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

121.45.181.31 removes external references again

Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29 [1] (with comment There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion).
Is he playing dumb?
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages [2] on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. Kubura (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC

Please, ThuranX, if you're not an admin, nor an involved person in this case, don't interfere.
How can you give right to someone who deletes external links? Are you suggesting the support to trolling behaviour: ignoring of references, section blanking, deleting of references (sources with content that POV-izer don't want to see) that are opponents' arguments that you cannot beat? Where would Wikipedia end then? If you can't tell the difference between the scientific article and the book, please, don't mess into encyclopedic stuff. If you don't know the purpose of external links, don't mess. Read wiki-manuals. Don't burden WP:ANI with unnecessarily taken disk space. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "don't interfere"> Anyone can post here. Any editor can look into any section here, and offer an opinion. Often, that can help admins see their interpretation is supported, or disputed by others, making them give more reasoned explanations of their actions, or rework their actions to a more supported solution. It's a major check/balance on the AN/I. I've read the 'wiki-manuals'. Since all you've said is basic trolling, and no explanation for the change in citation, then move on. The edit was questionable, and I stand by that. ThuranX (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, deleted lines in the article were edited by me, but in that moment I didn't put a reference there, I've done it later, see history. Also deleted references were not connected to deleted text, but to other parts of the article which were not removed by this vandal user. I have rewritten this part of text according to the source, and now it's there: both text and reference - official scientific research and restored other deleted references. An user reported by Kubura is definitely a vandal - in this case removing 5,6 references! For other actions of this anon see previous report by Kubura. Blanking is his/her favourite hoby. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the lines removed by the IP didn't belong, as they were clear WP:SYNTH violations. Your rewrite is fully sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP made a good call. His actions elsewhere were not dicussed or brought up till now, and remain irrelevant to the eidt in question, which I would have done myself, were I monitoring such pages, which I don't. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IP user 121.45.181.31 has deleted whole section of external links, that gave info about these things. That's blanking.
ThuranX, if you have something to say about this, go to the talkpage, don't burden this page with the things that were supposed to be done on the talkpage. That IP user didn't give explanation. Don't disturb admins' procedure.
If he dislike one section of the text, he could have deleted only that part, but no, he deleted unwanted references, because they were proving him wrong. Finally, "uncited" part was later cited and referenced. Why are you stubbornly defending a troll, ThuranX? Kubura (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of 'trolling', it's what you're now doing. Let me say this one last time, then I'll just move for a block against you. The edit the IP made was a good one. The ELs he removed were redundant, and the text he removed was uncited SYNTH and OR. That somethign supposedly similar, in your opinion, was later added in a 'cited and referenced' form is irrelevant. What was removed should have been removed. Stop owning the article, and accept that the excuse laden section that was removed was bad, even awful writing, constituting the writer's own Original Research into why things just didn't count anayways so ignore them, and it was rightly removed. I don't know why you can't see that, other than you wrote it, but it was bad article writing, and the IP was right to remove it. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK people calm down please, no need to argue about such unimportant details. Thuranx please try to understand, maybe you're right - my first edit with no reference was a kind of original research, my intention was to cover it by a source but I simply forgot it - my guilt. However, reported user actually has very short history of undoubtful anti-Croatian contributions, short but very known to Kubura, me and several other users and administrators involved, possibly a sock or meatpuppet of a banned user (an Italian fascism/irredentism extremist) who made a lot of mess in numerous Dalmatia and Croatia related articles during last a year and half. He was always followed by bunch of anons and damage done is so huge that we need 1 year more to repair it this way, since we must constantly clean it, almost every day there is some anon vandalism around in mentioned articles, although "the brain" was banned. Maybe that's why some nervousness is present here. Kubura was just trying to get some help from admins, that's all. Once again, calm down please and happy New Year to both of you. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IN order to get the result you speak of, you'd need to provide evidence of ongoing troubles and harrassments. That has not been done here. As Iv'e said, ad nauseum, all that was brought here was one edit, which was perfectly valid and improved the project. That's it. that's all that was put up for review. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! An user blanked a group of references! That's vandalism! Zenanarh (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he blanked redundant ELs. they aren't' inline cited, and in no way were they specifically tied to the contention within the article which he removed. I realize you don't want to hear anything about this but us fawning over you and gutting him like a fish, but that will not happen. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah userbox

Unresolved

 – moved continuing discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. slakr^\ talk /

User:Raggz

Unresolved

 – Moved thread over 50kb to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

slakr^\ talk /

Still ongoing via multiple pages. Disruption, wikilawyering, gaming the system, threats, mild trolling on talk pages, and now a new single-user account (User:Ryder Spearmann) has showed up as of a few days ago, writing in the same style as Raggz and making the same arguments. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just coincidence, I don't know. —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone inform User:Raggz that consensus on article talk pages does not override WP:NPOV. He just claimed that it does here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article subpage for on-topic discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to, but unfortunately this problem is being reported by other editors, and is now duplicated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# User:Raggz is issuing threats. —Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I would like an administrator's advice on how to deal with Ghanadar galpa on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) talk page. I have tried to point out problems with the sources he is using to support his anti-CPM POV, which he regards as the "truth". However, his behaviour is quite aggressive, confrontational and uncompromising. He has now accused me of being a part of "a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia."[3] It is difficult to know what to do in such a situation. If he thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is hired by the CPM, then I don't think it bodes well for any meaningful mediation. I am unclear what the "referral for comment" procedure entails. Is this in addition or complementary to discussing it on this noticeboard? Is this noticeboard the first place to raise these issues?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might also want to look at the well-sourced [[4]] section that Conjoiner and his drive-by revert buddy Soman are desperately trying to remove

• [5]: mass blanking as a "minor change"
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

and then using numerous interesting epithets[9], right before making disparaging remarks] about peer-reviewed sources and trying to discredit them, even after their peer-reviewed status has been independently attested by the British Journal of Sociology.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I would like to make two points; [10] has a edit summary which reads 'rv, minor changes'. This should be understood as revert + minor changes. 2) regarding [11], the anon user has already been reported in a separate ANI. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'

I haven't been 'using numerous interesting epithets', I agreed with the anon user on the rejection of the way the 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' subsection was presented. The epithet raising was done by the anon user, this accusation is merely guilt by association. --Soman (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 'disparaging remarks' in [12]? Regarding the accusation of 'drive-by reverts', I began arguing at the talk page in early December for the removal of the controversies chapter. --Soman (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The climate of discussion has taken yet another step in a downward spiral, as conspiracy theories on Communist-Nazi connections by guilt by association arguments are levelled at the talk page. It is needed that more editors involve themselves in the discussion, so that the article can move forward. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I'm not so bothered by the accusations that I am a "Communist gangster", but there does need to be some mediation/arbitration involved by a neutral party and/or more editors from outside the discussion so we can move on. I don't know why the administrators noticeboard and the referral for comments mechanisms are not producing any results in terms of greater involvement from the Wikipedia community.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In what I would see as a related issue, User:Ghanadar galpa has begun to include the link to Nandigram violence in 'see also' sections of Great Purge, Victims of Communism Memorial, Criticisms of Communist party rule, etc., a completly ahistorical comparison for pov purposes. --Soman (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) See also, [13]. --Soman (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) User:Ghanadar galpa begins to use the term genocide for the Nandigram conflict; [14] --Soman (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This has now spilled over to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 9, with User:Ghanadar galpa claim that those who disagree with him as are 'CPI(M) members'. Moreover, launches the conspiracy theory that CPI(M) and CPI(Maoist) are allies, whilst disregarding the campaign of assassinations of CPI(M) cadres by Maoists. --Soman (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that writing anything on this noticeboard is farcical. Either administrators are indifferent or they are asleep. The referral for comment has also achieved no results. Can someone suggest any alternative solution which could avert an edit war that threatens to spill over into a vast range of articles? (for instance, the likening of the CPI(M) to an entirely unrelated Italian terrorist group Red Brigade [15] and the portrayal of the West Bengal state government as the Red Terror [16] - both of which are absurd POV-pushing) If no-one is prepared to say anything, then I guess the situation will have to deteriorate to a point where enough people are aggravated into doing something.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A user RfC might help. Otherwise keep on discussing it, insisting on sources, and such individuals eventually go away. Relata refero (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't want to get bogged down in yet more dead ends, which could simply sustain the problems. The important thing is to have guidance and/or mediation from a neutral party, since we are getting nowhere as it is. Hopefully, this will neutralise the problems with this particular editor without seeking recriminations. But ultimately if this doesn't work in focusing User:Ghanadar galpa, then perhaps a user RfC is the only way to prevent chaos from breaking out across a wide range of articles.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone double check this please?

This behavior makes no sense to me. Can someone double check this please? Is delete the default regardless of fair use justification? Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion? Why? Is it acceptable to robotically dismantle wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, did you try his talk page first? John Reaves 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears (from just looking at a couple) that images are being tagged that have no copyright status or fair use rationale. And yes, this is wikipedia policy. Images without a clear copyright tag or use as fair use without a fair use rationale are likely to be deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it you have a problem with? Since you didn't mention this to me and only linked to my contributions, its a bit difficult to see what you might be concerned with. Shell ^babelfish 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion. It is fair use to use the cover of a book on an article about that book. Images that say exactly that are being marked for deletion. Images with a fair use rationale are being marked for deletion. It appears that tags are being placed without actually reading the data about the image. In short it appears to be robot-like tagging. Or maybe someone has a vastly different idea of "fair use". I'm aware that the legal definition and the Wikipedia fair use criteria differ, but last I heard, book covers were allowed on articles about that book. Has this changed, or are these tags being placed inappropriately? One or the other is true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the image you were referring to [17]. It appears you also blindly reverted my tags without fixing the problem. You may wish to review WP:NFCC which discusses fair use rationales in detail. Per my understanding saying "Fair use is claimed for this low res image of the book cover for use in illustrating the article about the book at Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom." isn't sufficient as a fair use rationale. Specifically there is no mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used). Shell ^babelfish 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My question to the admins here is "Is it appropriate to demand mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used) in all cases?" I can't see it. It is a minimal size image of a cover that has no obvious commercial use other than illustrating the novel. What sort of discussion could I possibly provide on using say the top half or the bottom half of the image. This strikes me as absurd. This appears to me to simply be deleting images to make wikipedia worse. Wholesale deletion if people who loaded up book cover images years ago and are gone now don't magically show up and jump through absurd hoops. I see a lack of thought and effort and mere robotic labeling in preparation for robotic deletion. I object to this thoughtless trashing of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be looking at the wrong version of the rationale, but I was struck by these two sentences: "The book 'Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom' is copyrighted under a Creative Commons license. The copyright status of the cover art is unknown." Isn't this a justifiable case where we should ignore all rules, & assume a reasonable reproduction of the cover art is allowed on Wikipedia until proven otherwise? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm just puzzled over the need to dot i's & cross t's in this one case.)-- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WAS: This is not the place to discuss established policy. If you want to change that policy, start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, though I doubt that it will get anywhere. Also, per llywrch, fair use may not have to be involved at all, but you still need a copyright tag. Finally, we need to know which creative commons license is used before we make any assumptions about the copyright status of the image (unless of course we can find proof of an acceptable license for the cover). --Thinboy00 @029, i.e. 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alfred Legrand: Disruption and sockpuppetry

User:MathStatWoman sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins Kelly Martin & Fred Bauder, see summary of behaviour here), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is now at AfD. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template Feb 07).

The most recent R. S. Wenocur article was created by User:Alfred Legrand. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by Alfred Legrand include Marion Cohen (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and Mark Pinsky.

A confirmed MathStatWoman (by Fred Bauder here) sock is User:Philly Student, and MathStatWoman has edited Philadelphia related articles such as the Philly suburb article Ardmore, Pennsylvania, example (problematic) edits: [18], [19]. Alfred Legrand's also displays an interest in Philadelphia topics, making some problematic edits: (e.g. [20] & [21]).

MathStatsWoman complained that Utz chips ought to be deleted [22], Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it ([23]). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as Sweet Muenster Cheese, the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail and Whole stuffed camel. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini [24], the harvest moon beer coctail [25]. In a similar edit User:Samuel Kotz attributes a recipie for Sweet Muenster cheese (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur [26].

Not only is User:Alfred Legrand a transparent User:MathStatWoman sockpuppet, but quite aside from the sockpuppetry, these edits are disruptive to the project. Off to file at SSP now. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These personal attacks [27] [28] and this suggestion for deletion of the BLP David Eppstein [29] (a WP admin involved in wikiproject mathematics) are reminiscent of User:MathStatWoman. In addition donations of $34-89 to MSRI at the Fibonacci level (the "Archimedes Society" of MSRI), mentioned in the BLP of R. S. Wenocur, are not made public. This unsourced private detail in the BLP of Wenocur plus a copy of Wenocur's CV in Alfred Legrand's user space (User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur) suggests that it could be one of her close associates, possibly even Wenocur herself, making these edits. Mathsci (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RDSW (Roberta S. Wenocur) has made a statement here [30]. Alfred Legrand is referred to as Dr. Legrand, contrary to [31] & [32]. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On Jimbo's talk page [33] User:Alfred Legrand wrote:

« I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. »

These odd statements about reversions and blocks are not reflected in his history or block log and could be further evidence of sockpuppetry. In addition this user vandalized Cave painting in the the most perverse way here [34]. All the sources are incorrect and the crazy additions seem typical of MathStatWoman. The edit refers to Cro-Magnon characters called "Me Ogg" and "Ugga"; the female "Ugga" counts in base thirty and moreover

«  Og and Ugga contributed to probability theory, especially empirical measures. Og say: How many buffolo we catch this moon? Ugga say: three. Og ask: How many we try to catch? Ugga say: thirty. So empitical measure of 3/30 = 0.1 was invented. »

It is very hard to assume good faith when editors behave as vandals like this. Or am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The "suggestion for deletion" mentioned above has now been turned into an actual AfD, here, but the nomination appears to be incomplete. For obvious reasons I don't want to complete the nomination process or otherwise clean up the mess myself — can someone else do so, please? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a few SPAs showing up out of nowhere at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur, if anyone wants to go sort the whole mess out. shoy 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also User:MathStatWoman made a surprise reappearance there, after the mathematical hoaxes by now-blocked User:Alfred Legrand. These two editors corrected some of the hoax entries with their own user accounts, which seems to confirm Pete.Hurd's charge that one was a sockpuppet of the other. Mathsci (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User Luke0101

• Luke0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Luke0101 is creating difficulties on at least two pages. Luke0101 appears to be editing without communicating. I am not certain why, but I suggest that you review this pattern. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To save time, it would be helpful if you could say what pages, and what the difficulties are. --Elonka 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues seems resolved, thank you. Raggz (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think I wrote all the changes I made on the discussion page, not the talk page. (I was under the impression that the talk page and the discussion page was the same. My sincere apologies. --Luke (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

(weird edit conflict) The terms "discussion page" and "talk page" refer to the same thing, at least for articles anyway, and usually everywhere else. --Thinboy00 @040, i.e. 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages

• User:TTN is still or again indiscriminately replacing hundreds of pages about episodes of fiction serials by redirects to their parent pages. Some have called this "soft-deleting". This has caused many user complaints in User talk:TTN (also see its archive pages). I feel that:
  • He should be warned to stop this practice. If he wants to "soft-delete" all the episode pages about serial or show X, there should be an AfD discussion for each serial or show X involved.
  • Someone or a bot should revert all his edits which are the last edit to a page and are replacing a text page by a redirect. Then we and he can start again, AfD-discussing for each serial or show.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

His behavior has been to ArbCom and they did not sanction him. Every time I have taken the time to politely request an AfD, I have been obliged. What administrative action do you require? RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is a normal editorial decision that doesn't require any more previous discussion than any other content edit. He is making mass edits because there is a mass of trash to clean up. How else would you do it? And why waste more time on the junk? Show me one page, just one, that TTN has redirected in this latest spat of his that even remotely resembles a legitimate encyclopedia page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He was instructed to seek consensus via discussion before pulling this crap. If he's failing that, he's not meeting the expectations of his arbcom case, as amazingly weak as the decision was. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undone Anthony's revert spree (great, more crap on my watchlist). Talk first next time. --Jack Merridew 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone consider doing the same for similar reversions of TTN by Mvuijlst (talk · contribs) on Gilmore Girls articles? / edg ☺ ☭ 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anthony Appleyard is attempting to discredit TTN by making sweeping generalisations; I would like to see evidence that his edits are in breach of any guidelines before this complaint is brought here. If these episodes have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, then I would suggest TNT's edits are bold.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. I am not trying to discredit anyone. For an example of the user complaints about this "soft deleting", see User talk:TTN#a happy little note from a frustrated editor. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that this further highlights the need for a fandom/pop culture Wiki, where secondary sources and notability aren't required. People wouldn't fight so hard over these articles if a good alternative was available. *** Crotalus *** 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it highlights the need to block people who pull crap like this without discussion. But that's just me. R. Baley (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed. It highlights the need to block people who reinstate crap like this, which is a violation of our non-free content policies and potentially violates copyright. Which is exactly what I intend to do from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Quite. While there is obviously some dispute with certain articles, why on earth people would want to re-instate articles which quite obviously violate WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:N and always will, is beyond me. BLACKKITE 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I can't see any problem with TTN's particular edits here. Unlike some pages, articles like the Shorty McShorts' Shorts episodes are never going to have enough to be standalone articles, and redirecting is the correct move here. I really don't see why this is controversial at all; if it was another editor than TTN doing it would there be the same problem? BLACKKITE 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone goes for another headhunt on TTN, perhaps they should look at the articles he is redirecting and see how they stand up to Wikipedia's existing policies. A took a snapshot of some of the articles and all of them fail WP:NOT#PLOT because they are just merely plot summaries. They also fail WP:SOURCES as not a single one of them contains a single independent reliable third-party source. As such, there is no way they can pass WP:NOTE or any of the other notability criteria. So rather then waist time and sending the articles to WP:AfD, he is redirecting/merging them into the appropriate list which stands a much better chance at establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It sorta would help to know if TTN's present behavior is objectionable or not. I agree that the ultimate result (merge individual eps to episode list) is appropriate for those that do not demonstrate notability, but as I'm trying to wrap up a rewrite of WP:FICT, TTN's name comes up nearly once a day, and so we're trying to make sure that there is an acceptable route of actions to dealing with non-notable articles.

I pulled out one at random from TTN's latest edits: A Family Matter (a Gilmore Girls episode). A user (not TTN) added the {{plot}} tag in September, a random IP added {{notability}} in late November. Outside of the bot edits for these tags, there were two changes made since and both only adding info to the plot. So TTN goes ahead and redirects the article without any additional discussion, neither on the article page or the main Gilmore Girls talk page. A month seems like a reasonable time to wait for notability to be demonstrated, but there's also the lack of notification (as best I can tell) that TTN was going to mass-run through all articles. My only argument against TTN's actions here is that he is not discussing them first with appropriate talk pages even though they were "notified" by the tags that cleanup was needed. --MASEM 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discussion should occur and consensus should be found as the arbcom bearing TTN's name urged. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the actions are controversial, I agree. Deleting (or redirecting in this case) articles which patently fail multiple Wikipedia policies is not controversial, however much heat and light it may generate. If these articles went to AfD they would be deleted. Having said that, it might be the best option in order that re-creations of similar articles fell under CSD criterion G4, whereas at the moment CSD is not available for use (and rightly, I think).BLACKKITE 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The pale fact that his behavior has spawned an arbcom case, multiple threads here and heated discussion at WP:FICT highlights that his efforts are indeed controversial. It is quite silly to say otherwise based on the mounds of evidence to the contrary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I use merge tags with series with more than thirteen episodes, those with high "traffic", or those that actually require info to be merged. In the case of the Gilmore Girls, only the pilot has more than fifty edits (and it still has less than one hundred), and it has been around since '05. There is no reason for discussion in that case. The only thing a discussion would lead to is the one user gaining the ability to wikilawyer by claiming that there is no consensus found in the local discussion. TTN (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that discussions on episode article Talk pages tend to rally editors whose interest in logging their fandom tends to exceed their concern for policy. Recently such articles, which by WP:EPISODE should have Merge discussions, have been discussed as Articles for deletion. Is something broken here? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Semantics only, I think. Merging and redirecting these episodes to the list article is above called "soft-deleting" (I don't like the phrase, but I see why it's used) as the actual redirects themselves will probably never be searched for. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why the pages themselves couldn't go to AfD as many are obviously unencyclopedic without hope of rescue; it's just that redirecting is less of a waste of everyone's time and effort. BLACKKITE 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that if you bring these types up for discussion, you are going to get the rallying cry. At the same time, when it is done "without warning" (e.g. the case of "A Family Matter"), WP:FICT gets hit with requests to drop that guideline (despite the fact that it's built on PLOT and NOTE), and what is partially behind the fact that it's been unstable for about 6 months now. Again, I agree with the general outcome of TTN's edits that the bulk of these articles are non-notable and should not have been created until notability is established, but if you look through WP:FICT's talk page and archives, you'll see that there's a lot of people that want to almost stop TTN from doing what he does, which is making trying to rewrite this more difficult. The best I've been able to add is that at best, merging or transwiking the info to an appropriate wiki is a better solution than AfD, but even these merge actions are being seen as aggressive. --MASEM 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Only by a vocal minority. TTN is doing some very useful work - these articles are all garbage. I have not yet seen him redirect a decent referenced episode article. And I have not once seen him refuse to civilly and politely accept any requests from dissenting editors for an article to go to AFD for further discussion. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who happily revert back to recreate articles that fail a laundry list of policies because "TTN did it" is the behavioural issue here, not TTN's actions. Neıl ☎ 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting other peoples' work. If you cannot avoid this, please instead avoid the topic. This is an obviously inflammatory matter where a number of people feel that they're not being trated fairly, and you're not helping. --Kizor 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The people that create plot-summary-only articles and revert legitimate redirects aren't helping either, and they are a far worse problem than TTN.Kww (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that's relevant to civility. --Kizor 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely echo Neil's comment above; this is cruft and TTN's efforts are not problematic. As this AN/I discussion is showing (as those before this one), there is general community consensus that our policies, principles and guidelines be enforced. Reference to the arbcom decision in the case where the content is in clear violation of those principles is cross-eyed wikilawyering. Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

...And neither is that, or is it? --Kizor 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil's right in the action increasingly becoming wrong just because "TTN did it" - a discussion two days ago was trying to get TTN's monobook blanked for reverting a user who was reverting them back against a unobjected wikiproject consensus. Will ^(talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a discussion on that very topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the mass-redirect (or soft delete if you will) of the Gilmore Girls episodes. I have no strongly held opinions whatsoever about those articles. I do doubt the way this was done, certainly in the light of the recent Arbitration Committee decision that urged for a degree of cooperation and consensus. I just checked in the mirror, and nope: neither wailing nor gnashing of teeth. No happily reverting either: regretfully reverting, twice even, because I think it's the right thing to do. As it's been said elsewhere: there's no hurry. Why not leave things up, and trust the community to come up with a good solution? Sweeping those episode articles under the rug does nobody a favour and only polarises the issue. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If (and that's a big if) there was any possibility that these articles could become encyclopedic at any point, I would agree with you. But (in these cases at least) there is not. They fail practically every article-related policy that Wikipedia has, as pointed out above. It doesn't matter what the community "consensus" is here - it will never trump policy. I'm sure there are episode articles for other series that are, or may at some point, become good articles - in those cases discussion is the correct way forward. BLACKKITE 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For some of the earlier discussions, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#A_big_campaign_against_articles_about_fictional_events and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TTN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for a clarification on the above, please see User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Caution. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• For each set of episode pages of one serial or show, start an AfD. If that AfD after due discussion says "delete", THEN redirect the episode pages to their main page, with the edit comment "Redirected per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/xxxxxx". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy does not require an editor to do that. It's why WP:MERGE and WP:BOLD exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I support fully TTN's actions. He'snot at all totalitarian about this, but completely open to reasonable discussion. To wit, I'm a member of WP:HEROES. I went to TTN and asked that he skip our project's domain, and let us sort it out. He agreed easily. I think TTN's contributions really do clean up Wikipedia. Do we really need that many Gilmore Girls articles? I just wish he'd take on Family Guy. There are WAY too many plot nad pop culture only episodes, and few with actual real-world relevant content. TTN provides Wikipedia with incrementally better credibility the more episode articles her turns into redirects, by helping us put the proper emphasis on the wide range of topics we cover. Should editors find his BOLD MERGEs inappropriate, then can easily revert them and improve the articles. ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that TTN is doing a good thing overall, he seems to be resorting to edit wars rather than let editors revert the redirects. A glance through the histories of Rabbot, Animal Farm (Oz), Cosmo and Wanda, Denzel Crocker, Francis (The Fairly OddParents), and any number of other articles shows repeated reverts to the desired redirect without any discussion on the relevant talk pages, a far cry from the recommended BRD pattern that generally works so well. If TTN is serious about making these redirects stick, discussions leading to consensus is the only way to do it. --jonny-mt 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. His edit summaries are clear, and people revert because they worked hard on that crap, instead of working hard to get it ABOVE the level of crap. If every time some idiot reverted to the full article with the 'well, a real person is an actor on the show, that's real world info, now we must discuss', TTN's intentions would totally fail. because each and every single article would require the same level of craptastical disputation. Why don't the various editors instead actually improve the articles? The BEST I can see being reasonable is if TTN used a bot to follow behind each redirect, posting a stock new section to the article talk, in which it stated something to the effect of 'due to a lack of Real World Context and Notability, the article has been redirected to the main list of articles. Until such citable information is added, do not restore the article. Please use this talk page to build up a good article, thank you, sincerely, TTN'. But to expect him to go through and explain, ten thousand times a week, that a fifteen paragraph plot summary and a holistic cast and crew section aren't real world context, and fight at it till all the editors understand, is NOT a realistic situation. He's cleaning up this project. Do we really need MORE articles about Gilmore Girls or Family Guy than we do about the statesmen of all the varied nations, or all the animals cataloged by scientists? What's REALLY mroe encyclopedic? ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think your tag-along bot proposal is pretty good, but I have to disagree with your assessment of "Redirect per WP:FICT. Do not bring this back without adding real world information." as a clear edit summary. WP:FICT is a disputed policy (the talk page currently lists no less than seven drafts), and WP:WAF is an accompanying guideline to WP:MOS. I'm of the opinion that until he can demonstrate some sort of broad-based consensus for redirecting and merging episodes and other similar articles, he should follow the slower procedures on WP:MERGE (including following through with discussion and refraining from edit warring when another editor objects to his actions). --jonny-mt 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are up here because of the VivianDarkbloom incident report. It's worthy of note that none of the articles involved there would pass any version of WP:FICT. They were only plot summaries.Kww (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You assume right :) While this doesn't excuse her actions and I have no intention of contesting your point that the redirects are a Good Thing, edit warring is edit warring even when you're warring for a good cause. Multiple reverts, recruiting other users to help with the reverts, refusing to take issues to the relevant talk pages--these actions do not adhere to the collegial spirit we try to create here.

While he certainly hasn't slipped into incivility and isn't trying to make a point with his edits as VivianDarkbloom did, he has also failed to demonstrate that his actions are based on consensus (with the possible exception of the redirects related to the Avatar Wikiproject). Wikipedia is a slow-cook project; I see no need to rush and take care of these articles before WP:FICT is settled (after all, an eleventh-hour proposal allowing these articles isn't outside the realm of possibility). Alternately, he could bring the issue up with the relevant WikiProject to ensure some level of consensus and community support before diving in to a given series. Or the simple act of moving it to the talk page could defuse a lot of tempers. There are any number of constructive ways to address the problems he wants to address, and those should be the first stop in undertaking a task of this magnitude. In fact, this is one of the remedies suggested in the oft-mentioned ArbCom case. As an aside, TTN mentioned there that he would refrain from edit warring and utilize AfDs more often.

Speaking of resolutions, has any need for administrative action been raised? --jonny-mt 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to wallow in a feel-good spirit of collegiality, good faith and the like, but don't willfully be an ingenu. The contours of the ongoing struggle over whether Wikipedia should be allowed to become a fansite are so vast that the kind of happy back and forth you envision is not only impractical, but serves those who tout such a recourse as a means of gaming the system. [[ThuranX's point above is extremely well put. I would add that Wikipedia's reputation is heavily unsettled by the fact that we permit 20,000 word articles on subjects like Optimus Prime, crammed with minutiae that reflect the overwhelmingly white American, 20-35 year old, computer literate, rather nerdy, anime-watching, single male that largely defines the content here. With Wikipedia's credibility already so shellacked by intensely detailed game guides, and veritably voluminous information on every single transformer to have been schlocked by Japanese marketing mandarins, I submit that removing the navel-gazing, in-universe, trivia laden fancrufty material that is slowly turning Wikipedia into TV.com is perhaps rather more urgent than your breezy and wide-armed Weltanschauung implies. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me towards a discussion about the extent that destruction of content, mass or otherwise, is suitable for defending our reputation? I've seen this used as a justification four times in a short period of time and am quite interested in it. Data on how and how much our reputation is affected would also be helpful. --Kizor 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than respond directly to your comment (incidentally, what exactly is an "ingenu"?), I'll simply point you to DGG's comment below, as he summarizes everything that I would say. Given that I've already contributed enough to the usurpation of AN/I to discuss something that does not seem to require administrative intervention, I'll refrain from further comments here and simply keep any eye on the more appropriate venues at WP:DR. --jonny-mt 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That depends on the definition of "crap". E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft and I skip over it; but I know that football is important to many people and I do not go round deleting or soft-deleting dozens of football-related pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly - to repeat myself again - because most football pages don't fail practically every article-related Wikipedia policy, which these episode pages (the ones in question) do. Of course, should you find football pages that have major issues, feel free to be WP:BOLD with them. BLACKKITE 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'I see some comments above that notice should be given because then editors involved with the topic may oppose the merge. this is a direct repudiation of the principle of community editing and transparency. If wider attention is needed, and a group cabal of some sort is suspected, AfD and dispute resolution is available, Even BRD requires the opportunity for R and D. The opinions above indicate that a number of contributors to this noticeboard think differently than the people at WT:FICTION. I didn't know we decided on article content here, or on the appropriateness of merges. WI did think that what we dealt with here were attempts to subvert the processes of article discussion and policy formation--and mass nomination of anything controversial is in my eyes an attempt to to do that. DGG (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that I personally dont care in the least about whatever may happen to articles on this subject--a subject in which I have no actual interest whatever. I became involved in the discussion when i say that repeated attempts were made in various forums here to affect consensus formation by attempting to overwhelm AfD--and similar projects. I accept the good faith of those wanting to purge the encyclopedia in one blow of everything they dislike--but it's not the way we work. at least, not the way we should be working. . DGG (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks these mass deletions do a service to Wikipedia is severly deluded. Two years ago, for example, there were detailed articles on individual characters within the Nickelodeon cartoon The Fairly OddParents, along. Now there's a single list of characters, and it alone has been tagged for deletion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; This is a sabotage mission! And if anybody objects to me saying that, well that's too damn bad! I'm still right about it! ----DanTD (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that TTN and Jack Merridew are still edit-warring over Fawlty Towers episodes even when editors are making efforts to improve articles. [35], [36]. Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it. And that's because they have gone on deletion sprees as I and others have tried to improve articles. And ThuranX, you're wrong about your our pereception of what constitutes "real world information," but it's getting to the point where the best we can come up with to save articles from people like you is to say that "a real person is an actor on the show, that's real world info." Of course, even if that alone were enough, you people would still trash them anyway. ----DanTD (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the best you can come up with is to find real world information about them. The actor voicing a character gets that mentioned on HIS page, and on the show's main article. What you actually need is something like production information, or perhaps a lawsuit over an episode, like Heroes premiere episode, Genesis. That articles' still not at it's best, but real world lawsuits resulting from that airing constitutes legitimate real world context. As to the football comparison, it's false on it's face ,as football constitutes real people playing against other real people, providing thousands of other real people with jobs. Football prompts the construction of notable buildings, creates massive income and expenditures for cities, meaning real world people pay taxes for traffic studies, police presence, inspectors, water and power outlays, and so on and on and on. The real world impact of football is so amply documented, and so easily citable, that I just pulled all that off the top of my head, and it's a horribly minute representation of the impact of football. And I don't even care about football too much beyond beer and subs for the SuperBowl. What you'd need to do for a cartoon is to state things like 'Group X objects to the positive/negative portrayal of magic and fairies on television, citing the core texts and ideas of the group protesting. The group effects protests of the following nature'. that's notable. "The cartoon innovated the animation industry by merging rotoscoping and Ralph Steadman's splotchy inking style by means of a complicated set of algorithms, as detailed in the november issue of UBerAniGeek magazine'. That's notable. 'Timmy saved the earth forty-three times and no one knows his goldfish are faireies' is not notable. Please, I beg of you, find sources in media, or in scholarly literature about the characters themselves, or their effects on children, or ANYTHING like this. Then we can validate the article about that character, that episode, or wahtever. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above issues, I need to point out that TTN has twice nominated the episode Bells (Blackadder) for AFD in the space of less than 6 weeks. The first nomination (archived here) was made on Nov 24, 2007 and was closed on Nov. 29 as the result of a WP:SNOW keep vote. The same episode has been nominated again by the same editor on January 9, 2008 (see here). And at present it appears it'll SNOW again. Isn't there a policy prohibiting the repeated nomination of articles in such a short period of time after surviving an AFD challenge? If not, there should be. 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The first close wasn't a WP:SNOW closed. It also doesn't reflect a true consensue as most of the commenters were Blackadder fans. Therefore all of the keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT arguements and weren't based on policies or guidelines. So it was bound to be renominated sooner or later. --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, most of these complaints about TTN is getting down right silly. It's nothing more then a lot of huffing and puffing because TTN is taking on their precious wall gardens which already are in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies. --Farix (Talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK is the british Australian goverment RS then?

OK, given Gavin's comments about secondary sources, how about this then? Isn't this shifting the goalposts?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the government document, you can see that it is a trivial mention. So as a bases of establishing notability, it isn't sufficient. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines are currently disputed - and folks are interpreting them how they want anyway. Referencing in an independent source is fine by me. I am also aware of books on Rowan Atkinson/Blackadder which a quick search with google will highlight in a few seconds, as well as newspaper articles etc. I don't own said books nor am I likely to go and buy them but there is enough for me to know 3rd party sourcing is out there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility block on Neutralhomer

I just blocked Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for increasing incivility and would like review from other admins. Here's my blocking reason to him:

You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your increasing incivility. Posts such as this where you suggest someone "gets a life" and other posts like this and this are completely inappropriate. In the past weeks you've been getting more and more testy and have showed no signs of stopping. You need to take some time to step away and calm down. Metros (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been ongoing behavior with him in the last weeks where he has, basically, stalked other users, instigated revert wars, and been somewhat unwilling to discuss with any civility. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Metros (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes for interesting reading. Neutralhomer seems to have been baiting JPG-GR nearly continually (JPG-GR has pretty much refused to reply, simply archiving all NeutralHomer's incessant provocative comments). Particularly trite considering NH had a banner on his talk page up until 4 days ago ([37]) stating posts from JPG-GR would be immediately deleted. 48 hours is entirely appropriate. Neıl ☎ 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support your decision and the duration here as well, Metros. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, support block. Given his previous history, a week off may not have been inappropriate either. henrik•talk 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He has returned now and restored his "topdeely" template which asks particular people to stay off his talk page. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Neutralhomer/TopDeely. Metros (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said on Metros' talk page....the same "incivility" can be said for those "Rouge Admin" userboxes or "rules" on other users talk pages. If one were to delete my "top deely" header on incivility alone, one would also have to delete several userboxes, several talk pages of "rules" and many other things

You can't call one thing "incivil" and not another when that other could be...and sometimes is...just as "incivil".

I would, though, be willing to make a compromise. The header be allowed to stay with altered text. Something like "Posts from JPG-GR, Betacommand, BetacommandBot and Calton are not welcome. Thank You." or "If users JPG-GR, Betacommand, BetacommandBot and Calton would kindly not post on my talk page, I would greatly appericate it"....or whatever. I just don't want these people posting on my talk page. Messages from these people normally come with a migraine for which I am trying to avoid. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, there is nothing wrong with the top section of calton's talkpage. I have something very similar. neither are incivil, yours is. β^_command 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, cause it involves you? If it involved User:FrankQEditor, I betcha it wouldn't be that incivil. Also, when someone has an 11-step reason why you shouldn't post on their talk page and what they will do if you do...that is incivil...big time. So is that "BS" comment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility continues

Neutralhomer's incivility has continued as seen here on my talk page (since removed from my talk page). I was accused of somehow blocking his IP abusively. He's been trying to bait me into more of an argument with taunting lines like "Let's see you get this one deleted". I'm obviously not going to block him myself, but does anyone else have opinions on this? Metros (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NH has now apparently retired, after going on a speedy-spree on all his pages. However, he was kind enough to violate WP:CIVILITY one more time by posting this on my talk page. For those of you who don't speak Polish, that would be "fuck you." JPG-GR (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Cardiff edits

90.203.45.168 shows strong indication of anti-Cardiff point of view and reflects it in his/her edits to Cardiff (such as removal of information in the Media section which he/she ironically summarises the edit as POV), Cardiff Central railway station where he/she removed yet more information and also in Swansea railway station. User was warned by me but removed the message from his/her user page before making the above edits. Would like administration intervention please. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, when you have to accuse everyone else of "anti-Cardiff POV", you need to stop and consider whether it's actually you engaging in "pro-Cardiff POV". 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: WP:AN/I#User:Welshleprechaun. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because you're the only one appearing to be making such edits. My edits state facts which you obviously don't like Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun

This user is consistently trying to own articles relating to the Cardiff area, editing articles to conform to their own POV, and accusing anyone that disagrees of editing with an "anti-Cardiff POV". They then have the audacity to warn other users for vandalism when an article is edited in a way that they do not agree with [38]-[39] AIV when trying to insert their POV failed. A browse through the edit history of Cardiff will demonstrate this nicely. Evidence of branding good edits as vandalism: wording change, restoring own POV, introducing an inaccuracy, branding the edit that removed it "unnecessary", fabricated a claim as to population rank. Evidence of POV editing: [40] [41] [42] [43] (note use of "belittlement") [44] [45] (inflating the position of the city) [46] [47] [48] (an audacious attempt to change the MoS) [49] [50] (yet more insistence on adding Cardiff everywhere) [51]. Evidence of inaccuracies: [52] [53] [54]

In all, the user has been warned for seeming ownership, fabrication, attacking users, and POV editing. Despite all of this, the user continues to behave disruptively, placing bogus warnings on other users' talk pages, and then chastising said users for removing them, claiming that "you shall not remove vandalism warnings", when it is clearly established that users and anons are entitled to do just that (removing comments from user talk IIRC is generally regarded as a sign that said user has read those comments). This user clearly shows no sign of changing their behaviour, and no intention of adhering to our policies and guidelines. I ask that something be done. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: WP:AN/I#Anti-Cardiff edits. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IgorBlucher on Gavin Newsom

IgorBlucher‎ appears to be a single purpose account that only desires to attack Gavin Newsom‎. As per the article talk page, he continued to assert that Newsom couldn't be Catholic anymore because...well, because Igor doesn't think he should be. When pressed, he provided "sources" that in no way stated what he claimed they did. He asked for more input. More input was provided...and every single other editor who contributed claimed that he was wrong. He is edit warring and ignoring every other editor. I am tired of trying to deal with him. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irishguy if you tired take a wikibreak, go see a movie or do something else. Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to make valid contributions to the Gavin Newsom article in good faith. There is evident controversy concerning the issue of Newsom's religious standing, with valid sources discussing his excommunication and separation from the Church. These contributions are being deleted without cause. Further, no consensus has been reached, contrary to any such claims. I would like to make additional contributions but am spending my time on with this matter. I also find at least one of these "editors" on the article talk page to be suspicious and uncivil. I need help dealing with this problem. Thank you in advance. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility on the Talk page. You make claims that IrishGuy is being uncivil on the page, but I don't see it. What I do see is your unsubstantiated POV. (I'm non-Catholic and don't care one way or the other, so I don't have an axe to grind on this issue) Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, as noted on the article talk page the only "source" you have is an article from October 2005 which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. The other "sources" don't even remotely state what you claim they do...and others have pointed this out on the talk page and when reverting you. Yet you continue to act as thought there is "controversy" about this person when there clearly isn't. If you cannot come up with something better than a two year old article it is obviously a non-issue. Which editor do you find "suspicious"? You keep making this claim but you don't elaborate. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact)." Repeatedly deleting my valid contributions and commanding others' behaviour is most certainly uncivil. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of Gavin Newsom before this exchange, but a reading shows your contributions are being deleted because they obviously don't belong in the article. Thus, it's not uncivil to delete them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of the man either. I caught the edit summary of you can't marry, divorce and remarry; excommunicate in the recent changes and looked into the edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new sub-section, under "Controversies," on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy. There are years old articles that clearly led to nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow another Igor, how many Igors does it take to make you listen? Igor Berger (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It would only take one with convincing arguments. In any case, IgorBlucher (talk · contribs) is violating several policies, including WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, not to mention edit-warring in an attempt to insert this material against consensus. Either come up with reliable, independent secondary sources demonstrating this is actually a current, notable controversy or stop inserting it. If you continue, you're going to be blocked for tendentious editing, edit-warring, WP:BLP violations, etc. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided valid sources regarding the existence of the controversy. IgorBlucher (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no one else agrees. I would encourage you to engage on the article talk page, make your case, and try to achieve consensus. But in the interim, if you continue edit-warring, you're going to end up blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor I strongly recommend to listen to User:MastCell he speaks words of Wisdom and Jurisprudence. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that "no one else agrees", especially since discussions are newly underway. As for MestCell, I see he speaks words of Overpowerment, not of wisdom. As for Jurisprudence, i.e., a philosophy of law, either natural or officiated by an institution-- that would be WP:LEGAL violation or threat. I'll WP:AGF you didn't mean that. IgorBlucher (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering, its not gonna win you any support. The sources you have to support the inclusion of a controversy section appear to be invalid. Go get proper ones and no one will dispute the section, if they're valid--Jac16888 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would agree that there is controversy, but that's not what IgorBlucher was originally placing in the article, and the conclusions he is reaching are not supported by the sources used. The most recent attempt, a new section, is closer to a solution, but the claims were so far from factually accurate that they had to be removed per WP:BLP. Pairadox (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Like http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. The section is valid and shouldn't have been deleted.

Oh, come on, if that's your type of source, then there's no argument here at all. Nowhere does that even mention his having been excommunicated, nor does it call him an ex-Catholic or any other type of Catholic. That's not a source for any of your claims. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? Oh, you must mean the other Igor. Stop-- a command? Couldn't be-- that's a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]. I'll WP:AGF on that one, too. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. IgorBlucher, if you want to make a claim in an article, you must be ready to present a source that explicitly covers said claim. Implicit claims are inappropriate, especially involving living person biographies; you can't put multiple sources together to make a new claim. A controversy section is an appropriate section for this article (and there is a modest one, in this case), and specific cited statements may be appropriate to add to such a section, but please do not continue edit warring, tendentious editing, or being otherwise discourteous. — Scientizzle 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And i was telling you, IgorBlucher, to stop wikilawyering, not anyone else--Jac16888 (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. You are Wikilawyering. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now looked in detail at IgorBlucher's contributions and... good grief. Igor, you must read WP:BLP which details Wikipedia policy on biographical material for living persons. I gather you don't like Gavin Newsom but that's all the more reason you must scrupulously adhere to Wikipedia policy in this regard. By now you've repeatedly been warned; next time you do something like this, you'll be blocked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You gather incorrectly. please WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL.

Stop complaining about incivility, wikilawyering, and bad faith. When there isn't a single other person who supports your contentions, you might want to look at yourself. You're being disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I am asking you and other users, at present a small group acting uncivilly and creating disruptions, to please remain WP:CIVIL, while I am making valuable contributions. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Counting myself, NINE other Wiki-editors find that you are NOT making a valuable contribution, but instead violating numerous policies. Please stop. I support a preventative 72 hour cool-down block for this editor, who can't understand, or won't understand, the problems. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A small group, who others may disagree with, myself included. Please WP:AGF. My contributions are valuable. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not valuable if you have to flat-out disregard our bio policy and our verifiability policies to make them, and assuming good faith only stretches so far. I count 10 now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said before, a small group. I have not disregarded policies, and am making valuable contributions in good faith. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we oferd help, but it looks like you are not interested, so untill you can figure out what to do, stay hear and argue with each other. Nobody is getting banned or blocked! Enjoy, have fun, and learn..:) Igor Berger (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Igor Berger! Your help is appreciated. Onward and upward! IgorBlucher (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So far your "valuable contributions" amount to two references for the infobox that merely confirm what was never in doubt - Gavin Newsom is Catholic. On the other hand, there are now a lot of editors who are aware of your editing style. Pairadox (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to work with other editors interested in working with me. IgorBlucher (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Translated to "I am happy to work with other editors who agree with me". Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. A review of the article talk page shows he continues to single-mindedly pursue his agenda, despite continiued opposition by many others. He repeats his premise, and other statements as a response to any opposition, not unlike that annoying person, who keeps asking a question louder each time the answer is not the desired one. We've seen it on sitcoms plenty of times, and probably experienced it in proximity to small children and their parents. It's no less condescending now. Because he cannot be stopped, I'd support a 96 hour cool off block, so he can take the rest of the week, and weekend, to think about how to better approach the collaborative editing process.ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VivianDarkbloom

Quite a rampage today. She has taken part in edit warring on at least 24 articles, and gone on her own personal antiporn crusade, putting false "db-bio" tags on numerous articles, including articles that included such statements as "In 2007, she was named Directrix of the Year at the Adam Film World Guide Awards", "94 listed works in the Adult Film database", "worked in over 150 pornographic movies with some of the biggest names in porn". Maybe not the most savory of occupations, but clearly assertions of notability, making it hard to believe that these are good faith A7 candidates. After some of these got removed, she proceeded to go on a tirade against Epbr123, with what can only be politely called an uncivil note.Kww (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

She's been warned by LaMenta3, and the tagging seems to have died down for the time being. I've removed the last two remaining CSD tags noting that the articles make some claim of importance--although she needs to work on her civility a bit (WP:WQA might be a first step in dealing with that issue), she does show signs of working within the system. Unless others have a different take on this or the disruptive tagging starts up again, it seems to me that this issue can be considered closed. --jonny-mt 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that warning is probably appropriate, but, digging through her contribution history, a specific warning about the misapplication of A7 tags in addition to the one she has received about incivility seems in order to me.Kww (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me--I added one here. I also looked a little closer at her contributions, and it seems she has a bit of a penchant for edit warring over discussion (particularly against redirects), although to be honest responsibility for a number of these edit wars seems also to lie with TTN and Eusebeus, as they seem equally reluctant to take the issue to the talk page or even explain their reasons for redirecting in the edit summary (with a couple of exceptions). This, however, is a separate issue that would probably be better dealt with at WP:RFC or another stage of the dispute resolution process. --jonny-mt 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Or one of those issues could be brought up above instead. Remind me to look up in the future >.< --jonny-mt 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called wikistalking because he violently disagrees with our fiction redirects and has animus against TTN and me, which I reciprocate at this point. Vivian is a self-admitted sock and a highly disruptive editor who in my view should be blocked. The recent "edit war" consisted of going through my contribution history and undoing - in exact order, I mean you have to admire the gall - my wantonly vandalising efforts in backing up TTN's redirection of fiction related articles. Eusebeus (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree that that is where her warring tendencies lie. I suspect the porn crusade is an application of WP:POINT -> "If they are going to delete my teen fiction articles, I'll delete their porn stars." I actually wouldn't mind if she treated most of the porn articles the way TTN treats the badly written fiction pieces, but that involves following rules to the letter.Kww (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New day

Her contributions today consisted of once again restoring articles that consist only of plot summaries, staying only slightly below the 3RR limit. Her comment here makes it clear that she has no understanding that nominating articles that contain text like "In 2007, she was named Directrix of the Year at the Adam Film World Guide Awards", "94 listed works in the Adult Film database", "worked in over 150 pornographic movies with some of the biggest names in porn" via A7 was wholly inappropriate. I think it's time for a bigger hammer.Kww (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring over a speedy tag or a redirect, on either side, here. If it's contested, just take it to AfD instead of playing cops and robbers. This current handling is only going to cause more animosity on all sides. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

65.121.24.98 indefinite block nomination

Please check 65.121.24.98 's talk page. As you can see the person has been blocked (temp) 4 times and is still vandalizing pages. I do request that this person get an indefinite block to help keep the pages of Wikipedia vandal-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilm (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can not indef an anon unless they are static, just report to WP:AIV. Rgoodermote  22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the whois search is right, this IP belongs to Lowell Observatory. Rgoodermote  22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for six months; after reviewing its contributions at length, I was generally inclined to do the same (albeit with account creation enabled). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also IP's can be blocked indefinitely if they are open proxies. Oysterguitarist 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about open proxies, been a long time since I read anything on them. Rgoodermote  13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought open proxies were only supposed to be blocked for long periods of time, rather than indef, since they occasionally are reassigned. But that obviously might have changed - I don't keep up on OP blocking protocol. Natalie (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in ever indef blocking an IP. Even if an IP is a long term problem then block of up to 6 months can be used. It is not hard to deal with a problem IP every 6 months. 1 != 2 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef-blocks of open proxies are generally deprecated. There is currently a discussion about indef-blocks and open proxy (Tor) block lengths at Wikipedia talk:Blocking/TOR nodes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Babelious keeps editing my user page

Resolved

I'm not sure if he's clueless or a sock trying to bug me. Could someone intervene? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your user page contained some misplaced <noinclude> sections that you'd apparently manually cut and pasted from various userbox templates. Those sections caused your user page to appear in a couple of categories meant only for templates. Babelious was apparently trying to fix that, but his/her edits seem to have included other, unnecessary, changes. I have edited your user page to remove those misplaced <noinclude> sections, but have left it otherwise unchanged. I hope we can now declare this issue resolved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine. I tried to get him to tell me exactly what the problem was but perhaps there was a language barrier. I forgot to mention above that he also edited my page as User_talk:67.163.33.214. Thanks for your trouble.Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still editing it [55]. Could you at least put a note on his talk page to get him to stop? Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did edit your user talk page, and there is a language barrier. You didn't tell me the issue was resolved but rather threatened to block me. -Babelious 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stress that I am only trying to help Tstrobaugh, and that he needs to take his userpage out of Category:User templates, and Category:Intelligence user templates. -Babelious 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no longer any need for me to edit hhis userpage, and therefore I shall not, just as I said on his userpage. -Babelious 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is now personally attacking me [56]Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like the above message was posted in response to this message that Tstrobaugh posted. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

as you can see above Babel admitted there was a language problem, I thought he was serious and was trying to be helpful, could you point out the problem with my post that you apparently think warranted the response of "Mensa elitism"? Thanks for your input.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything warrants incivility, even if it is mild. However, the comment that you posted on Babelious' talk page could be interpreted ad being mildly uncivil as well, which is why I referenced it. To be honest, I can't see why this issue is still open. Babelious already said he wouldn't edit your userpage again and since then he hasn't. It looks to me like the best thing would be for the two of you to both drop the issue and go your separate ways. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact he even took my advice and put the user box up [57] so I don't know what your point is.Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was that suggesting he use {{User en-2}} directly could be interpreted as saying "you're not very good at English", which would be a mildly uncivil comment. So anyway, are you willing to drop the issue, since it seems to have blown over? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On a sidenote, you are more than entitled to remove anything from your user talk page if you don't like it, per WP:UP#CMT. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he's edited my user page 16 times over the past 10 days, is your solution to just ignore it? For how long?Tstrobaugh (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Babelious said he would stop modifying your userpage, and he has not edited it since he said that. I'm assuming good faith on his part that he will be true to his word. He seems well aware that if he edits it again you will consider it vandalism and he may be subject to a block or other sort of enforcement. What solution would you propose? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I've dropped it. Had a long day yesterday. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User John Celona

• John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --Jkp212 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. [58],[59],[60] Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on [[Peter Yarrow}]. The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Wikipedia at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. John celona (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user in question is being somewhat tendentious (as is, truth be told, User:Jkp212 from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making WP:POINT edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email.[61] That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison ^❤ 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Wikipedia, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: [62], [63]) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henrik•talk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to WP:OWN the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Wikipedia policy known as WP:OWN. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Wikipedia, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Wikipedia for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the Talk:Waterboarding page and the edit histories of Badagnani (talk · contribs), Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs), and Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. Arkon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus soapbox plus tendentious editing is a noxious and all-too-common combination. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has already explained, on Talk:Waterboarding, that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this[64]. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.

I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem

Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that Waterboarding is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Wikipedia articles. 144 sources say Waterboarding is torture, a solid half dozen to a dozen say it's not. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year 1400, predating the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of WP:AGF. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I know I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the entire problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually every new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on abortion, Holocaust denial, or global warming. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it may be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a global world view primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of very vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the WP:FRINGE side of things per WP:WEIGHT. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media every day the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after 209.221.240.193, a confirmed IP address of User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per User:Alison sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been quite civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Wikipedia in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly every single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.

Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Wikipedia to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated here. Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them in this user's contributions. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was an IP check ever done here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} , but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on WP:RFCU. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. Hut 8.5 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for anybody to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Last time CheckUser was run it turned up a number of sleepers. Awbrey is clearly not going to give up, this obsession behaviour is part of what got him banned, so it's not a waste of effort to run checkuser when a new batch of socks starts to mess about - better than locking the articles, since that reduces the chances of their being expanded and/or merged. Andif anyone feels like starting that logic of Charles Peirce article to merge the stubs on terms only he really used, now would be a good time :-) Guy (Help!) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i have nto been folowing the controsversiy but it hitnk that it would be betetr if jon awbery were listened to. he might have some valid auobjections to the way wiki proceudr eworks sna dit would be betert to listen tohim and get his input to se eif he is genuinely trying to be construcitve or is actually just an ordinary vandal. if he is genuniately trying to be constructive, then it would be best to appease him by bbaning all of his sockpuppets except one andf orce him to use his remaining account to take on a leading role in repairign adn reorganizing the articles he damaged. i am a firmly believer in diploamcy as a way for encyclopedic success sand he current fascist slash-and-burn tactics of only hunting down the symbtoms of a potential vandals' behaivor rather than the root cause is antithetical to both the idea of fredom of speech and that of diplomacy. Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I gather from all the activities of the sock/meatpuppets, they seem to be blanking the pages based on a remark made by SlimVirgin on User talk:Jimbo Wales Awbrey's work; according to them, she said "... it's probably all original resource for which a realiable source might be hard to find." Awbrey took offence at that comment and instructed users on WR to blank the pages. Am I correct? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

iv that is indeed the case that it would be beter for this issue to be taken to arbitration betwen slimvirgin, jw awbrey and this thugs, and user; jimbo whales to discuss this issue. baning random sockpupets wll only increase teh amount of restnetment int hte atmosphere, leading to a rbeakd own of order on wikipeida and a lot of hurt feelings on either side. it might ahve the neegative efect of even driving away awbrey and causing him to even stop blanking th pages, which would be an unfortunate since the loss of ANY editor, no mater how seemingly problematic, robs this encylcopedia of a valuble and priceless source of experince, dedicaiton, and wisdom. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of an overreaction to one editor's comment by another editor. I don't think ArbCom is required for something like page blanking and simple vandalism, even if it is on behalf of the author; I'm fairly certain that Awbrey's work on the logic articles (in fact, pretty much all of his article space) Never mind, it was universally agreed upon that that is not true; only logic-related articles were useful. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) was much appreciated; however, in Wikipedia- and other spaces, he created several disruptive pages (see here for the discussion that let up to his ban). Wiki-editors make comments that others construe as offensive. Maybe we should accept that everyone here does not know everything and move on. ArbCom is not needed for something like this. Awbrey was warned to stop with the "project-spam" and didn't. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

you may be right about arbcom but then again i never actally mentioned Arbitration Committess- that was an issue that you brought up, wich many people might see as a strawman argument. when i said the word 'abritration' i meant an informal dispute resolution betweenthe two users either on the talk pages, on this page, or privately via email or osme kidn of chat program. obviously slimvirgin and awbrey are having an intense, unresolvable dispute regarding whether or not certain thigns should have been said or not said, but that does not mean that we should rnadomly accuse someone of vandalism and block the to solve the problem. arbitray rule-enforcements only isnpire resentment and lead to further vandalism and bad faith assumptions down the road. the best and the onyl realy moral and decent path is conflict resolution that invovles both parties on an equal disucssion ground rather than having one person act as an inquisitor and the other serve as a tdefnese. this is really disturbin and if the behaivor does not stop then a permanent ban from the internet might be required but it woudl bemuch better if this can he headed off since it would be far beter to have awbrey continue to blank pages here than to have him banned forever and lose anoter great mind that can help use improve this encyclopedia for both our generations and genreations to come. Smith Jones (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... From what I can tell, the general term for taking something to the Arbitration Committee is "arbitration." The more general term is "dispute resolution," which is I now see what you actually meant. Also, as said above, it may not be Awbrey himself that is doing this, but rather a parade of meatpuppets. The proposition about letting Awbrey come back to edit is an interesting one - however, this is a community thing, so the Wikipedia community should be the one to decide whether or not Awbrey merits a second chance. As an aside, this is getting a bit long, maybe it can be moved to a user talk page? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

whose talkpage?> i dont like it when peopel post things to my talkpage a lot and im not sure tha tit belongs on your talk page either. mayb e if jon awbrey could login or somethign twe could continue it there. and i agre ewith your reservationsr egarding the community; my sugestion was only a suggestion that the admins or the wikipeida community at large to consider. a full iunvestigation sohould be launched to make surte that it s acutally aubrey who deserves to be baned and if there is no other way to resolve this disupte otherwise. oh, and i dont think that the word "abritration" was invented by the Arbcom and they shouldn tbe the only ones who can control that words meaning. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues between Awbrey and Wikipedia are not at root a personality conflict; at least, nobody's personality except his. Awbrey considers himself an expert on certain subjects in which he is not considered by many to be an expert, and in which he has no formal training to the best of my knowledge. This led him to attempt to write a number of Wikipedia articles slanted towards his own personal POV without sourcing in most cases and without regard for bias and undue weight, since his ideas and theories do not conform to the established academic consensus on them. When informed that Wikipedia's policies forbidding original research and unpublished theories did not permit what he was doing, he attempted to change Wikipedia policies to let him publish his theories here and was disruptive in so doing.

Essentially, Awbrey was banned for being a disruptive user who refused to accept certain set-in-stone policies. Whether or not any personality conflicts resulted, I submit that the results would not be changed either way; Awbrey's beliefs and attitudes conflict with what we're trying to do here and thus with fundamental Wikipedia policies, and he has been extremely disruptive when Wikipedia users and admins prevented him from ignoring Wikipedia policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One slight complication is that Awbrey apparently has, or has had, some sort of proxy- or account- sharing arrangement with other abusive users such as MyWikiBiz - previous checkuser requests have come across nests of sockpuppets that seemed to have both Awbrey and MyWikiBiz sockpuppets intertwined with each other. But either way, if a sockpuppet is disruptive, we can simply block it no matter who it is. :) krimpet✽ 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz is issuing threats

User:Raggz appeared a week or so ago on the State Terrorism by the United States page and began making massive deletions. At one and the same time he claimed to be a new user, while also justifying his deletions with wiki-policy notes -- "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", and so on. Regardless, today he issued a clear threat on my talk page, saying that if i did not allow his deletions then he would "pursue other means". In light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire, i consider this threat to be a grave and actionable matter. While it may be the case that Raggz is unaffiliated with this group, his recent behavior follows the same modus operandi and line of argument that has characterized this group over the last few years. I am here formally drawing attention to it; any feedback would appreciated. Thank you. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone, perhaps you should read WP:NOT and WP:NOR, it would be a good start for you of what the project is all about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV pushing of fringe views. While we have articles on fringe views in the world, we do not ramrod them into mainstream articles to suit our fancy. Interesting you should comment on other user's behavior, ie: making comments like this as an SPA. It looks like Raggz is trying to work with others here. I suggest you do the same. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That "threat" looks innocent enough; "We may debate these issues on TALK and there strive for Consensus, or I will need to seek an alternative solution." Looks like he's threatening you with Dispute Resolution. Pairadox (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And also note the assumption of bad faith by Stone put to sky, "[i]n light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire." Um, citation needed anyone? Like A Rainbow (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, Ragzz and Stone put to sky are currently engaged in a content dispute in the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, which, as no doubt most of you regulars know, has a long and checkered history. The thing really ought to be scrubbed out with a mop as it is STILL full of WP:SYNT violations. But anyways, with regards to these two users, well, look at the article's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is disruptive editing by Ragzz, not a content dispute. Have you seen the outrageous claims he has made on this page? Please read it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

Raggz has issued the same threats against me, and new single-user accounts are popping up on article talk pages. There are arbcom rulings against removing well-sourced material. Raggz is not a new editor, and I'm wondering how many editors have to come to this noticeboard before someone admits there is a problem; there have been at least four different editors in the last 48 hours who have commented about the disruption Raggz is causing in multiple articles. Raggz has had a year to learn the policies and guidelines and still doesn't understand them. When confronted with this, he has stated on the incident sub-page that he has a traumatic brain injury. I don't know if this is true or an attempt to elicit sympathy for his edits, but Raggz needs help, either from administrators or a mentor. The problem is, that in addition to his disruptive behavior, while Raggz deletes sourced material he also adds unsourced OR. I propose that Raggz both discuss his deletions before making them, and add sources to any new content that he writes. This will partly solve the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Raggz' edits to the article I linked above, and at least the recent ones (modifying the intro) seem to be in good faith. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Raggz' talk page, you have referred to the concerns about his editing as nothing more than "wild accusations". Since you are such a staunch defender of this user I would like to ask you to consider becoming his mentor, or at least find him one that will guide him through the forest. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recently exposed cabal? What the heck is Stone put to sky talking about? Lets see, well, Tom harrison hasn't made a single edit since 11/24/2007,[65] and Morton devonshire left wikipedia on 11/18/2007 [66]...I haven't made a single edit to the article in question since last July! Stone...if you're going to make up allegations about editors, then maybe you're on the wrong website. There are off wiki websites that enjoy reading misinformation and false reports about our editors, but this one doesn't.--MONGO 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MONGO, do you or any of the above users who have allegedly "left", use alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't. I took that article off my watchlist long ago, since I saw it as a hopeless mess dominated by POV pushing radicals. Tom Harrison told me he was gone for good, and Morton was almost primarily involved in dealing wiht conspiracy theory cruft...once he saw that most of that had been removed, he said he was no longer editing here.--MONGO 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your straight answer. I am curious (mostly due to my own ignorance on this topic) as to why several users think you are the head of a cabal? And what do they mean when they say this cabal has been "exposed"? Was there an RfC, arbcom decision, or some other incident that I should be aware of here? —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not to my knowledge.--MONGO 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for the Iraq War

The content deletions with and without edit summaries are continuing on Iraq War,[67] and Rationale for the Iraq War, except this time, a single-purpose account named User:Ryder Spearmann which showed up out of the blue to work with Raggz is now helping him disrupt multiple pages, claiming that there is "tacit formal consensus" to remove all criticism from the article.[68][69]. This is the exact same behavior Raggz had been engaged in earlier in the day in the same article [70] and previously in other articles like Human rights and the United States‎ where he removed criticism wholesale [71] and claimed he had consensus on the talk page to do so. Raggz also used the same wording as Ryder Spearmann to justify his wholesale deletions just a few days earlier, claiming, "Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out..." [72] According to arbcom, "Removal of sources is generally met with bans on editing the articles in question in conjunction with penalties issued for POV editing". These two users, User:Ryder Spearmann and User:Raggz are working together to disrupt multiple articles by removing sourced content and claiming consensus between the two of them as their justification. —Viriditas | Talk 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have but one account. If banned, I won't pop up gain. I wouldn't have two accounts even if they were permitted, what would I use two accounts for? I do not know Ryder Spearman, and have never communicated with him except in TALK. You are out of line Viriditas to be making rash charges only because two editors agree on something.

For the record I have since used Ryder's argument that I found elegant, that controversial articles should stay on topic, that OJ Simpson should not be a debate page if he really was guilty, and that An Inconvenient Truth should be about the book and should not be a forum for those who oppose the Global Warming theory. (For the record Global Warming is an excellent model for handling controversy well.) Raggz (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

Main page: Talk:Adult-child_sex § Deletion_.26_Redirecting_of_an_Article_Without_Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether WP:EPISODE should exist as a guideline or be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by User:Ursasapien [73]. Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides.[74] Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect WP:EPISODE to the MOS with the edit summary of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP."[75]. It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours[76], but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus[77]. His redirect was undone by a different editor[78] and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced WP:EPISODE with a "disambigutation" page[79]. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.[80]. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes[81], and a different editor reverted moments later[82].

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft"[83]. He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: talk page discussions and his post on the Fiction MOS talk page.

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by Ursasapien

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not WP:EPISODE violated WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, they liked it or needed it and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite Collectonian's contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to bad faith, and have been treated uncivilly. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that WP:EPISODE violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a WP:POINT more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Wikipedia guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an "interesting editor list" that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has to go. Considering I had to remove a whole two people from -my- userpage listed under "list of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button", that is way in excess. Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of editors keeping list of other editors. This list serves many purposes. This list has nothing to do with editors I like or do not like. To be honest, some of the list was used to compile evidence of incivility. Others are editors that I truly admire and wish to emulate. Some editors turned out to be sockpuppets, as I suspected. Perhaps the list needs to be trimmed a bit, as some of the editors are no longer interesting to me. There is nothing derogatory like Jtrainor's list. I find it disturbing that Collectonian's assumptions of bad faith have now sent him on a witch hunt. Ursasapien (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm a she not a he. I am not on a witch hunt. I stumbled on the list after you added me to it. Collectonian (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a list of editors is not necessarily a bad thing. As part of my efforts as a member of the Kindness Campaign, I keep a list of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, i.e. those I admire or who have been kind to me. This positive list helps me when I want to post holiday greetings on editor's talk pages or serves as a reminder of who to ask for advice from, exists also to make those editors feel appreciated, and so on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet, edits despite COI warnings, biased article

I have been trying to 'clean up' the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance article and have encountered lots of problems in trying to do so by user Ghagele (talk · contribs). I have recently created a descriptive paragraph on the talk page to describe the issues I see thus far: Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele

All in all, Ghagele (talk · contribs) has received two warnings about editing the CRSQA article and has continued to do so with no administrator intervention, to my great, great surprise. He has also now unknowingly admitted to using his IP as a sock-puppet to circumvent the warnings to edit the CRSQA article by editing the talk page without logging in as Ghagele.

I am desperately looking for some logical administration on the subject, as I believe the information I have provided on the talk provides provides premises for some pretty obvious actions. --SirDecius (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see implicit threats of legal action from Ghaegel by extensive references to legal action against web site operators elsewhere, and a discussion by both him and SirDecius about the true identity of Wikipedia users. 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) With respect to the article itself, attention is being paid to it by another admin. DGG (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG - If you are referring to Bearian he has declared: 'I'm moving on. I will not bother changing anything more' as per my talk page, which is why I have requested additional assistance. Thanks for your response, and I believe this will be my last attempt at cleaning up that article. --SirDecius (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SirDecius appears to have strong feelings about the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance and in the last month has edited little outside that area. The spirit of the WP:COI guideline indicates that editors with strong views should work very cautiously on articles relating to their intense interests. Over at the article talk page I offered to make a compromise draft that was as neutral as possible and avoided WP:BLP problems. SirDecius has so far not agreed to support this plan, yet he has made several requests for admin help. I encourage him to return to the Talk page conversation in a cooperative spirit. SirDecius strongly supports the inclusion of a link to an external website called http://www.usaeyes.info that describes the CRSQA as a 'cynical marketing ploy' and asserts that Glenn Hagele is engaging in false advertising. I have tried, so far in vain, to persuade him that BLP is not happy with this kind of a link. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

On 3rd January I suggested here and here the deletion of this section on the Khazars page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated WP:NPOV and was WP:Fork but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a WP:RFC would not be reliable due to WP:COI and asked for reasons for relevance instead. At this point Jayjg posted basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “interests”:

• I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11[84].

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this this one, this one and this one.

• Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. [85].

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

• David Irving is a legitimate historian [86].

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

• I ”Passionately” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page [87].

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "an idiot with ridiculous ideas" which supports this.

• Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. Neutral Good (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a permanent neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --Tom 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne appears to be referring to this edit. Thatcher 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite unfair a comment to make. It goes against both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, this issue was discussed in the Arbcomm on Allegations of apartheid. At the time, editors expressed concern about the chilling and poisonous effect such comments have on the editing environment. Jayjg's name was mentioned at the time, but the arbitrators chose not to include anything on the subject in the Proposed decision. The entire case was closed without any conclusion. Perhaps this should be taken to the Arb Comm currently in place for Palestine-Israel articles here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more parties are added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict RfArb, I think the conflict itself will end before the RfArb for it does. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done then, Tariqabjotu? Tiamut 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban them all and let God sort it out. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a personal bias. From each person's point of view, one's own views are precisely neutral and everyone else has some bias or other. To interpret what Jayjg wrote to be an accusation of anti-Semitism, one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that Jayjg thinks everyone who has a bias other than pro-Israel is anti-Semitist. Please assume that Jayjg is assuming good faith. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a personal attack be in good faith? If I showed a marked bias then maybe, but I ask you to check the above edits and decide if they support what Jayjg intimated they did. The problem I have is that most editors wont check them but accept Jayjg's word (implication) that I'm anti semitic. I'm sorry but anti Semitic is the only word I can find that applies to these "interests" I supposedly have and is a word many who read his post will assume. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out the words "Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic" in your comment above or provide a supporting diff in which that word and that allegation actually appear. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the "word". What "personal attack"? You claimed that you "have no personal bias" and Jayjg disputed that. You've also implied that others are biassed -- were those personal attacks? Re checking the edits: If you wish to discuss factual errors, my suggestion is that you post corrections on the article talk page or an appropriate user talk page, or if really necessary, bring it to this noticeboard, but not in a thread in which you also make an exaggerated and inflammatory accusation. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you would also consider striking out or modifying "being accused of anti semitism" earlier in this thread? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that User:Jayjg has made accusations of this sort. WP:AGF isn't set in stone (it's a guideline, not a policy), and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend indefensible personal attacks. CJCurrie (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's comment doesn't actually accuse Wayne of anti-Semitism, but it continues the use of subtle and condescending personal attacks that Jayjg uses to attempt to obtain the upper hand in content disputes, in addition to off-wiki canvassing and cabalism ([88]). Since the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ArbCom decision apparently hasn't stopped this nonsense from Jayjg and his associates, then perhaps it needs to be brought to the ArbCom's attention again. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tying up arbcom with endless disputes doesn't work. I think my solution will work best and produce immediate results: modify the controversial article template, adding new parameters that allow editors to request mediators on the talk page rather than separate mediator subpages. Mediators can watch categories for these changes. Now, for enforcement, add "admin requested" params. that will also populate watched categories. Anyone abusing these requests will be warned and if needed, blocked. This will reduce the load on admin noticeboards by 50 percent, and require active particpation in analyzing and resolving conflicts, rather than passive discussion and arbitrary decisions. Mediators will participate where needed, and neutral admins will step in to enforce. Problem solved, and everyone can get back to writing great articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

persistent posting of personal/unsourced information on a BLP

a block of user Lewinsky and IP 60.242.9.146 is requested for repeatedly posting personal and unsourced information on the page of Evan Thomas.

77.185.56.213 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP complaining here should list both User:Lewinksky and User:Lewinsky in this complaint. both are SPA accounts. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And maybe they should be informed as to why the info is being removed? So far there hasn't been so much as an edit summary explaining why, much less a comment on the article talk page or to any of the offenders. AN/I should not be the first recourse. Pairadox (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A note is on teh article talk now. should further edits occur, I will bring them here. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. You'd think I kibbitz here enough to check the edit dates more carefully. All this happened in August, not this week or month. I think an admin can mark this resolved, and we can be done with it. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete User:8thstar/ubx/Dead Marxist

This userbox was deleted at MFD recently, was recreated and deleted again per CSD G4, and has been recreated yet again. Please delete it again and prevent recreation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Already deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and salt it; since its deletion via WP:MfD it's been recreated twice. I also warned its creator to stop remaking it and visit deletion review if s/he disagrees with the verdict from MfD. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good call, that. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than opening up a new section, I am opening this one again as this is related. Following the deletion(s) of the above userbox, 8thstar has now come up with the following gem;

User:8thstar/ubx/Marxist

and inserted it into every user's page who used the previous one. Inappropriate? Pointy? Tarc (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitly inappropriate; however I'm struggling to think what it breaches. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of userspace policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems disruptive to me. Blood Red Sandman, I don't know if it violates any specifically laid out rule about user space, but there is a general prohibition against editing other people's pages, mostly out of courtesy. Obviously that doesn't count if someone is violating another, more important rule, on their user page, such as the fair use policy. But I think in this case the user is not right to be adding this to multiple user's pages. It also seems deliberately disruptive for the purposes of making a point. Natalie (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such prohibition, only a very, very general sense of "hey, don't be a jerk about it". I've never thought twice about editing someone's userspace; it's whether or not the edit is constructive that matters. In this particular case, the edits to other peoples' userspaces are perfectly valid, as he's only fixing a broken transclusion. The only objectionable element is what he's adding (a T1 speedily deleted userbox), not the editing in and of itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually the original deleted userbox, it's a new one created in response, it appears, to the deletion, that is being added. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I guess I'm a little confused then, because a user's editing each other's pages when there isn't a compelling reason to (reverting vandalism, removing fair use or attacks, and so on) is generally treated as unwelcome. Obviously, I'm aware that no one owns their own user space or has ultimate control over it, but I've always gotten the impression that unnecessarily editing someone else's user page is considered rude. To clarify, I didn't mean prohibition in the sense of a policy, more like an aspect of etiquette. Natalie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some users that, yes, specifically ask people to stay out of their userspace, but fixing broken links is different from, say, changing actual content on a page. By your own examples, I'd consider fixing a broken template a "compelling reason" (though not quite on par with removing vandalism or Fair Use imagery).
I suppose it can be considered rude, but I think it [editing someone's userspace] is too trivial to even call that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly aware he shouldn't be adding it to other user's pages. Shall we get to rollbacking the additions? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a WP:POINT violation, for the sole sake of spite and disruption. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a canonical WP:POINT violation, as he was politely directed toward WP:DRV to address his grievances and is instead spamming a userbox claiming he's been censored. This is on the heels of recreating the MfD'd userbox twice, necessitating its salting. I've blocked him for 24 hours; I'd suggest going ahead with the rollbacks. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started removing them. This would have been quicker if the closing admin on the XfD had removed the links to the deleted userbox, though. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial userbox

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

I just wonder that how after deletion this userbox can be restored. This userbox is clearly supporting Iraqi insurgency. How this userbox is being tolerated? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a userbox that only states a belief/opinion that isn't hate filled or otherwise offensive is against the rules. I wonder if anyone would be so keen to delete one that supported the French Resistance? Otolemur crassicaudatus seems to be on missions to delete anything his/her sensibilities doesn't agree with. The consensus spoke in the DRV. Leave it at that. --WebHamster 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox was restored following the deletion review. Whitstable (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can still take it to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:MfD is you disagree with the box and the community will decide. CharonX/talk 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jéské Couriano has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...V-Dash (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For background see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/V-Dash. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe Jéské to have done anything wrong. V-Dash has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet this diff and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, User talk:Orange Boomerang removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "stay off my talk page." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.

Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's userpage from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that "[He] is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).

While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not SPD V (talk · contribs) - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost (Dash Jr (talk · contribs) here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash feeds them by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.

In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?V-Dash (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?V-Dash (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.V-Dash (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own cabal (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -Jéské ^{(Blah v—_^v)} 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal atacks

User:Theaveng is being disruptive to the discussion on Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats and is now engaging in personal attacks with rather vulgar language [89] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him. In the future, try venues like WP:WQA, since this does not (strictly speaking) require admin intervention --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he did remove those comments himself moments later, and you never told him about bringing this to WP:ANI. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Static IP persistently vandalising after expiry of block

• 208.108.81.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 24h block expired November 10 2007, and it is a shared IP (see the IP's talk page). — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:5dsddddd

Hello. 5dsddddd has made an unblock request. He was blocked for making a disruptive sock puppet. He says that he will "I will help translate articles. (english -bulgarien [sic.]). I will fight vandalism and also review articles. I will help stop sockpuppetry and assume good faith."

There's a few problems I have with this. Before his block, he did his share of vandal fighting. And although he states he wants to crack down on sock puppetry, he appears to be using a sock puppet 69.113.203.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) himself. Perhaps another admin could weigh in on this? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression of the original unblock request could probably be summed up quickly: neither particularly hopeful, nor particularly hopeless -- sort of a nether spot where I'm not entirely comfortable unblocking or leaving them blocked, at least not without more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the 1 week block is fair. Considering that the account is blocked for 3 more days, if someone wants to unblock feel free. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cityscape

A vandal moved Cityscape to a nonsensical title, a move which I reverted. However, I believe two identical page histories now exist, one with the spurious title. Maybe someone can remedy this? Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sometimes there are problems with the display of the page history after a page move or a history merge. Setting the history length to anything other than the default of 50 usually fixes this problem. However I've deleted the redirect. Graham87 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! JNW (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this...

Resolved

Resolved, reviewed and fixed by Rschen7754. Edit Centric (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I filed an SSP case against a user. This evening, upon returning to Wiki, I see that the case has been closed by one Ember of Light. I've checked the list of admins, he / she is not on it. First question: shouldn't this SSP case have been closed by an admin? Secondly, the SSP template was removed from the puppetmaster userpage. Second question: shouldn't the template's resulting "confirmed" page have been updated to reflect the additional confirmed sockpuppet instead? Next, there is absolutely no indication that either user has been blocked, however Ember of Light states that the puppetmaster account has been blocked for a week. (Please see Talk page discussion, and the archived case at EoL states the user blocked for a week. Could an admin that is experienced with the particulars of closing an SSP case please take a look at this? On the face of it, this looks like the case was closed by someone inexperienced in dealing with these instances... Edit Centric (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I'm doing this: Talk:Waterboarding (again)

Tonight's reading of total warfare:

First read: Talk:Waterboarding#New_rules_for_this_article

Second read (next section down): Talk:Waterboarding#Violation_of_new_rules_on_Waterboarding

I expect this to end up at Arbcom in 1-2 weeks in a major politically motivated mess if something isn't done. I have no idea what needs to be done. I'm very sorry if people are sick about reading about this; I'm not going to touch that page again myself. It's a complete madhouse now from crazy IPs and SPAs. Lawrence Cohen 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to piggyback on MastCell's suggestion above for Neutral Good. Would there be a general suggestion to set three-five NEUTRAL administrators (one who have not posted on the article) who would be willing to act as monitors for this article, say till the end of Feb 08? Let's say any monitor can place any particular edit-warrior or incivil account on probation, to be defined as 1 Revert per week on Waterboarding and any article that can relate to waterboarding, as well as civility parole? If some one on probation continues to edit war, then they can be topic banned or blocked. I'm willing to volunteer, but there needs to be consensus on this. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't object to anything up to and including riding crop beatings at this point, to be frank, and will only watch that page. I pre-authorize ANY admin to block me 5 minutes as a reminder if I post on Waterboarding or any talk pages under it between now and the 2008 Elections are over here in the US. I really want nothing to do with it again. I would also recommend this parole thing for the article and related pages to last until November 4 2008, by the way. Lawrence Cohen 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the article to full protection again after only 5 hours. When (if?) the article next comes off full protect it needs heavy oversight by the rougest of admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie is on the right track. I wouldn't oppose his suggestion, but the problem with appointing "neutral" admins to arbitrate is that inevitably they will get sucked in to the dispute. I don't think we need a protracted course of hand-wringing here. In a bar fight, the bouncers don't wait for consensus to develop and for the combatants to agree on a neutral set of referees. They just grab people, starting with what appear to be the worst offenders, and eject them to go home and sober up. I've given my reasons for starting with Neutral Good (talk · contribs). But s/he is obviously not the sole problem, and if it becomes apparent in his absence that someone else has taken over the role, then we can go from there. Also, 3 months away from waterboarding is not, pardon the expression, torture. Wikipedia is full of things to do. Work on something else for awhile, then come back. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, protecting gives us some breathing space to discuss how to make work on the article more productive. Of course, you can't *actually* work on a protected article, so when the time comes to let consensus do its work again, the article will have to be unprotected. <scratches head>

So the "new" (actually very old) rules don't look too bad. Those might help. Also, splitting out the controversial material from the article might sound like a bad idea, but it might help as a temporary solution. That way you can have a pretty solid article about waterboarding before 2001, and we can later figure out a way to include information from 21st century sources, once people are done fighting over it.

Does that make any kind of sense?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. Why aren't we just throwing them into an arena? One side can be the Jets and the other the Sharks. Best dance number gets their way? ...no? then how about heading to ArbCom, and ULTRA-LIBERALLY topic blocking all involved, including the mystery IP. This is as bad as the Irsaeli-Palestinian Conflict mess, which has also made it to ArbCom. I think community patience withe POV warriors of all stripes is wearing thin. This is as serious an issue as is the constant litany of excuses and policy-wonking that gets some editors 50 to 100 chances to get away with bloody murder, and I suspect we've got three or four major issues that should also go to ArbCom. I kind of wish we could have a consensus by polling page, where we could get registered editors to vote on things like " per these 10 sources, Waterboarding is Torture, per these 10 sources, waterboarding is just plain silly fun. Waterboarding is A) torture, B) silly fun, C) a disease caught from tacos.

Really, this needs the long term examination of a group of serious, trusted, generally outsider editors, which is what ArbCom is. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of jamming to arbcom, though I consider the recent influx of arbiters to be fantastic. But I happen to believe a firm application of wikipedia policy fixes the problem without any need for rancor or appeal to any higher authority. If I have a blind spot that is making me silly in all of this it is simply that I really believe that the fix is already found in policy.

With regard to outside editors something interesting happened. A group like that did look at the article. Although not trusted, they were reasonable and took a serious look. They came up with a solution to the core issue. They came up with this. I found it interesting in that it would require everyone to bend and I thought of the old hack about compromise -- a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy.

I have thought about mediation, but I despair that it would not work. Some people are not willing to consider any alternatives to their perfect ideal. There is no way that they will compromise. I think the fastest way to get consensus would be to ban anyone who refused to consider various alternative wordings. If the only editors left were people who ... while retaining their views, were also open to alternative wordings (and compromise) the article might be workable. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to an experiment of that nature. We'll have to try some things out sooner or later, right?

Since people don't typically enjoy being banned on an experimental basis :-P, It should be made easy for anyone so banned to get themselves unbanned again after a short period of time for review.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And if any old group of uninvolved folks can't get anything to move, even though they certainly COULD have socked in a new consensus, (and we're glad they didn't), then there's really nothing left but ArbCom. as to "the recent influx of arbiters" we're getting dismissed left right and center, be the editors like myself, or admins. It doesn't matter WHAT happens. There are some editors who refuse to see waterboarding as torture. Why we can't get a simple solution is beyond me. The 'controversy' section title, as edited by Black Kite, seemed a great approach, as it could detail the US government's position on the issue, and how that has changed since it was considered torture. We could detail how the US Gov't now describes the differences. But we can;'t even get that. This (article) is circular, pointless, and aimless. Let's get Arbcom here. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this, posting a diff because it'll get archived sooner or later. The problem is that both sides fundamentally see NPOV differently. Unless we get everyone and their second cousin to watchlist this, and weigh in on the NPOV matters, and the true, real way of how NPOV should be is held up by everyone with no way around it (either way, "is or isn't torture"), this will never end without arbitration since people are digging in deeply with political stances. It's an absurd binary question, based on sourcing. Is it, or isn't it? If the US conservative POV has more weight, it isn't. If the global, sourced historical worldview has weight, it is. Neither side is willing to give an inch, and the various uncivil people are just making everyone go round the bend, making things worse and unproductive. Lawrence Cohen 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too came to this article as an uninvolved admin. See Talk:Waterboarding#Protection. It is becoming more obvious that the only way of fixing this problem is via ArbCom, who, especially with the newly elected arbs, I have every faith will see through the fog created by a number of users.BLACKKITE 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I had it on my watchlist and was meaning to keep an eye on it, since I knew it would remain a mess, but that really getting ugly now... And that's probably a sock fest. Since I think any controversial measures will be contested up to arbcom anyway, it might be a good idea to launch the case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so. WP:RFAR#Waterboarding henrik•talk 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of sending it to ArbCom is that their verdict will have more legitimacy than something decided by a handful of admins on WP:AN/I. On the other hand, ArbCom is a relatively slow process, and prone to being overloaded. It would be nice to see some sort of community mechanism for handling these issues as a means of off-loading ArbCom a bit (with the proviso that anyone could take the case to ArbCom at any time if the community-based measures seemed inappropriate). As maligned as the old community sanction noticeboard was, some good decisions came out of it. Some disputes were fairly adjudicated, by the community, without recourse to ArbCom. I'm not saying we need a revival, but I'd encourage some thought into the kinds of community-based approaches to these problems proposed here and by User:SirFozzie below. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for rollback review

• El_Greco (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my edits on a daily basis are unduing some sort of vandalism. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, you have a 3RR block from September. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Visit WP:ANI and get consensus, and this will be done. GDonato (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for review I don't think a 3RR I had with an IP user, who unfortunately got on my nerves should be the deciding factor in RFR. How many users haven't had an encounter with 3RR? I've cooled off since then and will discuss any content related issues. I felt there were too many photos on the Athens page (sort of making it look like a tourist advertisement) and the IP user disagreed, but in the process which spun into a 3RR the IP user kept reverting actual edits, and that's basically what happened. As per my reason above, I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my daily edits are some sort of vandalism related, and I watchlist 1,200 articles (so I can see a lot of it). I mean the first thing I do when I log on to Wikipedia is check my watchlist for vandalized pages. _{El Greco}^(talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the rollback tool is about judgment, and rightly or wrongly there are some users who question yours. My advice: sit it out for a while, ask again later. - Philippe | Talk 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(u)The block was back in September, El Greco's explained what went on, and, appears to understand how to handle the situation in the future. Also, I've looked through a couple pages of El Greco's contribs, and, they seem to use "Undo" just fine. I see no reason to withhold rollback. SQL^{Query me!} 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do now to proceed? Resubmit my request for rollback or is it done through here? Or should I wait a little longer? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have granted User:El Greco rollback. On balance the editor has explained the situation regarding the 3RR block, and his recent edits show both a demonstrable need for the tool as well as the ability to use it correctly. Pedro :  Chat  15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro!!!! _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion ignored

At: Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article came off full protect today and not long after, Reginmund (talk · contribs) removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. This diff is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. This diff is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. This diff is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection. -- ALLSTARecho 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying is that the article is currently The Wrong Version (tm)? Admins are not empowered to rule on content disputes. FCYTravis (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is in fact unprotected since 09:12, 9 January 2008. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IP user being problematic

This isn't really vandalism, so I brought it here and not WP:AIV. There is an IP user, 24.59.103.158 (talk · contribs), that continues to revert edits of other users, and refuses to engage in any talk page discussion, despite repeated attempts to do so. The issue is largely around the article American football. Several users collaborated at the talk page, and decided to make changes to the article. These changes represent a full consensus at the talk page, and this IP user simply reverts them without edit summary or comment. Good faith would at first indicate that the user disagrees with the changes, but despite MANY attempts to get them to take it to the talk page, they simply refuse to do so. What can be done? Can an IP address be blocked for this? Its usually not more than 3 times per day, but it is still disruptive and has been going on for several days now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already submitted this user to WP:AIAV. Some users have to be blocked for a very short time just to get them to notice that they have a talk page. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - as far as I care a violation of the 3-revert rule is vandalism. -- kainaw™ 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. I continue to leave messages at his talk page, and I don't want to get nailed for a 3RR myself, but this is getting annoying. What can be done about this? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has a 24-hour block now. -- kainaw™ 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that will get his attention. I would still like to keep this "on the record"; this users has shown this behavior over several days, he may continue the same behavior once the block expires. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

user Countdowncafe

I am not sure whether this is the right place to report this. Countdowncafe is adding external links to articles which are pointing to his own site. This is clearly against Wikipedia:El#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. The importance of the links which the user is adding is being debated at [[90]]. He is basically adding links to movie trailers on a movie article. I tried talking to the user on his talk page but was not able to convince him. Can someone help me in getting him to follow the policy?. Thanks. Anshuk (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alfred Legrand

This user has major problems keeping things civil and avoiding personal attacks. He just left this on my talk page. In addition he has been leaving uncivil remarks and personal attacks on User:ImmortalGoddezz talk page. I believe he deserves an immediate block. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#uncivility.2Fattacks for more info. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of R.S. Wenocur (the subject of an article whose deletion seems to have led to this mess) but, I fully endorse a block. Alfred's been warned many more times (9? 10?) than regular vandals without any sign of improvement. --Kyoko 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely blocked. -- ALLSTARecho 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a thread about this user, related issues and possible sockpuppetry above. Mathsci (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:86.162.214.179 reverting my edits to Tony Hawk's Project 8

Basically, in the article, someone put that 2 extra skaters, Neversoft Mascot and Voodoo Doll are available on the XBOX 360, however, I have the game, fully beaten and they aren't there. Then User:86.162.214.179 came along and re-added back in. I asked him not to revert my edits, but he's done it twice now, so I figured I'd report him here. 70.49.204.73 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Two interestingly intertwined issues here. The first is that your playing the game isn't Wikipedia-standard evidence for putting something into or removing it from an article. It's original research and won't do. The second is that the person adding disputed material must provide a reliable source for it.

The problem is that you two are both IP editors. When a dispute like this breaks out, I'm inclined to semi-protect the article. But this would lock both of you out of it. And I'd semi-protect whatever version was on the screen when I hit the button, regardless of the issues behind it. There's therefore little that can be done, other than for you to find a reliable source saying for certain that the characters aren't in the game, which changes the equation: the other IP is then, in effect, removing sourced material and can be done for it. It might help to try to talk to the IP, although I appreciate that is awkward with IP addresses - as you know. Therefore it might also help if you logged in or created an account. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [91] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. This report is worth a look. (I speak this neutrally). Durova^Charge! 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But that report cannot be a proof of anything. It is just a collection of unrelated diffs, put together with an obvious purpose. Has anyone tried contacting Ehud and verifying his actual personality? I just received a communication from Ehud, he told me that he is willing to provide any information that admins may require to ascertain that he is a real person, not related to Adil in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at WP:AE board: [92] Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I handled the unblock request in this case. I did not see any evidence linking the two, so I accepted the request. It has sense been overturned after a conversation on my talk page. As I stated there, I do not agree with this method of blocking and did not endorse the reblocking of this user. Lara❤Love 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier if blocking, unblocking or independent administrators simply contact each of the blocked users to verify their identity. I have asked for this earlier at WP:AE as well. After all, the verification of physical identity to determine that Adil Baguirov is not Ehud Lesar is more legitimate than a wholesale assumption, based on nothing but User:Fedayee's speculations, often including simply harassment and attacks on the identity of User:Ehud Lesar. I mean look at this [93],, what does the proclaimed Jewish identity of Ehud Lesar have to do with this? Or does it really mater in Wiki what ethnicity the contributor is? Or should any Jew from Azerbaijan editing in Wikipedia be assumed and blocked now as a sock of Adil Baguirov, just because User:Fedayee believes so?

But there is more, which has to do with AdilBaguirov than with Ehud Lesar, because User:Khoikhoi was inactive, for several months. Then he suddenly shows up and blocks User:Ehud Lesar, as a sock of User:AdilBaguirov. Checkuser denies any connection, and I would also like to remind that right before getting blocked after the first ArbCom, User:AdilBaguirov attempted to file an RfC - [94] on User:Khoikhoi conduct, which, however, didn't gather enough support. So perhaps, sudden reappearance of User:Khoikhoi and blocking of just anyone as a sock of Adil, based User:Fedayee's speculations, has something to do with their conflict.

As far as User:Alex Bakharev's conclusions go, I shall remind him that previously, he also mistakenly blocked User:Londium on a conviction that it was a sock of User:AdilBaguirov - [95], an allegation which turned out to be untrue later [96]. On another instance User:Alex Bakharev unblocked the reported and even confirmed by RFCU as a sock User:Pam55 of User:Behmod, against the protests from admin User:Allison - [97]. Yet later User:Behmod was again caught with another sock [98] . So perhaps, assuming good faith, Alex Bakharev's conclusion is mistaken in Ehud Lesar case as well, and needs another review. Regards. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex and Khoikoi are the two admins who know Adil Baguirov’s way of using socks the best, there is Francis Tyers who comes next and who was an Admin, Francis_Tyers was the first to submit a checkuser because he thought it was Adil and this much before the evidence was accumulated. Then there is Golbez to ask, but since you have ousted him, I doubt you will listen to anything he says.

The evidence provided is not the only one I have. The Church of Kish alone is a giveaway. The Church of Kish doesn’t even qualify as very notable. Less than 5 people have studied it and published anything about the church. One of those who 'studied' it was Adil Baguirov. [99] (from his zerbeijan website he initiated the Albanian nature of the Church) scroll and you will see his picture with the church, and his 'research.' The person who created the church article was a throw away account [100] who created an article on Adil’s OR. That account was created at the beginning of March (the period in which Adil created his other Jewish account [101] ) and was obviously Adil. Ehud was engaged on that article and another which both were also edited by Adil socks in the same period of time. Another giveaway: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. [102] Here, Ehud Lesar, who claims to be a Jew and uses this to make himself sound neutral, is claiming that another member is obviously impressed by Adil who thinks a lobbyist who acts as an ambassador of Azerbaijan in the United States is someone to be impressed about. He repeats this more recently: I must say that it's rather positive that you're so impressed by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar. [103] Ehud knows that we know he is Adil, this comment is the same sort of sarcasm Adil was using or his other socks were using.

Also, all of Ehud’s theories are identical to Adil’s, here in his defence he provides himself more evidence [104], In the part that starts with secondly you will see the subject of the speeches Adil Baguirov gives whilst his lobbying outside Wiki and at large Azerbaijani-American gatherings. And it was according to him that Wikipedia should be edited to balance this myth he believes in.

Putting the emphasis on checkuser when the rest of the evidence is screaming I’m Adil is irresponsible. It would take one user registering an account to proxy for him, and this fixes the issue of open proxy and IP address, checkuser will fail. This was why Vartan and I brought Elsanaturk and from Ehud’s answer it seemed that there was something true in there. The reason we suspect Elsanaturk is that there is evidence that he already proxied for him, but this is another issue and unless it could change anything on the blocking of Adil, I don’t think at this point it is necessary to post the evidences. When we brought the issue, Ehud’s reply was this [105] Neither I or Vartan said this explicitly anything such, we only said that we believe that Elsanaturk might be involved. Not that he was Ehud, Ehud expanded this and insinuated and blew it out of proportion to discredit us.

I am ready to furnish more evidence upon the demand of the administrators.

And BTW, Londium was a sock of Adil, Alex was right; checkuser should not be run to catch Adil, many of the socks of Adil, which were registered the same days as other confirmed socks, failed the checkuser test when they were obviously Adil. Ehud is one example. - Fedayee (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, you're going to furnish evidence that Ehud Lesar is a person Adil Baguirov? Or in statements like "We have Ehud, who we all know is Adil", who is "we", are you claiming you have a group "working on Adil/Ehud case"? Will you also please produce physical evidence that user Ehud Lesar is the identity of Adil?

Your evidence here [106] does not establish such link, it only makes allegations about Adil having used socks. The fact that both users referred to the fact of Zangezur and Geycha republic is not an evidence of sock- or even meatpuppetry. And let me remind you of evidence you did not include in your report, while reciting various usernames in your assumptions of bad faith:

• I, Atabek, was once blocked at Yeprem Khan - [107], reported for reverting the edit of one of those sock accounts attributed to User:AdilBaguirov - [108].

And again, what does the ethnicity of Ehud Lesar or your conclusions about them have to do with Wikipedia? I believe pursuing someone's identity or attempting to expose their ethnicity, especially when you're not an administrator in Wikipedia authorized to do so, is considered falling under WP:HARASS policy. I recall there was another user "blocked indefinitely" for doing so, see first block comment.Atabek (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=62#copyright

ibe leive that this issue is a simple makstake, but i must cuation all the admins involved to avoid any esemalance of impropriety. when problems go wrong its easy to just round up and get rid of all the jews but history should so now that its the wrong decison to make. ethnic claims sould not be used solely as a deicsion whether or not to blok or unlblock a user, since even if the block was otherwise justified sit makes it seem like itwas an expression of racial hatred REGARDLESS of the admins' intent. i would recomend having this case looked over by a panel of admins to make surethat there were no mistakes or fualty assumptiosn makes on the behalf of any of hte usurers hereon this bebopard. Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Fedayee's evidence carefully. There was no ethnic motive behind the block at all. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, just my 2 cents, I don't know Ehud or Adil, just general thoughts. The checkuser uses IP address, so once changed it doesn't work. Now to detect user by his behaviour can only humans that knew him for some time and his style of communication, and humans are pretty good at it. So Fadayee and Vartan, who knew Adil confirm Ehud to be Adil based on the little clues lie type of communication etc. And they are pretty confident that he is Adil. They didn't accuse any other user, like Grandmaster or Atabek or me to ne Adil, the specifically targeted Ehud, so there is a reason why. Now what are the reasons for anybody else to believe that he is not Adil other then failed checkuser? I didn't find any. It looks like evrybody knows that he is Adil and Azeri side is interested to keep this user Adil even under different name... Steelmate (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this Adil is blocked in "Wikipedia for a period ending August 23, 2008" so only 8 more month and he is free? Shouldn't there be more harsh mathods applied to this user who is using sockpuppets? Steelmate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Steelmate, your question is very illogical. How can anyone accuse me of being Adil’s sock, if I was here long before Adil joined? I’ve been editing for more than 2 years and have more than 10,000 edits, accusing a long time editor will not work. Same with Atabek, he is a long time user and he is well known to everyone involved in editing region related articles. Ehud was targeted for a simple reason that he is a relatively new user with a very limited number of contribs. So it is relatively easy to link him to a banned user and get him banned. This happened despite no real evidence being presented and cu returning negative results. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, in such cases a questioning admin may contact individual contributors and ask them to identify themselves instead of blocking contributors based solely on the report of the individual from another side of conflict. Fedayee's evidence as well as list of users he cites in his report is based on ethnic motive, which is already known and defined in two relevant ArbCom cases, to which he was a participant. I believe if there is continuous assumption on behalf of some admins that Ehud is Adil based on Fedayee's report only, while others ask for additional review, then it may be expedient to perhaps request User:Jimbo Wales to investigate the issue and identify whether Ehud is Adil or not. Atabek (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was posted by an individual on the other side of the conflict. Three neutral administrators familiar with the AA situation evaluated Fedayee's evidence. Furthermore, Jimbo is human, so asking him is just the same as asking any other administrator. They have their own take on the evidence, which means they have no real way of knowing the truth. Also, I contacted Ehud and asked him what proof of identity he was willing to give (Grandmaster mentioned above that Ehud could confirm his identity). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, at least 3 other admins, including those handling reports at WP:AE on a regular basis did not find Fedayee's evidence compelling. Clearly, there's no consensus among the admins that this user is a sock and that Fedayee's evidence can be taken seriously. And Khoikhoi's sudden appearance looks very strange. Have you personally tried contacting Ehud and verify his real life identity? If not, why haven’t you done so? Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, returning to Wikipedia after a two-month break to block a contributor based on Fedayee's report or attributing several socks to a banned user, when they're found later not to be such, is not quite neutral. And especially this past mistake shows that evidence needs to be reviewed again by another administrator. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi was asked to review this user's edits a while ago. He took his time, but he finally reached a conclusion and then issued a block. As a neutral administrator, I reviewed the evidence posted by Fedayee and other stuff brought to my attention. I re-blocked because I believe the evidence shows that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I apologize, I did realise that an element of the evidence seems just that. It was perhaps my fault since I did not develop about the relevancy of that bit about Jews. What is questioned here is that Ehud is a Jew to begin with. If you browse the evidence you will see that Adil pretended to be several ethnic groups with several names. The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, and most names are Russianized, Lesar can not be an Azerbaijani Jewish name (which would have been the only escape route). The point here is that he falsified an identity like he did previously and even after he created that account.

The other evidence about the Algerians and Jews also is not meant to have any ethnic motive. The claim of Algerian Genocide is mostly defended in the international arena by lobbyists of the Turkish republic, one of the most active ones on the web run a journal in which Adil contributes in.

Atabek’s request on the identity of Lesar should be considered as invalid given that in the past an obvious sock and throw away account has requested such and was unbanned. Adil has relations across the globe and would have anyone proxy for him giving fake identity, he is not just some user. The Lesar family (David Lesar at its head) runs Halliburton which has a major contract in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan main oil export pipeline project, Adil work for those projects too. The sock created the name by association (the Israeli prime ministers name, and the president of the Halliburton familly name).

Also Atabek, unlike what you write, Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil, there is no published material anywhere which claims a republic such as Geycha. Ehud dismissing it qualifies as evidence and on several occasion when this was brought he failed to provide any source. Having failed to do such, this remains specific to Adil Baguirov.

One more thing which fails comprehension. Grandmaster, how in the world did Ehud contact you when it is impossible to email him, because he did not provide an email address. He could not have emailed you unless both of you communicate elsewhere and he would have known your email address off wiki. Please provide some explanations here as someone can not contact if that person does not have an email address set. - Fedayee (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, I don't believe Wikipedia registration anywhere says that new user needs to ask approval of Fedayee to register a certain name. Ehud has a right for his name as well as his claimed identity. I don't know what makes you believe that you're granted a right to question someone's ethnicity and use that as a justification for blocking him. There are thousands of Jews and mixed people living in Azerbaijan, often under Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, or mixture of names. And I believe you need to one more time review WP:HARASS. Adil Baguirov has a publicly available profile, major webpage, publications, which everyone can view, read and interpret, and already have been discussed across various articles in Wikipedia, such as Azerbaijan for example. Where is your proof that everyone reciting his writing is just him? Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And Fedayee, per your claim from your report that "Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil Baguirov" - here [109]. Is this also Adil Baguirov? Again, I believe administrators need to be seriously familiar with the topic of the conflict, before reading your report and making conclusions over it to block people. Atabek (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not his claimed identity which is given justification, but the fact that he created sockpuppets to sound as neutral non-Azeri or non-Armenian contributors. There are thousands of Jews living in Azerbaijan, but Lesar is not an Azerbaijani Jew name and Fedayee proved that in his evidence.

This is becoming ridiculous, do you really think that the claim that Ehud might be reciting Adil publications hold water? No one bothered reading or reciting his work on Geycha alleged republic here on Wikipedia, but Ehud Lesar, who happens to have registered hours after it was a confirmed that Adil will be banned. This same person who happens to have read something which was not used by any other contributor, also was the only one who was missing when Adil's sockpuppets were at their pick, and the sockpuppets only stopped when Ehud reappeared. There was a clear correlation between Ehud's presence and the end of the sockpuppetry issue. Also the Church of Kish, which was again obviously created using Adil’s OR and you guys continued editing it. Then when it was questioned, Ehud came in and defended using Adil’s OR or the other socks which were at the time just recently blocked.

Also Atabek, you misunderstood Ehud's claims. The link you provide relates to 1992, where few Azeris near Sevan and Zangezur created a flag claiming independence as opposition to the declaration of the NKR. Adil Baguirov's claim has nothing to do with that flag, his claims are pre Soviet Union. In fact, the only claim on the web coming close to it, is from Adil’s website. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This case can be easily resolved. One of the admins needs to contact Ehud and verify that he is a real person, and not a sock. This can be done by phone call, chat or even a webcam chat. There are many ways of doing it. So far none of the admins even attempted to do that, and this shows that no serious investigation has been conducted. Strange appearance of Khoikhoi after many months of absence also shows that he was apparently contacted off wiki and given misleading info. There were too many arbitration cases covering Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, do we really need another one? Why this issue cannot be resolved without the need to get involved in a lengthy litigation? Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi independently reviewed the contributions of this user over a long period of time. I was informed that Khoikhoi was reading through this user's contributions more than a month ago. This tells me that he did not make some quick decision. He examined the user's contributions, and found evidence of a connection to AdilBaguirov. I contacted Ehud about confirming his identity. He suggested a webcam chat. A webcam chat or a phone call would not prove anything. How would I know from a webcam chat or a phone call that I am talking to the real "Ehud Lesar"? Also, put aside the AA differences (doubt this will happen, but it's worth the suggestion). It seems this whole issue has escalated to mudslinging from both sides. I will ask some other uninvoled administrators to review the evidence and make their judgments. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is what I'm asking for, a real investigation, and not a block based on personal assumptions. Webcam is not the only way of proof, Ehud can give you more personal details proving that he is a real person. Just ask him for whatever proof you need. It is no good that you don't even attempt to make any real check. Also, I find it very strange how some admins handle this sort of issues. Just a few days ago a compelling evidence of disruptive activity of User:Andranikpasha across multiple wikimedia projects, English wikipedia included, was presented, but no action has been taken against that user. [110] At the same time Ehud was blocked without any real evidence or investigation. Is this a proper way of dealing with this sort of issues? Grandmaster (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ehud account was created the same day it was confirmed that AdilBaguriov will be blocked for a year by AA1
• Ehud Lesar claims to be Askeranzi Jew from Azerbaijan, but the last name is not Azkeranzi and neither it is Azerbaijani Jewish
• Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do
• Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic[111] and has writen about it extensivly.
• Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.
• Ehud never contributed when there were other Adil socks and only came back when others were blocked.
• Adil's socks so far impersonated Armenians, Jews, Russians and English.

There are way to many coincidences to AGF and think otehrwise. VartanM (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Liite Buddhism

Article tagged with AfD and that has been removed.Awotter (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The deleting user was warned on her/his talk page. If it doesn't happen again, I'd say let the matter drop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article was G12ed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And recreated as Local Church of Witness Lee, it appears. Pairadox (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else have a look at this? The copyvio and self-admitted OR problems are the same, but I would like to have someone else review this matter (I deleted the article the first two times). Kusma (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we doubt his story that the blog's his, I don't see a speedy rationale. I've opened an AfD for the new page; if it results in deletion, any future clones can be G4'd. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church of Witness Lee, if you're interested. MER-C 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some help

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They still are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to positively contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.

Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.

I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.

I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.

(Note that I did ask User:Daniel who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)

So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?

If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".

So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - jc37 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).

If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. Natalie (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. At what point do we just throw up our collective hands and give up? If it's clear that we really can't stop the problems, then why try? - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as for the request for more info, for the first example, here's a subpage with some information (User:roundhouse0 has quite a few more sub-pages): User:Jc37/Sandbox/Pastorwayne

And for the second example, here's a note that I placed on User talk:Coelacan [112]:

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

---

User:PatPeter

I don't know if you're still currently involved with issues involving this user, but they've become rather disruptive. See User talk:Sox207 and rather specifically at User talk:The Big X for admissions of what they claim was/is going on. since then it's been a stream of IP addresses. See User talk:Gscshoyru for the most current set of disruptions. (Special:Contributions/Pagesock seems to be WP:DENY issues, and is probably the person as well.) I've been reading up on range blocking, as this may be what needs to be done as a "final" step. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and help). - jc37 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Of the two, (if I have to choose) I think I'd really like someone else to "take over" patrolling on the second. (Though, since I've now gone through nearly all the editor's edits, I have no problem being a "helpful resource".)

Thanks for any and all help/insight/etc. - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Restored from archive, still hoping for some help.) - jc37 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Heliac

• Heliac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in popups that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--Heliac (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done extended break only just returned. Gnangarra 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is encouraging anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--Heliac (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to WP:ANI for a further review. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits from today ([113] [114] [115]) leave me with little faith in your ability to use this tool correctly. John Reaves 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern here is that a user's recent contribution history (say, 3-6 months, per the talk page) is what admins review in granting or declining Rollback tools. In this case, unfortunately, there is not much in that time period to review. As Pedro rightly notes, there isn't much firm policy on the matter, either. My recommendation, and this is purely as a non-admin, would be for you to edit without the tool for a while, showing that not only are you back for good, but that you are familiar enough with policy to properly deal with vandalism. Then, I'd re-request, and see what happens. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Echoing John's comment, above, I'd note further that IP edits are not always vandalism, and that you should show that you are exercising due diligence in making sure that you are reverting vandalism, and that your reversion properly removes the vandalism (instead of keeping it, as with this edit). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I stated originally that my comments were not an "out and out decline" I'm afraid that the diff's given by John would harden my position in delcining. I do understand the browser issue, but that is not enough reason IMHO. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking User:UzEE on Checkuser findings

I usually directly block, but the check is 4 days old and I fear this might be taken as punitive if there is no discussion beforehand. User:UzEE was reported at WP:RFCU by User:Smsarmad for vandalizing his, and an other user's page. (case). Where it gets interesting, is that User:Smsarmad was blocked for a week at the end of December for oh wait abusing multiple accounts after being reported by User:UzEE (RFCU case). My guts tell me to block User:UzEE also for a week, but I'd like to have your opinion first. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Previous ANI case about this issue -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Well all I would say is that I would abide the decision of the board. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

200.177.255.66 continually spamming

200.177.255.66 has been repeatedly adding (and repeatedly warned about) spam links to information security-related articles. Perhaps blacklisting the adblog address would be the best bet since it merely flogs unrelated software and has no redeeming qualities and the spam links have come from a few other IPs over the past month. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...didn't realize there is an AN dedicated to vandals/spam. I will post it there, sorry. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-8580952291424433

• guidetocissp.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

related

• zoabonito.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

201.21.98.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
200.177.255.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.1.184.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
82.5.236.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.42.119.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.26.172.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

seems to be some significant cross wikipedia spamming also. see →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#guidetocissp.com --Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page used as self-promotion?

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but could some editor take a look at User_talk:Funk999? This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of a talk page. BuddingJournalist 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I think the user was creating Islamictube.net but does seem intent on recreating it (see the User talk:Funk999#Banning) and deletion log. Perhaps a few questions to the user might help? x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:karmaisking

User has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and soapboxing (see the user's talk page and checkuser. There is also a previous ANI discussion archived.

1. Since the expiry of the block (today/yesterday), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karmaisking&curid=14651378&diff=183379896&oldid=183345966#Soapboxing soapboxing has begun again (despite warning from an admin), along with the following:
2. Personal attacks: "So, I gather from this that his main "interests" are monetary theory and dope smoking. What a combo!". "It immediately gets deleted by all-seeing, all-knowing Coren as "soapboxing"." "who knows what motivates these sickos?", "Don't let troll Zenwhat discourage you", "You guys are yella," "Instead of engaging in pointless edit wars with idiots,", etc. (See also the pages [116], [117].
3. Repeated intimations and references to violence and pornography (anal rape?): ". It's sitting there as naked as an innocent little girl in a Seymore Butts film", "They then go ahead and put the knife in. ", "Contentious enough for the argument to be concluded with an assassin's bullet", "if someone wants to take the time to actively "terminate" me ON MY OWN TALK PAGE, they can't expect to do it without a fight and some risk to their own... how should I put this... tranquility."
4. Lack of civility (see all of the refs above, including edit comments or talkpage comments such as "NOT ONE OF YOU has had the guts to comment or provide references"), as well as an admission of an inability to act civilly: "The question is not my manners, which I acknowledge are non-existent".

The pattern of behaviour is consistent and does not appear to have changed from the time of the previous block and talkpage protection.--Gregalton (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is this a request for some manner of community sanction? And what sort? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I leave that to administrators to decide; I'm not sufficiently informed on the sanctions available to admins or the policies to suggest specifics or to figure out what may work best.--Gregalton (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a couple of notes on this user's talk page. There are serious civility issues here, and Karmaisking is off to a bad start by using meatpuppets, soapboxing, and generally being uncollaborative. I'm looking at the situation (I was the one who blocked him for meatpuppetry), though I would welcome any outside input. I'd like to make one last effort to see if this editor is willing to work within Wikipedia's environment. If the answer is a resounding no, as it's been thus far, then I don't see the need to belabor the issue. See User Talk:Karmaisking (the bottom) for recent discussion along these lines. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I count as "outside," but I've dealt with Karma before, alongside Gregalton, in cleaning up articles on Monetary theory so that they represent mainstream economics as depicted in my economics textbook. View our edits and you can see our constructive edits, particularly Gregalton's (I admit I've focused way too much on silly essays and policy disputes). Overall, there is a serious problem with monetary crankery (see the theories about the Rothschild family, the New World Order, Austrian economics, etc.) and it is often difficult to deal with. Karma's main modus of operandi was to edit the POV fork debt-based monetary system. I was terrified to engage the man for fear of being reported for 3RR and having Arbitration ban us both out of a false compromise. I had to write a long, desperate cry for help on WP:Help desk until User:Transhumanist renamed the article "Criticisms of fractional reserve banking," which still isn't really that much better because it's still a POV fork, and Wikipedia is still making these theories more notable than they are. Now the troll is up to the same old behavior and when Gregalton posts the issue on WP:ANI, the first admin to respond acts if he's completely blind to the blatant policy violations. Zenwhat (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my patience with this incivil POV warrior is entirely exhausted; his only interests are to expound on his financial theory, attack anyone who dares disagree, and use whatever fora at his disposal as a soapbox. The only reason why I have not already reblocked him is that, as a target of his bile and venom, I might appear to be retributive— but I certainly wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone else was to block him. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I've been "blind"; after all, I did block the guy for a week, and most recently warned him that he's a few mouse clicks away from being blocked indefinitely. I'm pessimistic that this user is going to shape up, and I've never been accused of excessive tolerance of single-purpose tendentious POV-pushing accounts before, but I viewed this as a last-warning kind of thing. If he keeps going in the same vein, I'm prepared to block him indefinitely. Again, other opinions are welcome. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser may be needed on User:BigK HeX. Approach appears very similar. Big long essay and linking exclusively to own POV articles. So far, no egregious personal attacks, and I have not tried to do a detailed analysis of the writing style, etc., so not yet in a position to say that this is a clear case of sockpuppetry (meatpuppetry). And, of course, if I am wrong, then mea culpa.--Gregalton (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, based on his subsequent edits and responses, it's become evident that he has no intention of amending his desire to spread The Truth^TM to include collaborative editing or consensus. I've blocked his account for 1 month; more justification for the block is on his talk page. If he returns with more of the same after the block expires, or if he continues violating WP:SOCK, then the block can be extended to indefinite. Comment and review welcome. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse mastcell's one month community ban, with a request that after the month ANY repetition of the "pursuit for truth" lead to a permenant comunnity ban from the entire project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gorwath

User has pesistantly removed sourced content and engaged in edit wars on Tokio Hotel. Has been warned but refuses to accept that his/her personal opinion is not justification for removing content. Has also made personal attacks [118] and is generally incivil. Is not involved in any other editing. --neonwhite user page talk 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a definite personal attack. I'll warn him on his talk page and watchlist the page for a week or two to see if this is an ongoing problem.--Phoenix-wiki 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Athena Nikolo

Resolved

There is apparently a real person named Athena Nikolo who runs an Emma Watson fan page (based on what I can find on Google). There are also apparently people who don't like her. Since she has her own page, it would make one curious as to why she would come here to apologize for her bad behavior elsewhere, then begin a campaign of racist vandalism. This feels to me like somebody trying to do a Joe Job on her with the comments on the User page. Should the User page be deleted? The account has been blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as pure vandalism (by me). ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricxster making borderline legal threat

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, page protected due to refusal to comply with WP:NLT and unblock abuse⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricxster is having a dispute with Tvoz, and left what I interpreted to be a legal threat on Tvoz's user page ("I have case for defamation and believe me, I am very angry."). I warned the user about making legal threats. See User talk:Pagrashtak#Ricxster and User talk:Ricxster#Do not make legal threats for the back-and-forth. Ricxster has indicated to me that he or she does not consider this a legal threat, and has refused to remove the sentence. Ricxster has since altered it to "In law, there exists case for defamation - "not explicit in what I will or wont do".", which is not fully satisfactory to me, as it sounds like it leaves the window for legal action open. I haven't blocked based on Ricxster's insistence that it is not a legal threat, but I'm still uncomfortable with the wording. I would appreciate it if another admin could back up my request for removal of the statement. Pagrashtak 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:LEGAL. An administrator should explain this to him and, if he refuses to withdraw it, block him. There's really no ambiguity there at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Up with this we shall not put. Clear legal threats - not borderline at all. Blocked for an indeterminate period, with a requirement to categorically withdraw the threats before s/he is unblocked. I'm happy for this to be reviewed; I'm happy for fellow admins to remove the block when the threats are withdrawn. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Churchill. Thanks—I hate blocking, it's not why I got in the admin business. Pagrashtak 23:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For background, the whole dispute stems (I kid you not) from an edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of the word "was" from the lead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and from discussion at the talk page (found here). I tried to calm things down, to no avail. While I can see why Ricxster may be angry, this was taken way, way to far. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, one for WP:LAME there then. Anyone care to add it? ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I might later. It really is one for the ages, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, fellas, I wasn't in an edit war over this at all - I restored the text exactly once in line with consensus on talk, and tried to reason with the guy, after which he went ballistic. I do appreciate the fast action against what was clearly an attempt to intimidate with legal threats. Thanks for the help. Tvoz |talk 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined this user's unblock request until he unequivocally withdraws his legal threats (or threats of future legal threats, etc) BLACKKITE 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious debates over Harry Potter

This anonymous user is currently engaged in an edit war over this page. Said user continuously re-instates an unsourced and highly POV commentary into the article without explanation or discussion, despite repeated warnings and one 24-hour block. Said user is not technically in violation of the 3-revert rule because the commentary is rewritten each time. Request that a longer or indefinite block be put in place. Serendi^podous 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The user can't be blocked indefinitely, but I did extend the block to a week. DarthGriz98 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Serendi^podous 01:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pats1

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:99.130.34.227

User:99.130.34.227 is repeatedly adding and reverting unsourced commentary on child support and feminism. [119], [120]. Normally I'd just revert and re-revert as necessary, but he or she has now moved on to vandalizing my User Page as well, [121] so I'm bringing it here. DanielEng (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a final warning. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ETA: He or she appears to have logged in as User:Akulkis, and now is including personal attacks which appear to be specifically directed against me. Apparently I'm now a woman and a Stalinist too! I'm amused, but since this person seems to have a personal grudge now, could someone look at this again?

[122] [123][124]DanielEng (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes you a what, Stalinette? Already blocked by User:Orangemike. I suggest other admins read the latest comments on User talk:Akulkis. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text by possibly interested party

Resolved

 – user blocked

It seems that some text was removed from the Australian Navy Cadets article by a user, ANC AsstDirInfoSystems, with a name that suggests they have a conflict of interest Whitstable (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As a disinterested party, it was a misch-masch of unsourced original research and biased material, and any editor should have deleted it. But not that one, obviously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Close to my own thoughts - the text should have been removed (I've not reinstated it) but I was just slightly uneasy with the account making the edits Whitstable (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to leave a {{uw-coi}} on the page, but user is now blocked.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber

Turtescrubber is inserting material into an article that is already in the article. I reverted here, and he reverted back. I do not want to get into an edit war, and so the article now contains several paragraphs that are repeated twice. Perhaps an admin could look into it?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, Ferrylodge has been blocked before, several times before, see [125]. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) But not Turtlescrubber, see [

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Turtlescrubber]. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And does that end the discussion, Bearian? ArbCom overturned the ban against me. How is that relevant to the issue I raised above?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is going against an article consensus that left the article locked for weeks. He never really accepted the consensus to keep the section in the article and has a horrible case of wp:own. He has worn all the editors on the page down with his constant bickering. I cant take him anymore. I recently stood up for him when a group of editors wanted him to be banned again, I wish I hadn't. I cannot assume good faith with him anymore. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point. Bearian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, no article should contain multiple duplicate paragraphs. This article was previously protected in response to edit-warring by, among others, Turtlescrubber. Now he is edit-warring to repeat material that is already in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am following talk page consensus, something you obviously have a problem with. Why did you get banned in the first place. You were the one who stripped the article in the first place and you are slowly doing the same thing again. You should be ashamed of yourself. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "stripping" an article to remove duplicate paragraphs. There was no consensus anywhere to have duplicate paragraphs. You have repeatedly inserted duplicate paragraphs today, and that needs to stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, its a bad habit you have. You were, in part, responsible for the original protection of the page because you kept stripping the article of any religious content. Now you are slowly doing the same thing, first you remove the CONSENSUS Section on Mitt Romney's religion. When you have the material scattered throughout the page, you are going to slowly delete or "phase out" or the material. I have seen you do it before, there are reams on the talk page about this, you are going completely against consensus, again. The funny thing is that you wrote the damn section to get the page unblocked and as soon as it was unblocked you started whining and trying to dismantle the section and shuffle the information off into the void. You are a Mitt Romney supporter who does not like the fact that him being a mormon is detrimental to his election chances. You have a serious case of CONFLICT of INTEREST and you do not OWN the page, no matter how many edits you make. If anyone wants to see a good example of this users talk page and editing style, look to the fetus article talk page. Ferrylodge is doing the exact same thing there and pissing everybody off. Par for course. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

People can go see for themselves. Every paragraph that Turtlescrubber has jammed into the article today was already in the article. Now each of his preferred paragraphs appear twice in the article. Is this so complicated?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the consensus version. You are the one that went against consensus and scattered information throughout the page. If they appear twice then we should removed the scattered non-consensus material, then everybody is happy. Is that what you want? That would be fine with me. Instead, I think this is your excuse and the only argument you have. I say leave the consensus derived paragraphs in the article, it tooks us weeks to all agree on that section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of the consensus-derived sentences remained in this article, before you began edit-warring today to include duplicates of those sentences. The only exception is a sentence about Mrs. Romney's family, which is now located in the separate article about her.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section and placement of the section was part of the compromise. You know that. You have tried to undue the consensus multiple times. Once again, the fact that all the information is in one place in the article and the placement of that section were both parts of the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw a long time ago, Turtlescrubber edits suggests a very liberal political viewpoint and Ferrylodge a very conservative viewpoint (but not a goose stepping facist or racist). Censensus will be very difficult but can be achieved if BOTH want it. Saying that one was blocked but they were not is NOT the way to begin to achieve consensus.Congolese fufu (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a moderate and I have never run into you before. CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE, Ferrylodge is violating that consensus. It's in the archive. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seek the middle way between the two extremes. The best compromise I can think of is to merge the two sections together: everybody wins. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What two sections? And are you calling the hard won consensus made by weeks of discussion on the talk page one of the extremes? I don't see how following the consensus of a dozen editors, against one who eventually agreed, is an extreme. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no hard-won consensus to have multiple paragraphs about the subject's Mormonism, and then repeat every last one of those paragraphs twice for added emphasis. As I said in my first comment above, I'm not inclined to edit-war about this; as far as I'm concerned Tutrlescrubber can now go and reinsert the material again, so that it appears in triplicate.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sections, "Early life and education" and "Religious background". Talk page discussion by several users here seems to question whether consensus exists, so blaming Ferrylodge doesn't seem right. You also seem to be very angry and upset about this, when what is needed is calm appraisal. —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to read the entirety of the third archive and part of the fourth to see the consensus and the reaction that other users had when ferrylodge tried to break the consensus. I don't know how to link to specific sections in an archive. Ferrylodge has been trying to break the consensus from literaly day one. He was stopped immediately by the outcry of the many editors who had worked so long to gain the consensus. I have never been as frustrated with any editor that I have been with ferrylodge. Just look at his arguments on this page. They shift everytime he is wrong and he never stops. Its almost psychotic or obsessive compulsive. I understand why he got banned in the past. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguments on this page have not "shifted." No Wikipedia article should contain duplicate sentences, much less dozens of them. Inserting duplicate sentences strikes me as vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then lets keep the religious background section and remove the stray sentences. Everybody is happy. Deal? Or are you going to shift your argument again or just ignore this bolded comment? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I think I solved your complaint. Why aren't you responding? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My response is below, at 04:42, 11 January 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you changed your line of argumentation and ignored my original statement. You will keep doing that very thing ad infinitum until you exhaust the patience of everyone on this page.Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, this is why we should encourage page moves when archiving talk pages, as the diffs are preserved in each individual archive. If you can't find the links in the specific archive, then they are on the main talk page under the date, which means you have to go hunting. Let me address the problem another way. If you were willing to make a concession but also wanted Ferrylodge to do the same, how would you meet him half way? What part of this argument are you willing to give up, and in the same way, which aspect should Ferrylodge concede? —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do and I do appreciate it. My sticking point is the second section of the article should be the religious background section and most of the religious material should be kept therein. This was part of the consensus and it allows us to see when material is removed. I don't care about content. Good, bad, negative or positive.Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The reason I came here is because duplicative material should not be jammed into an article. All of the other issues are tangential, and should be worked out by consensus at the talk page.

I cannot think of a worse reason to keep a bunch of sentences grouped together than because "it allows us to see when material is removed." If you don't have the time or energy to watch the article or participate in the talk page, that's no reason why everyone else must arrange your favorite parts of the article in a format that will make them easier for you to monitor. And, again, the main point is that it is vandalism to take dozens of sentences in an article, copy them, and then redundantly paste them into the article.

When I invited Turtlescrubber to the talk page today, he declined. Turtlescrubber, if you would undo your duplicative edits, and come to the talk page, you'll see that none of the consensus-sentences about Romney's religion have been removed, except for one sentence about Romney's wife's family (which is now in the article about Romney's wife). The consensus-sentences have been put into several different sections of the article, to which those sentences correspond.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith from you ferrylodge. I have talked with you about this very subject dozens of times on the talk page as seen in the archives. We have talked about this over a period of many weeks. We had a consensus. You don't like it and want it changed. You will eventually scatter the material throughout the article and slowly delete it as you have started to do. That is why having it in a section is the only way to keep an eye on it. That is because of you and your obsessive need to "clean" your candidates article. You constantly edit the article and slip in changes when no ones looking. I am a normal persona and cannot keep up with the obsessive amounts of edits you make. Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Turtlescrubber, you can go to the history page of an article, and select any two versions to compare. You don't have to compare consecutive versions.

Additionally, as you know, you have made a grand total of one talk page comment this year. Here it is. You said, "I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page." As you must be able to acknowledge, I did not remove a single reference to religion from Mitt Romney's page, except for one sentence about his wife's family, which is now in the seperate article about his wife (although the editors there shortened it because they thought it was a "digression" even in the article about her [126]).

And getting back to the point: please stop duplicating your favorite material in the Mitt Romney article. Just because you want everyone to be aware of his Mormonism does not permit you to repeat dozens of sentences over and over again. That's vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. There would be no duplicate material. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Would that solution to the duplicate material work for you? Please answer yes or no and than say why! Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys actually looking for some action from an administrator here, or are you just bringing a content dispute to AN/I? Bringing an argument here probably isn't helping either one of you. There's WP:RFC for that. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Elkman, as I said in my first comment, I would very much appreciate some action from an administrator here. Isn't it vandalism for a user to insert duplicates of dozens of sentences in an article?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't bring this to the page. I just want to return to the consensus version and then I will be happy to leave the page alone. Jesus, do you want to remove the duplicate material. I'll do it. No problem. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I removed the duplicate material as per your concerns. I hope this situation is resolved. I am going to sleep. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus agreement

Hello everyone. I have taken a much-needed break from editing on Mitt Romney but I was right in the midst of the consensus discussions that Turtlescrubber refers to, and I will be glad to report what the consensus was at that time. But I am not willing to hunt down the diffs and I'm doing this from memory because I've already wasted too much of my life arguing with a tendentious editor on this and other matters. I am not going to get embroiled in this here or anywhere else - I don't have the time or the interest to respond to the volumes that I expect will ensue, based on previous experience. So I will report and I will leave and you can decide what to do about it.

Turtlescrubber is completely correct that the agreement that allowed the full protection to finally be lifted was that there would be a section on "Religious Background" as the second section of the article - that is, directly under "Early life and education". This was a consensus agreement, that included editors who had taken different positions initially. It was a compromise based on the Eisenhower model, but it didn't last too long before tinkering with it began. There were requests that the consensus agreement be left alone so that the article could enjoy some stability, but apparently that went out the window. There was certainly no agreement that once the page was unlocked the religion section could be dismantled and distributed throughout the article. There was a proposal to move only the second paragraph (I think it was the 2nd) to the Presidential campaign section, but no agreement that I know of was reached on that - I was one of the editors who said I might be willing to consider that but I never did agree to it. And in any case, part and parcel of my even being willing to consider it was that the Religious background section would remain as the 2nd section of the article, as many of us believe that his religion is one of the first things that people look for discussions of when they come to his article.

For that reason, I would totally oppose the dismantling of the religion section and never would have agreed to it if I were actively editing there now. I believe that breaking up of the religious background section is designed to downplay references to his being a Mormon, for whatever reason, and while I might not think that every biography should have a prominent religion section, I think this one needs to. Further, I think that the way the material has been edited has been in a not particularly neutral way - it seems to be also designed to remove any hint of negativity or critical view - again, you can decide for what reason, as I don't care to speculate right now.

Of course no one thinks that the material should be repeated in the article (other than perhaps an echo in the intro) - Ferrylodge is right about that. I would hope Turtlescrubber really didn't have that in mind as his final edit, and his bolded section above clearly indicates to me that he does not want the material duplicated. I think he was re-instating the section that had been agreed to, and I believe he'd agree to remove the duplication from the other sections if the consensus agreement to retain the separate section is respected.

If a new consensus has been reached, I don't know anything about it, and I acknowledge that consensus can change. But not by strong-arming, one would hope. As I said, I have been on a break from this article, and I may or may not go back to it - I haven't decided. But if this AN/I item is an indication of what's going on there, I'll be less likely to. I would have hoped that Ferrylodge's experience in being banned and having a arbitration lift the ban because of discomfort with the banning process would have shown him a different path, but it sounds like not that much has changed, which is unfortunate. I hope this helps, but I mean it - I really do not want to go another ten rounds with you, Ferrylodge. So try to resist temptation to invoke what you think my politics are and any other tactic, and see if you can respect the consensus that I and Cool Hand Luke and others worked really hard to achieve after a long period of full protection. One other thing: I have had absolutely no contact with Turtlescrubber or anyone else about this - no one asked me to come here and comment, I just saw it on AN/I and decided to try to help out. And I am sincere in that - I am only commenting here in an attempt to help. Tvoz |talk 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And, it looks like there was an almost simultaneous edit here and that Turtlescrubber removed the duplication - I haven't looked at it - so will the consensus Religious Background section be maintained? That no doubt will determine whether this matter is resolved or not. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus works for me. I asked the guy four times if he wanted me to remove the duplicate material, if you hadn't come along he would have just changed his argument to the next silly thing he thought of. Resolved now. Super, I don't want to go any more rounds with ferrylodge either. I do have a life. ;) Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has now been resolved, because Turtlescrubber has now removed dozens of sentences in the article that were duplicative as a result of his edits a few hours ago. I do not agree with the way he has taken ownership of this article, but at least he has removed the vandalism by not repeating his favorite parts of the article twice. I would also kindly request him to investigate more carefully in the future, before falsely accusing me of removing material from the article, and before edit-warring yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Real consensus

I don't believe you have a real consensus. You need to stop fighting. Tvoz and Turtlescrubber are known liberals and Ferrylodge is a known conservative. There is little attempt at consensus from what I can see. Can you please calm it down?

I take the yawn to be a disruptive comment.Congolese fufu (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Now I'm a "known liberal"? Who are you anyway - I've never even seen your name before so how exactly do you know who I am, and why are you denigrating my attempt to help out here? In case you didn't notice, I wasn't fighting, I was trying to help out by providing testimony as to what transpired before, and in case you didn't notice I'm not trying to re-achieve consensus, as I did that already. In fact I agreed with Ferrylodge that the material shouldn't be duplicated, and before I finished posting my comment Turtlescrubber had already removed the duplication. So maybe you should mind your own business and not characterize people's politics when you know nothing about them. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, don't remove other people's comments on AN/I - I reinstated a reply that Turtlescrubber made above that you took out without explanation or authority, as far as I can see. It's not your prerogative to remove what other people say in a forum like this. Tvoz |talk 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your name in the newspaper before I saw it on Wikipedia. If I divulge it, then it would potentially invade your privacy. Your name made national news. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and you remembered it. I don't think so. Nowhere did it say anything about being a liberal, by the way, so try again. Or, on second thought, maybe don't. I'm done here. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the newspaper with me but another newspaper has a different article online. Just google "Tvoz". To find it higher in the search page, google "Tvoz wikipedia democrat". The article isn't the same but it talks about Wikipedia and Tvoz being a Democrat and Ferrylodge being a Republican. All I see in the above comment is hate. Read my comments and you will find that I have been completely neutral yet all I get are attacks. Congolese fufu (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for you two to go back to your corners and cool off. Congolese fufu, DO NOT remove other editors' comments from AN/I, unless it's blatant vandalism, even then let an admin remove it. Those kinds of tactics are a short path to a block, for sure. Tvoz, comments like "maybe you should mind your own business..." aren't really conducive to the situation either, are they? Someone needs to be the party here to rise above, take a step back, and get perspective. You're BOTH better than this.. Edit Centric (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::::Edit Centric, see your user talk page for explanation of Wikipedia software problem. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough. But I don't appreciate the baiting, and don't think it was deserved. I was trying to help. Cheers. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What admins can do if you bring a dispute here

If you want action from an administrator, here are some things an administrator could do:

• Protect the page for a while until the differences are ironed out. Of course, protecting the page at one editor's preferred version would make the other editor unhappy.
• Call one editor's edits "vandalism" and roll back their edits. Wikipedia:Vandalism says that content disputes aren't vandalism, though.
• Block one user from editing, but not the other. This won't fix anything; it'll just anger one of the users and encourage the other one to gloat in victory.
• Block both users. This might quiet things down for a while, but it won't make anyone feel better.
• Delete the article outright. Nope, I'm not doing that.
• Attempt to determine who's right and who's wrong, based on Wikipedia policies. I could spend the next half-hour or so doing that, but that won't help achieve consensus.
• Stop reading AN/I and play Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock for a little while longer. I'm tempted to do that, but it's getting a little late at night.
• Remind the editors involved that there are other options for dispute resolution, such as WP:3O and WP:RFC.
• Encourage the editors involved to actually discuss their differences at the article's talk page, and if they can't get resolution, then invite other editors to provide their opinion. There's a little bit about it at Talk:Mitt Romney, but only from the two users involved. Surely there are other viewpoints.
• Apologize for calling either one of these editors Shirley.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if I can get a five-star review for Miss Murder. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. I didn't read it at first thinking it was dry policy. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elkman. Surely, inserting dozens of duplicate sentences into an article is vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest, you two. You've presented your evidence, had your bicker, taken up a huge amount of space, and reached a resolution. Time to let it rest. Pairadox (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty good, you should make that into a template for when other users want an admin to "fix" their content dispute. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive quote

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on User:Boris_1991, one of the quotes that reads:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boris 1991's user page does not violate Wikipedia:User page. Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages. Jecowa (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked him to remove it: [127], which should have been your first stop. Viridae^Talk 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)

• Short answer: To prevent Wikipedia from looking poorly.
• Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Wikipedia as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Wikipedia's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. Jecowa (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppetry in Naruto-arena

While going through the article I noticed this article upon examining the history I found that it seems a large number of single-purpose accounts had been working in this article. I thought that I should bring this matter up here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article did not assert its significance in any way, shape, or form. As such, I've deleted it as a non-notable website under WP:CSD#A7.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe

Just thought I'd bring this to administrator attention. Is User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe okay? The username, his contributions towards User:Y, especially this one. I have no idea if anything needs to be done, but just thought I'd ask some opinions. I'm going to inform Arbeit of this discussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know who this is a "work sock" of. If it's no-ones, then it should be blocked as being against our username policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under the impression it is actually Y's alternate account. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd block it for disrupting the arbcom, but that's me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps it is Y's sock. Still... --Ali'i 18:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted revision of the userpage. I am Y's sock. I edit while Y is at work. Hence my name. Please don't block me for disrupting ArbCom. Don't take yourself so seriously. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I confirm. -- Y not? 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I did it, I said that I would support doing it. Your comment on the Arbcom was far from helpful. Seriously, why? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(pun removed)Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's in extremely poor taste. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's incredible that a user with a sockpuppet is allowed to be a Wikipedia administrator. Especially after making so-called "joke" comments on ArbCom, and then after being warned, replied by saying other people shouldn't take themselves so seriously. And then adding Simple English content to English Wikipedia. Has the standards for Wikipedia admins gone so low? --Quoth nevermore (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I get the point of bringing up stuff that's almost three months old. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)