unblock. If there is any more disruption from this user, we can restore the block at any time. Maser ^(Talk!) 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He is already unblocked; and although I accept full responsibility for denying the original unblock request, I did not block him - all I did was warn him about blanking this page before the block by Pedro. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

His first (and so far only) comment after being unblocked was to ask not to "spy" on him. [115] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it as a bit of humour. We'll see with time. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "banfodder" comment above, while I don't agree with instablocking anyone who blanks ANI, I can definately see where it's coming from. As Jeske said in his unblock-denial, it's quite unusual for a true newbie to know where ANI is. ALA22222222 also asserts very nonchalantly on his talk page that he's allowed to remove warnings once he's read them. Now, I have met the odd newbie who bothered to read the policies, and he could always have been a lurker (or he could be bullshitting and happened to be right), so of course let's assume good faith; however, I think this one is certainly worth "spying" on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iam starting to wonder why I even signed up with wikipedia because somehow I feel like Iam being made fun of or harassed on here so don't expect me to contribute to this site much.--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not being made fun of here, and nobody here is going to "spy" on you unless they want a scolding. I'll be the first to help you out - just direct any questions to my talk page, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way J-ſtan, my username is perfectly fine--ALA22222222 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proven sock needs to be blocked. Possible vandal also needs to be blocked

Incorrectly placed above #Someone's putting erect penis photos all over Wikipedia, moved to bottom of page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See below about the penis. Daniel determined that Blow of Light was Dereks1x. Blow of Light has not been blocked.

Someone said "Resolved - User blocked". Is this a vandal (maybe Dereks1x/BOL sock who is trying to avoid being blocked by falsely saying the issue is resolved.

As far as I can tell, Blow of Light is checkuser proven to be a sock unless I'm misreading below. Republic of One (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading it. BoL was incorrectly assuming that the vandal was a sock of someone he'd dealt with in the past, and Daniel was poking holes in his logic. BoL is a legitimate sock of a non-blocked user. Avruchtalk 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

but rather checkuser suggests it was Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Daniel 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., which user is "it" and why isn't the user blocked and a "dereks1x" plastered over the user page? Republic of One (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BoL's user page? Cause Dereks1x isn't BoL. If you look at User:Dereks1x it states that the user is banned. Daniel was saying BoL incorrectly accused someone else, but it turned out to be Derek. Avruchtalk 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "it" is User:Sergyz. And there's no dereks1x on it because suggest doesn't necessarily mean definite. Metros (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok. Let me just make one clarification before I resume my Wikibreak. Sergyz is not me. In fact, if there are any socks involved with me, I give anyone permission to do a checkuser on me for whatever reason. And that's true, I incorrectly accused someone else because I have a habit of incorrectly accusing someone else. —BoL 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I do have a sock. It's an account that I have since discontinued using because of my bad track record. —BoL 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection due to expire

The page protection for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (the venue for an edit war that led to the current arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC) is due to expire at 09:01, 2 January 2008, which is just over 4 hours from now. Some discussion is going on on the talk page, but I'm raising this issue now so people can consider whether to extend the page protection, or allow careful editing to resume, or to leave things as they are and re-protect if needed. You would think people wouldn't be so stupid as to resume edit warring over this, but I'm not so sure. Cross-posting to the following places: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and User talk:Alison (the current protecting admin). Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined against an extension. If people desire to continue behaving badly and dig their own graves, that's their prerogative. east.718 at 05:32, January 2, 2008

Not everyone follows ArbCom cases and not everyone checks page histories and talk pages. Someone genuinely uninvolved might stumble across this page (though unlikely as it is a bit obscure). You have a point though. Those already involved have no excuse and should know better than to respond to any edits by reverting and so forth. Anyone uninvolved who edits before looking can be gently pointed to the talk page if the edit is controversial. The protection has now expired. I'll removed the protection tag. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request indef ban of vandal account User:LaruaWA11

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked for disruption. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

LaruaWA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made a request at AIV but this turned into a discussion which I was told to bring here. This user has been blocked 2 times so far and is still vandalizing. Conversations with the user on his/her talk page about the issue don't seem to be helping. User is belligerent when warned and shows no signs of letting up. I'm requesting an indef block because this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

I also suspect this to be a sock of a banned user, because they seem like they're toying with us. I suggested an "indef" directly on his/her talk page, without describing what that word meant, and he/she immediately reverted that edit, see here. S/he couldn't have know what that meant simply from my statement, so it seems they have extensive previous experience with Wikipedia, or at least with getting banned. I think this user plans to mix in good-faith edits as much as is needed to keep the account alive. I invite any opinions.

Here are some diffs: [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] Thanks for looking into this. -- Equazcion •✗/C • 05:03, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This user has been disruptive, which is just as bad as vandalism. Support an indefinite ban. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The user is having difficulties. Is there a kind soul who could offer to help them? The above diffs seem to be prior to a block that already expired so they cannot be acted upon. Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) This edit came after the last block. I don't believe the user is having trouble. This strikes me as deliberate disruption. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Just to note on this situation, although I am kind of involved in this: The user in question, as evident from the above diffs, today, has abused more CSD tags, as well as made some incivil remarks. Attempting to talk to the user about this didn't really solve anything and it appears that the previous block(s) didn't really help the user to understand how his/her edits were disruptive. I wouldn't support a community ban at this point but a long term block may be a better alternative, given that the previous 2 blocks were of very short duration. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And the user continues, so a block is needed asap. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So much response on this one, but none on my report above? I'm sad :( Avruchtalk 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block issued. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any un-involved admins? Requesting unblock... - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed / denied it. I'm not seeing a new user in distress... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of subsequent edits showing no change in the pattern, I support the indefinite block. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies at Bates method

Resolved

Just a heads up, but in the last week or so, a whole lot of identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies; they'll identify and block. As for TORs, I'll check using the infobox in each IP's contribs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, other admins have it. The advice avbout WP:OP applies, however. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Already identified and blocked, half a dozen admins beat me to the punch. east.718 at 05:19, January 2, 2008

Actually, it took me less than a minute to verify all of em, but no one is giving me a chance to block them, so I moved on to crack, instead. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually reported three of them some hours ago, but nothing happened. More to the point, these were a whole lot that all centered on a single article, which was my real cause for concern and something some unovolved and/or tool-bearing admin could look into. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be quick. I got four of them by starting at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates method semi'd for 120 hours. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the page been protected? Proxy paranoia? 87.28.84.44 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to Oxymoron83's page) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry (2nd posting)

I previously filed a report about this same user. I filed the report on December 26. The report:

== Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry ==

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this. I believe user Frank mad (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and I.P. 66.176.219.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the same person. Both users have contributed to the same articles, vandalizing them repeatedly by removing sourced information and pushing POV. This can be seen in their contributions page. The I.P. has just been blocked for 3 months but the user is now using their user account (Frank mad) to continue vandalizing. Edits pushing POV on White Latin American by deleting the exactly same information by Frank mad [132] and the I.P. [133] [134] are identical. This user will not communicate with other users who have tried to talk to them, including myself. This makes it hard to try to come to a mutual understanding, but in this case erasing info. is considered vandalism. The user and I.P. have been repeatedly warned and told to not remove the info; they still do so, and it is reverted, however, they come back hours later to do it again. I don't know what action should or can take place but this reverting every day has to come to an end. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since then nothing has changed. The user continues to vandalize the White Latin American article by deleting sourced information and pushing POV. The user still has not made any effort whatsoever to communicate and i warned him.

After the report i filed on December 26 the user has:

• (Dec. 28) Re-added unnecessary info to an article which violates WP:MOS. I contacted him a long time ago but user does not communicate. Also, the info he added was already present.
• (Dec. 31) Deleted sourced info, the same info he has been deleting for over a month now: [135][136][137]
• (Jan. 1) And again, deleted the same sourced info as on Dec. 31st and countless other times: [138][139][140]

Something seriously has to be done. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding inclusion requirements

An apparently new user, User:Esborg / User:76.100.118.160, has engaged in what at first seemed to be spamming of a subject, or at least repeatedly attempting to add a wikilink to some type of alternative medicine practice. From the way the user has reacted to warnings, and the pattern of their continued edit history, I AGF and assume they were unfamiliar with our inclusion criteria and weren't engaging in commercial or malicious linkspamming. But....at the time no one could know that. (The point of all this comes at the end, but this history is important.)

• Special:Contributions/76.100.118.160
• Special:Contributions/Esborg

I happened upon it after seeing that other users were deleting what seemed to be spamming. I then contributed to their efforts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Alternative_medical_systems&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Energy_therapy&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

For that last one I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [141]

The following one I left intact because it seemed a logical place for him/her to place such a request (which fulfilled my request in my previous edit summary), and no inclusion criteria are required for making a request here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=181322992

The problems (only one...;-) start here (the same edit history as one listed above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_alternative_medicine&action=history

It's the one where I left this edit summary:

• Not notable enough for inclusion. Write an acceptable article first." [142]

Here User:John Gohde reverted me using this edit summary:

• "RV there is no such requirement. In fact, one of the primary reasons this Glossary exists is to avoid the creation of stub articles. See talk." [143]

I had read Talk and saw what looked like an argument that could be interpreted as instructions on how to bypass our inclusion criteria. I therefore deleted the link again with this edit summary:

• "Esborg has been spamming this link. Inclusion is fine if referenced with V & RS, and I have left one of his instances elsewhere." [144]

I am not interested in getting into an edit war or getting anywhere near a 3RR situation. I am asking for help in interpreting policy in such a situation. As I understand it, even stub articles have inclusion criteria, and inclusion in this type of glossary would at least need some type of V & RS to justify inclusion. Am I wrong?

If I am misinterpreting things, please let me know on my talk page and also do the courtesy of letting me restore it. If I am correct, I would appreciate it if other users would watch that article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like probable COI spam to me. I did a Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary, that mentions "open source medicine". The search showed this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is a lot like the user name Esborg (talk · contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, it seems like Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tracer9999

Resolved

User has engaged in an edit war on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Consensus on the article's talk page was to include the list of appearances, but he insists on reverting to remove the list.[145] [146] [147] When it was pointed out that these edits went against consensus, user threatened to continue the edit war.[148] When this was pointed out, he started leaving rude and uncivil comments on my talk page that mocked Wiki policies and were clearly designed to provoke a negative response.[149] [150] [151] [152] Buspar (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, user has been warned about edit warring twice by two users who also edit the article: [153] [154] Buspar (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Tracer9999 for revert warring, personal attacks and harassment. Dreadstar † 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Buspar (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not contesting this block, but please note also that while he/she technically did not violate policy like User:Tracer9999, User:Buspar was also warned for revert warring and has been claiming a "consensus" that does not exist to insert the material in question into the article (though to be fair, he/she may not have been aware of that). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Newsroom. The threat by Tracer9999 to continue revert warring was key in the decision to block. I noted the warning to Buspar as well as Bupar's acknowledgement of it, and felt it was sufficient for now. Dreadstar † 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While this has been closed, as a follow up to Newsroom, Buspar did try to dodge a 3RR violation by recruiting a meatpuppet [155]. Burzmali (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki Doctorates

Resolved

 – Page deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could some close this per WP:SNOW? (Sorry to bring this here). Tiptoety ^talk 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone has closed it as delete. Thanks anyways. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban review requested on topic not banned by arbcom ruling

Background: Barbara Schwarz had undergone four previous (1 - 2 - 3 - 4) deletion discussions were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping, while acknowledging WP:BLP concerns with some of the information in when it was speedily deleted by an admin. A deltion review determined that when WP:BLP questionable material was removed, the remainder would not be enough to justify an article.

Here is where I think the admin imposing the topic ban has begun to misunderstand my actions. She was/is mentioned in two other articles, Neutral reportage, Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune and Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz. Each has its own sources and were discussed in detail on her article, this meant that any expansion of what was said about her in either would've been redundant. Now that her article is gone, it isn't redundant to expand those other two articles a bit. Essentially because I expanded a simple mentioning of her case on Neutral reportage with reliable sources, and an editor with an axe to grind put it in the most negative way possible to make it look as though I'm simply adding unsourced information about her wherever I want without as a disruption and ignoring the concerns of others. (Despite the fact that I've been engaging in discussion on the relevant talk pages Talk:Neutral reportage/Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States).)

I could understand the ban if I was adding information about her to topics which used to be covered by her article, but for which no/little sourcing exists such as her relationship with Scientology or her forced deprogramming. No really good sources discuss either aspect, so clearly adding such info would be disruptive. I'm not doing that though, here are the two sources which I cited:Utah appeals court backs reporting privelage First Amendment Center and the article she sued about Tribune. Anynobody 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(On another more technical issue, the banning admin used the logic that since Barbara Schwarz has to do with Scientology a topic ban from an arbcom case about Scientology articles applies even though neither article she is mentioned in is part of the Scientology series. The logic seems to be treating the subject as if her article still existed (Indeed her article was part of the Scientology series, but mention of her in an article about FOIA is not). It'd be as if I were topic banned from say, Catholicism to the point that any mention of it qualified as a violation of the ban; I wouldn't be able to edit topics where it might come up like pedophilia, The Troubles, heck even editing the Battle of Gravelines it could come up that Spain was trying to impose Papal influence over England. Really though, the primary thrust of my request is based on the fact that editors shouldn't be banned for doing things they have not, not the error in applying a Scientology ban to articles dealing with FOIA and neutral reportage though it should also be considered.) Anynobody 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Before Jehochman removes this again, I'm not sure this classifies as forum shopping. Since WP:AE, where this issue arose, is only attended to by a few (lately 2 or 3) admins, there has to be someplace to request a broad review. Thatcher 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe Anynobody "gets it" with respect to BLPs. I have extensively discussed the issue at WP:AE and Talk:Neutral reportage. All Scientology articles are on probation; Barbara Schwarz is a former Scientologist whose litigious activities are intimately related to her status as a Scientologist. Therefore, the probation applies to Barbara Schwarz and under that probation I have banned Anynobody from making edits related to Barbara Schwarz (except for talk pages) for 30 days. Thatcher 08:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call, based on what I've seen of Anynobody's edits to this subject. Not evil, but just does not quite "get it", a good summary. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter Miladz

Resolved

I've somehow cocked up the above somehow. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You need to add it to the main AFD page for today ({{subst:afd3 | pg=Inter Miladz}}) Pedro :  Chat  11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - Thank you Pedro. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft

Could an administrator please study all edits made by this person since mid-December? Other relevant pages are User talk:Richard Daft and User talk:88.111.83.82.

Richard Daft's contributions are persistently unconstructive. It seems that he is using WP as a means of mounting personal attacks against a particular individual. Some of his comments amount to abuse. Attempts to reason with him have produced responses that are at best incoherent and at worst potentially threatening. His edits have all been reverted apart from his last one which is still on my talk page.

My recommendation is that this user and IP address are blocked for a suitable cooling off period and that appropriate admin notices are posted on the relevant pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

This user is engaging in insulting and flamebaiting on Talk:Muhammad. I would recommend that the same sort of policy be used towards him as towards obvious anti-semites (ie, automatic banning as User:Alberuni or, at the very least, some sort of sanction for such severe lack of netiquette. 68.19.85.8 (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks, and have left a full explanation of why on his talk page. He has been blocked for trolling Talk:Muhammad before. Neıl ☎ 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is, it was more then just TharkunColl (talk · contribs) that was engaged in personal attacks. Aliibn (talk · contribs) has also been engaged in personal attacks and race baiting on other editors whom he disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? TharkunCoil's attacks were obvious, but I can't see any blatant ones from Aliibn. I've reviewed Aliibn's contributions, and I see some frustration and some sarcasm, but only in response to Tharkun's baiting. I note Tharkun has appealed the block as two weeks is "harsh", while not apologising at all for his comments. As I say on his talk page, it was two weeks because he has been blocked on two separate occasions (24 hours, 100 hours) for trolling on Talk:Muhammad alone. Neıl ☎ 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, calling Mohammed a pedophile? Good block Neil, it was completely racist and if it happens on his return, I'd suggest a much longer block. I can't find anything too bad with Alberuni, not the friendliest exchange, but nothing block worthy and no where near the same level as TharkinColls remarks. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A request to Ban an abusive Sockpuppet User:Gohdeilocks

User:Gohdeilocks is a Stalker nd has been Stalking me from outside of WikiPedia for 9 months. I believe I am not the first Wikipedian editor that this user has attacked and I can prove it if this is to go to arbitration commettie, which I do not see the need for because this user is a Sockpuppet with no editor history.

You can see the conversation on his talk page User_talk:Gohdeilocks and his Social engineering of the dialouge with reverts and comment title name changes. As well as inctigation of other users against me. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the convention here, but think the posts on my Talk page shows the accurate events of the last 36(?) hours. I don't feel inclined to add anything more except to repeat that every one of Igor Berger's accusations is demonstrably false. I have asked him repeatedly to leave me alone, but he keeps returning to add banners falsely accusing me of every WP offense the can think of. I am somewhat at a loss as to how to make him go away, although not for want of trying. Frankly, I'm pretty sick of it. I'll add more here if an Admin feels appropriate, but I think the evidence is pretty plain and straightforward. Gohdeilocks (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore, I followed the policy of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman. The user attacked me violating Wikipedia:NPA with his instigation of User_talk:ST47 while I was in arbitration with him. I leave this in your capable hands and please investigate. I see no more need to post any notices on User_talk:Gohdeilocks. Thank you, Igor BergeItalic textr (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I will not go to User:Gohdeilocks page anymore" Thank you: it is appreciated. Nevertheless, an Admin's eye and advice would, I feel, be productive. Gohdeilocks (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine

I'm requesting a 48 hour block of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) for abusive comments. This user is also known as Matt Sanchez and a look at the recently archived Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive11 shows an extremely long history of abusive comments, most recently [156]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I say indef block or ban. Hasn't he caused enough trouble as it is? Isn't there an Rfc on him now? And isn't this diff unpleasant enough to indef block, given all the other warnings he has had? Jeffpw (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him to stop. I don't think the diff Jeff gives is unpleasant enough to indef ban him. Based on [157], I think he's on his last warning now, though. Neıl ☎ 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his Rfc? How many last warnings do you think this makes, now? And why is it that some editors get a free pass to edit their own bios, and behave in as abusive manner as they want on this site, while others are shown the door for much less? This guy is editing with an agenda and without regard for his fellow editors. Ticking his fingers each time he violates policy only encourages him to be that much more aggressive the next time. Jeffpw (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention his RfC - thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How many final warnings was the user given, exactly? I'll notify him of this thread, as well. Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Four, if I count his recently archived talk page correctly. Three for uncivil behaviour, one for a possible legal threat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest a ban altogether, but looking at his history, he *does* contribute to other articles besides his own. I don't know if he's abusive on those or not, but I'll take a look. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)