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

Use of Wikipedia for class project

New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Wikipedia as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Wikipedia articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Wikipedia for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Wikipedia is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma ^message 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Wikipedia and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? Aleta ^Sing 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another update: There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Wikipedia, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Wikipedia is not a free web host. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Are you sure the professor is from Brock University? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, Paul V. Hamilton is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at Marshall University. Observe this comment in AfD discussion: Global censorship of Youth's books:

• Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found here. I notice that User talk:Globalecon also has "email this user" enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't sure. That was just my best guess from an Internet search. Apparently, I was wrong. Enigma ^message 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Wikipedia tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. Globalecon (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Wikipedia administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their user pages or their user subpages and only contemplate publishing them in the mainspace once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hersfold said above, El Señor Presidente came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: one of the batch of five articles promote as the 2,000th. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/Dispatches. And not a typical educational experiment, because they were accessorized by the FA-Team, comprising many of Wiki's prolific FA writers, who did a good deal of the kind of tweaking and fine-tuning needed to achieve FA status. My past experiences with these educational projects has been more along the lines of what I'm reading here: a most frustrating time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that we had the invaluable help of the FA-Team, but that's not why we avoided this problem. I'd say that the three errors made in this case are:

• that the professor has no history on Wikipedia
• that the professor shows no sign of wanting to edit actively to support his students
• that the students are asked to pick their own article topics, rather than improve existing articles or fill clear gaps
• that the students are writing the articles off-line and then uploading them in what is inevitably a non-Wikipedia format
• that the students are writing the articles off-line, in a genre more suitable to term papers than encyclopedia articles
• that the class has no clear goal beyond uploading content, any content

WP:MMM avoided all these errors. And it's in large part because we did avoid them, that we were, I believe, an attractive prospect for the FA-Team, and the collaboration could get off to a good start. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. User:Globalecon/Article title here, User:Globalecon/Another article, etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be moved out to mainspace. —Travis^talk 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to Wikipedia:School and university projects on Globalecon’s talk page. —Travis^talk 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are now 17 articles listed at User:Globalecon/Global Economics (although some have already been deleted). If there are really going to be about a hundred of these, and if no one can persuade the teacher to get his students to do something other than what they've been doing, AfD is going to be severely clogged up for some time to come. Deor (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• People are now using that page as a source for articles to PROD or send to AFD. :P I looked through the pages listed there, and most of them have received that treatment. Enigma ^message 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Enigmaman, you mean that wasn't what it was there for? How far do they have to go before we can rangeblock Marshall until May 10th? The prof doesn't seem to want to work within the rules here so this entire project doesn't seem much different concerted vandalism attack. One Hundred articles to be deleted, redirected, or merged? Woof...I'm sure we've all got better things to do than to be this guy's unpaid TAs. (sorry to sound so BITEY, but he appears unwilling to work with us, why should we allow him to swamp WP?) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I was actually considering recommending that myself. I think any administrator would be hesitant to rangeblock a university, even temporarily, but that seems to be where this is headed. The pages keep coming, and the professor isn't stepping in and informing the students of policy. He created a monster that is gaining strength. Enigma ^message 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is real merit in what the academic in question is trying to do here, but only if he'd take the advice of others and have his students create their articles in userspace, after which any worthy offerings can be transported to mainspace or merged into existing articles. I can see this becoming very disruptive in a very short space of time. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really pretty sure that we don't rangeblock a university to prevent people from attempting to contribute articles in good faith. I don't have the whole blocking policy memorized or anything, but I'm really pretty sure about that. I also very seriously doubt I skipped over the part of WP:VANDAL where people honestly attempting to contribute articles, the best they can, with mixed success, are treated with contempt and dirision, and have their contributions called vandalism. With all the pure crap we get every day, with all the POV pushing and vandalism and egotistical ANI dramafests and editors drummed out of wikipedia by assholes, this is the way we treat people honestly trying to create something? We have 2 million someodd articles; these are automatically the 100 worst? AfD if you must, redirect if you must, try to convince the professor to alter his system if you must, or (God forbid) try to improve the articles if you must. I could care less if the professor's plan works or not, but let's show at least the students, the ones contributing articles the best they can, the ones who don't really have much of a choice in the matter, a tiny bit of respect. --barneca (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't consider it vandalism, but this is without question disruption. I agree that the professor is responsible more than the students, but no one said these were the 100 worst articles. Rather, it's an individual coordinating the mass addition of articles that don't belong in the mainspace. That's disruption, especially since he and many of the students have been informed of this and have not taken any steps to rectify the situation. Enigma ^message 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would anyone have any objection to my creating a bright shiny banner at that listing page with links to helpful policies (like YFA/SYNTH/OR/NPOV) and a note that articles/essays that don't comply with those policies will probably be deleted in short order? Not to phrase it in a bitey way, but more along the line of the pragmatic tone of WP:OUTCOMES? After all, if the students aren't learning policies in class, someone needs to point them out. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• That would be helpful, thanks. Enigma ^message 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Hopefully not too bitey. Feel free to reword/recolor as needed. (I ended up deciding against invoking blink tags). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this part of the professor's note above especially troubling: "so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week." That sort of obvious arrogance, in the face of all this talk about how out of sorts with our policies he is, seems to say he knows that he's abusing the webhosting aspect of WP, but that he's somehow better than us, arrogating rights beyond our admins' power to assure us that he'll sort this all out for us later. It's a clear attitude that our policies don't matter to him. I would support a full university-wide rangeblock, if contacting his department head, or the dean of academics office doesn't yield satisfactory results. But go up the chain of command, then rangeblock the university. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the range to block if need be? Nakon 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

206.212.0.0/18 -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a bold admin might ignore all rules and unilaterally move the respective articles to the relevant place in userspace, namely the good professor's userspace? Granted some of these essays seem to have been added to existing articles in the mainspace. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the coordinator of WP:MMM, I've started writing up some advice about how to use Wikipedia in educational assignments, and how not to. This does seem like a textbook example of how not to. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Up above, it was noted that the students' real and full names appeared in the User:Globalecon/Global Economics page. This has since been reduced to just initials, but their full names still appear in the page's history. Can/Should we get an administrator to purge a few history versions to protect their privacy? It seems like the proper thing to do given the situation. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Update After a very bad start, there has at least been some improvement. There are now two articles that are useful. Maybe if we try encourage, rather than discourage, this project will blossom. Maybe no school project will ever be able to emulate WP:MMM, but we can at least encourage them to try. Noble Story (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an update on the university's position on his actions and disregard for the rules of this project? Has anyone contacted them regarding this? ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Positive Reinforcement

I'm going to try some positive reinforcement. The good articles (those being kept, or not redirected/deleted) get a Y, so that people will have some idea what constitutes a good effort. (I'll explain this in the top box too). With any luck, it won't be necessary to go rouge and start handing out N's. (Seriously, that would not be nice -- it's not the kids fault that they weren't told how to go about this). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) ....assuming I could go rouge, I think I might be missing a bit... --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "redirect" graphic to show that some of them no longer point to the article uploaded by the student? Thanks for the work on this Bfig... LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too

If they're writing the papers in Wikipedia space, they need to give more to Wikipedia than they get.

Every one of those articles should be created in userspace with the explicit goal of creating quality encyclopedic entries. This summer I myself fully intend to require my students to either create Wikipedia articles on appropriate topics for which no articles already exist or seriously revise articles that are deficient. The goal is to create articles appropriate for Wikipedia while learning about their topics. I am stressing that they should use usernames that do not reflect their real names or personally identifying information, and that they MUST create these pages in their userspace, where the articles will remain until they are appropriate in quantity and quality of content.

I must stress that I personally have a history with Wikipedia, and I plan to support my students in their work. For purposes of their education, the most practical reason for doing their work through Wikipedia will be so that I can guide them through the editing process.Doczilla _STOMP! 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked me about the idea that students could learn more about how Wikipedia works by posting in mainspace. He/she preferred not to post that comment here. Anyway, here's my reply on something I don't feel a need to have a private conversation over when the question was about the topic presented here on this forum.

(1) They will disrupt Wikipedia with junk articles that aren't fit yet. An article that isn't even a real article yet doesn't belong outside userspace when the person fully intends to keep working on it. (2) Academically, this would be first and foremost for them to learn about their topics, not to learn about Wikipedia even though it should create an article that would benefit Wikipedia. By working in userspace, they can do their own work and develop the article without interference from other editors who might take charge of the whole thing. (3) See previously mentioned ownership problems. Once it leaves userspace, they don't own the work and they have no right to expect others to leave the things alone. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally in projects like this, the students should be learning both about their academic topics and how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, there's no point in assigning the students to post their essays on Wikipedia instead of simply submitting them in the normal way. The Wikipedia part just becomes a gimmick. Having said that, I strongly agree with you about starting the papers in user space. Furthermore, I don't think that the "user page first method" is incompatible with achieving both goals. But this is assuming that when the articles go into the mainspace, the professor/teacher is prepared to put a lot of thought and hands-on effort into guiding the students through the editing process and the interaction with 'outside' editors and the Wikipedia community as a whole. Hats off to this professor!!

However, the GlobalEcon project is more than a little problematic, and probably a special case. The professor there seems to know nothing about how Wikipedia works, and appears to be giving little or no guidance (and worse, giving wrong information) to his students. He doesn't really interact on his talk page or the various article talk pages (nor does he encourage his students to). In fact, he explictly and actively discourages any kind of collaborative editing, e.g. requesting that nobody touch his students' articles until he's graded them, after which he appears not to care at all what happens to them. He doesn't take up the constructive suggestions that have been offered, and seems unwilling to explore Wikipedia and its resources for himself, e.g. [1]. I also made some suggestions here about the issue of his students uploading copyright images and claiming them as "self made" and/or failing to document them properly. No comment from him, no guidance added for his students (at least on the project page). Today I found another problematic upload from one of them.

Given that the GlobalEcon project ends in 10 days, and there is no sign that the students and their professor are intending to engage or collaborate with Wikipedia apart from storing their essays here, they're certainly not going to learn any more about Wikipedia itself by posting directly to the mainspace. In this case, the most pragmatic approach is to minimize the disruption they're causing by strongly encouraging them to write the articles first on their user pages. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have added to the warning box on the project page a P.S. about image copyrights. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest

You can't stop good faith contributions to the wiki. We try, desperately, to make sure that new articles are better written, blah blah blah, but guess what people, this is no different from the massive amounts of articles we get every single day. So stop bitching about it and let these people edit like everyone else is allowed to do. We want to improve the situation, but never to prevent good faith article contribution. Never. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. There are now several articles that have been made by students that can be improved. I have a suggestion: Why not assign several veteran editors to oversee the project, and maybe one veteran for each student (or at least students who have created worthwhile articles). After all, WP:MMM probably couldn't have had such great success without the FA-Team's help. I think we should definitely try to reproduce a mentoring system in this case. Noble Story (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in quite a lot of sympathy with this approach, and agree that good faith contributions should never be pro-actively prevented. And, I suppose it's worth approaching the professor with your suggestion, but I see a couple of potential problems.

1. The professor doesn't seem to be open to this, at least up to now. He's not taken up the offers of help from other educators, nor has he signed on to Wikipedia:School and university projects, although he has been strongly encouraged to do so.

2. GlobalEcon is not a group or even a collaborative project. It is quite unlike the WP:MMM project. It appears that each GlobalEcon student is expected to write their own essay and not contribute to those of other students on the course. It also appears that they are being graded individually on their articles (hence the requests to leave them 'untouched' until they're completed and the professor has marked them.) The quality and quantity of the mentoring could have a differential effect on the students' grade outcomes, giving some an unfair advantage in producing a good article.

Addenda. The re-directs and multiple re-directs on some of these articles could also produce differential grade outcomes unless the professor is clued in about how to access page histories and what a re-direct is, e.g. this not so fab article now redirects to the quite spiffy Deforestation. But that's not Wikipedia's problem. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to minimize the disruption while the class assignment runs its course and then work to improve the surviving articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering this: What is the ultimate goal of this project? If the professor sets goals similar to WP:MMM (i.e A+ for FA, A for GA), then the project has hope. But if the only aim is to just keep the article on Wikipedia without getting deleted, then I don't think anything can be done to help.

Actually I'm feeling sorry for (some of) the students. There have been maybe four or five good article created, and with help, they could be greatly improved, but it seems that their professor's unhelpfulness is really messing everything up. Noble Story (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling sorry for all of the students. They've been thrown in at the deep end, with no preparation, guidance or support. Many of them are having their work raked over the coals in AfDs, sometimes quite brutally. And, they appear to have had no choice about uploading this stuff to Wikipedia - it's an assignment. I think all of us participating in the AfDs need to keep this mind, when discussing the students' work - be frank but considerate at the same time.

What is the ultimate goal of this project? As far as I can make out from what the students have been uploading and the professor's comments here, and here, the goal is for each of them to write an academic essay and publish it as a Wikipedia article. (Despite the fact that some key criteria for a good academic essay - original thought and a novel synthesis of ideas - are incompatible with writing a viable Wikipedia article.) The students are to try and avoid anyone else editing their 'articles' so they will be all their own work and more easily assessed as such. The professor then marks them, and that's that. He doesn't appear to care one way or another what happens to the articles after he's marked them.

Oh well, 35 articles up, just another 65 to go.;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly share your sympathies for these kids and heartily applaud your optimism and positive outlook, but I think that if we are to be totally fair, they should be treated as any other Wikipedian would -- both positive and negative. In as much as it would be wrong to be prejudiced against their articles for being part of this assignment or simply IP-blocking them outright (as was discussed above), it would also be wrong to give them any preferential treatment as well. Ultimately, the Wikipedia community is not responsible for this professor's actions, including his class assignments or grading system. We should not place ourselves in the position to be sensitive in any way how this professor may grade his students off-wiki based on anyone's actions on-wiki. That is not our place and it would be presumptuous for us to make it so. That is between the students, their professor, and administration of their university. To me, the solution is simple. If the articles need fixing, we fix them. If the articles need deleting, they go to AfD. Not only does WP:OWN indicate that editors can not retain ownership of articles themselves, it also means that we as a community can't assign ownership of an article to any editor either. Given that, these students don't own these articles and they are subject to the same rules as any other article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we should just treat these students as any other editors, and these articles like any other new articles. The problem is, we generally treat any other editor who, in good faith, creates an article that doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, like crap. So I guess when I suggest we treat the students with respect, I'm not sure whether to say "like any other editor" or not. --barneca (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but chuckle because, as much as I'm ashamed to say so, you are absolutely right that sometimes well-meaning editors are "treated like crap". I suppose my actual point was that we shouldn't lay kid gloves on these articles simply because this professor might give his students poor marks as a result. We shouldn't allow that kind of reasoning to enter the equation. By all means, though, these editors should be treated with the utmost respect that is deserved by any Wikipedian. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mightn't the fairest thing be to delete all of these articles, so that every student is treated in the same way and their clueless teacher is thwarted in his effort to use WP as a Web host. Then, after the class project is over, we could have a combined DRV to restore the few that show promise of becoming legit articles. Deor (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If it's a decent article, it would be both counterproductive and very WP:POINTy to delete it simply because it was begun as part of this class assignment. Aleta ^Sing 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do we do with articles like these?

• Economics of the Fifa World Cup
• Fifa world cup impacts on the economy

Yes, AfD works, but it's a time sink. --John Nagle (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They were up for four minutes before being AFD'd. That IMO is out of order. Maybe it's worth putting an underconstruction tag up for them, maybe they don't know how to? Edit: I've cleaned up the references. D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One such article might be legitimate. Two articles with essentially the same content from the same editor is spamming. They were sent to AfD by different editors. No speedy deletion category applies, so AfD is appropriate. And, in the end, they're essays inappropriate to Wikipedia, even after the formatting is fixed. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it spamming. (S)he may not know how to create a redirect and created a duplicate on error. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, how is it spamming? These are very inexperienced editors. The student probably wanted to change the title but didn't know how to move a page or create a re-direct. I think we can show a little understanding here. As has been said at the AfD, pouncing on articles from this project with minutes of their appearance and AfD-ing them seems a bit pointy. In each case, I think we should ask ourselves, "If I happened on this article by chance and didn't know it came from the GlobalEcon project, would I probably tag it for clean-up and wait a few days to give the editor a chance before sending it to AfD? Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And the answer is (and should be) "Yes." Furthermore, there's obviously a difference of opinion over on AfD as to the worth of these articles, and they're not quite as universally disparaged as all of that. When all is said and done, though, yes: this prof is being a pain in the butt, he plainly expects Wikipedia to be something other than what it is, and yes, there's going to be a lot more AfDs before this is done. Not, mind you, that AfD doesn't get 100-150 articles a day all by itself, that there aren't hundreds of editors who don't already do this kind of cleanup, and that we should be in the habit of telling otherwise willing students that they're not allowed to play here.  RGTraynor  17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree, as a beginning point, that the problem is not with the contributors themselves, but with the leadership they're (not) being provided? Could we perhaps create some sort of temporary project page, the barest possible bones of article-writing, policy, et al, to provide these (potentially good, potentially long-term and valued) contributors with the leadership they're (completely, totally, utterly NOT) getting at the other end of this project? Yes, I know--not our job, not our problem--but I would imagine that a little TLC and Wiki-spirit could go a long way in nurturing contributors. This isn't like we're trying to reform a pack of vandals--these could be great Wikipedians someday, given some guidance and leadership from OUR end. Just a thought. Gladys J Cortez 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The page here where they list their articles is effectively a project page, and already has a box at the top which gives them advice and links (in plain English, not Wiki-acronyms) to WP:YFA, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CITE and WP:REDUNDANT, together with suggestions for promising subjects. That should be enough to set them on the right lines. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also attempting to point out some common issues in an effort to make their job (and ours) easier and more productive. Please add what you think is needed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A set up?

One almost wonders if the purpose of this isn't something else. In looking at some of the topics, their connections are tenuous at best (the viral marketing of a movie, for example). I almost wonder if the entire point isn't an experiment in disrupting an open informational economy, and observing the effects, in which case we're all playing into the hands of the class, and giving them plenty of raw data to use. I guess we'll find out whether this is benign willful ignorance, or malicious, deliberate interruptions. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's needlessly harsh. It's much more likely that this is simply what happens when you tell a bunch of students to go write articles yet fail to provide proper guidance on what the difference between an essay and an article is. (Or fully explain the rest of our policies for that matter). Overall, the average here is still better than at NewPagePatrol. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tachyonbursts

Resolved

 – Tachyonbursts topic-banned from anything related to 9/11 for 1 month by Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) under the terms of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks § VegitaU_is_inserting_POV_and_he.27s_acting_against_consensus

Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: [2] [3] This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself: ([4]) -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's pretty clear that Tachyonbursts is the returning NuclearUmpf and before that Zer0faults...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. RxS (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that his account is recently created and has almost singularly focused on the September 11 attacks article or users editing that article. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of banned 9/11 editors that might create a sock to edit this article. But that's sort of beside the point. It's this user's contribs that matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing he's a sock; RxS is welcome to present any evidence he has. I'm just remarking this user has focused exclusively on this and it might be useful to topic ban this user for a short while. See if he moves on to something else (besides accusations of government propaganda). -- VegitaU (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, I don't think it's beside the point at all...when an editor is blocked for disruption it's relevant if he just comes back with another account. I'd add Quantumentanglement to the list as well. Note the themed usernames, editing style and POV....also blocked for disruption on these articles (which are under an Arbcom resolution as you know). RxS (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comparison doesn't show an obvious correspondence between Tachyonbursts and NuclearUmpf. At the moment I find more concern with Tachyonburst's conduct as such. Edits like this[5] seem awfully WP:POINTy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formally notified him of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which I believe were intended to curb things like disruptive single-purpose accounts on these articles. If he continues to behave problematically, then it can go to WP:AE or you can ask an admin to look at it under the umbrella of the 9/11 ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admin: I believe this issue has been resolved. If you could put the proper template on this discussion, I can get this page off my watchlist. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, do you fellows honestly believe that fueling decent discussion, demanding citations and seeking answers to unanswered questions is violation of policies? You're playing with your own freedom here, how free would you folks like to be? Seriously. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tachyonbursts, I think one of the biggest issues we have is your attitude. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but you come across as very confrentational in your edits. I hope I am not assuming bad faith by saying that. I'm trying to work with you on this issue, but you have to meet me and the rest of us half way. If you have a problem with the way something is worded, first check the archives, because most of what is said has been gone over many times and consensus has been reached to the best of our ability. The other thing I can sugest is to cite RS from the beginning. Simply saying "This is wrong, fix it" does not help us determine if there actually is a problem, of if it is your oppinion there is a problem. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but VegitaU, one has been through all the archives, since the beginning of the test, so to say, I already have a final response for you, if you want to make it final. It has been written. That sentence above is as clear as clear one could be. One cannot choose for you, you choose as a whole.

I'm sorry, I understand that this can be as silly as those popular references are, but this was far more than I'm allowed to go. You were given an organon long time ago. We can wait no more. Please decide, will you allow the questioning (discussion, that is) or are you ready to wrap things up. Simple yes or no will do. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirly understand what you are trying to say. If you are asking that editors take your objections into concideration, of course. I can't speak for other users, but I will always try to listen to the other side, even if I don't agree with it. I admit, I haven't been this way in the past, but I would dearly love to avoid continuing down that path. The main problem, however, is repetativeness. Just because I am willing to hear all sides doesn't mean I haven't heard it before. And unfortionatly, many of the debates we are currently having have already been fleshed out in the archives. However, if you have some new information in the form of RS, or have noticed something that hasn't been talked about, by all means. This is an open encyclopedia after all. But the biggest change I can sugest is civility. I'm doing my best to remain calm, and restratin myself from making persional/sarcastic remarks. If we all do this, we'll be a lot better off. --Tarage (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

24 hours it is. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that pursuant to the 9/11 ArbCom case and the accompanying discretionary sanctions, Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) has topic-banned Tachyonbursts from anything related to 9/11, loosely construed, through May 30. For the record, I fully support this action, as this is exactly the sort of behavior that the ArbCom sanctions were meant to curb. MastCell ^Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the time? Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit more than 2 hours, what will it be? Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What will what be, what happens in 2 hours? RxS (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of our last encounters as you'd think of Arbcom. My job here is done; I'll respect your decisions as you will ours. You are as free as you've decided to be. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales article, there was a minor dispute regarding the inclusion of a section refering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace princess diana institute of peace.

I and other editors were of the opinion that it was not notable. It was removed/reverted a few times.

In an attempt to stop an edit war, I created a dedicated article devoted to the princess diana institute of peace. This was actually suggested in the talk page, by one of the editors who opposed its removal

I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So consensus seemed to be obvious, create the new article, cut/paste from the old section, remove the old section.

I did the above, I explained the removal in my edit summary, I also explained and linked to the new article in the original article's talk page. I requested that someone go to the new article, add some citations and try to improve it.

Problem solved? well that would be nice, but I wouldnt be here if the problem was solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bermudatriangle has constantly reverted on the princess diana article, in the past they reverted me with the summary "‎ (→Marriage: Normally women are virgins since their birth until they consumate. So provide she consumated with someone before her marriage, if you want to challenge with her virginity.)" which I found laughable.

It seems to be a single purpose account, and despite only having made 12 edits since registering, they are very familiar with wikipedia terms and protocol. draw your own conclusions.

In short I followed consensus, I made a dedicated article, and removed the original statement, fully complying with consensus and common sense. This editor is not respecting consensus, has a dubious single purpose account and their edits are disruptive. I dont think protection of the article is required, however someone informing this user that their actions are not acceptable, might be a good idea. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your intention to create a new article for the Institute is only politically motivated on your part. Neither you are interested on Diana or the Institute or even the wikipedia.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, what can I say, do I need to say anything or does the above comment say it all? I have been editing wikipedia for 8 months, I have over 1000 edits, and I have no political interests relating to the Princess Diana Insitute of Peace, neither do I have any interests in Sri Lanka. I find the above comment to be not only absurd, but also to display a blatant lack of good faith.

I think I should also post the last statement by the above editor, that was place on the talk page of the Princess Diana article.

You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want nothing more than the disruption on that article to cease, I have already left a message on the above editors talk page, stating that if they revert the edit, then I will consider this finished, I am not looking for blocks or protection, just a little good faith and common sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need beautiful words to attract others, but the sequences to make others belive wether we are right or not. Not you 1000 edits that matters, then anyone with editcount can be here as administrators.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I have made over 1000 edits, was mentioned in order to respond to your claim that I was not interested in wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then do you think those who are with more than 1000 edits and indefinitely blocked are not interested on wikipedia?Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly relevant, but I will entertain your question. I think some users with more than 1000 edits are still highly interested in wikipedia, because they ask to be unblocked and come back with new accounts. But as I said, that is not relevant, please deal with the current situation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, add to the above, blatant disregard for 3RR. I made an edit on the princess diana artlce, that did not remove anything, infact I added a link to the article that I created, the above user not only reverted my edit, but made his 4th revert within 24 hours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My last revert is nothing to do with my previous edits. "See also" link to where? To your uncited article? Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made you fully aware that different reverts are just as unacceptable as identical reverts, there is a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29

Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have discussed on the talk page of Diana, Princess of Wales before you bring here the whole issue. Now you are adding citations to your newly created Institute. I think your too keen interest to remove the Institute sub section from the article Diana that quickly is clearly very "political". Can you elaborate your other edits on Diana's page other than your tad virginity issue.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did put this on the Diana talk page, before bringing it here. This report was made 6:17 You reverted me at 6:01 (and again at 7:16 after I made this report) I stated on the talk page that I had made a new article at 5:51, you replied to me on the talk page at 5:59. The talk page was first, your reverts were second, my ANI report was third.

My edits are not political, as far as I am aware the only political interest would be to someone from Sri Lanka or of Sri Lankan origin, I am a white Englishman, who lives in Japan and has no knowledge of Sri Lanka, neither do I have an edit history relating to Sri Lanka, so please take your bad faith accusations elsewhere. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no idea what is going on here. I resent having my name bandied about by either side, and still have queries over the article's notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts have started after User:Lahiru k reverts here. User:Lahiru k contributions and the article 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers indicate WP:COI and WP:POV. So how we believe you are a white Englishman. Your initial edit on Diana's page about her virginity doesn't substantiate your claim that you are white Englishman as well. You should remember Diana is third popular among British people and the interest of the "White English" will very much differ on their first edit on her page. Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace is very much differ from the name Princess Diana Institute of Peace and raise serious doubt over the name alteration.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rename the article. Why would my edits about Diana's virginity say anything about if I was or was not English? I don't display bias in my edits, I edit with a NPOV, if you don't think I am English then you are displaying bad faith, and without being too rude, that is your problem not mine.

Gareth, I apologise for you being brought into this mess, I tried to solve a minor problem, in a manner that would reflect the interests of all parties, I thought it would not be a problem, until one editor starts making disruptive edits, this was a simple problem, with a simple solution. One editor has stood in the way of the simple solution, with his bad faith claims and absurd assumptions regarding what edits an Englishman should and should not make. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

People use often bad faith for their escape on others. Here you are the one misleading others. You displayed you live in Japan and you hav't edited on issues related to Japan(and was critisised by another editor) and claiming yourself now you are a "White Englishman" live in Japan. I think you have created this account to mislead others.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As this issue turns into a new direction, I have refered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation for their comments.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So now you are canvassing ? how many wikipedia guidelines are you going to ignore? And if you don't think I am actually living in Japan, born in England or whatever, that is your problem not mine. And once more, assume good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please to both User:Sennen goroshi and User:Bermudatriangle. I ask that you both take some time away from making further comment on this page. Give the rest of us a chance to read the articles and the associated talk pages on their own merits. If the article shouldn't have been created than taking it to AfD is the proper place for that. AN/I is not the place for some of the comments above and I ask both of you again to please step away for a little bit. Cool off. Then come back and discuss things in a civil manner in the appropriate places. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment now that I've read everything. I'm of the opinion that the information doesn't belong in the Princess Diana article and that the creation of a separate article was reasonable. If User:Bermudatriangle wishes to contribute constructively to wikipedia on this issue I'd suggest helping to expand the article on the Institute instead of going against the consensus that seems to exist about the information not belonging in the main article. I'd also suggest that renaming the separate article to Princess Diana Institute of Peace (Sri Lanka) may be appropriate (in case future Princess Diana Institutes of Peace are created). Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[6] and this diff[7], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [8][9] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what any of the last statement(s) has/have to do with the current discussion or if they area all input from the same user. The Princess Diana Institute of Peace information was removed from the Princess Diana article through concensus. If the resulting article should be "deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible" than someone should nominate it at AfD. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above claim by User:Dhirrosses has no connection to reality, as far as WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is concerned. User:Iwazaki has never been rejected. In fact, at the time of his last Wikipedia edit, people were trying to convince Iwazaki to join the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, which is closely connected with our project[10]. The section link "Wikipedia:SLR#:_rejection rejection", which User:Dhirrosses cites to back up their accusation, never existed. Moreover, this accusation of sockpuppetry is irrelevant: The two accounts have not been used together, so no harm has been done. And WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has even less problems with sockpuppets since it is specifically set up such that creating sockpuppets doesn't give you the same benefits they may give you in other areas of Wikipedia: See WT:SLR#Why we can do without trickery. --— Sebastian 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Colin4C

Colin dedicates all his time on the anti-Americanism article to obstructing editors who disagree with him. He’s demonstrating ownership issues, as well as obstruction of any attempt to reach consensus.

This user was previously warned for personal attacks regarding me and this article by User:VirtualSteve. [11] .

After the warning, he mostly just changed tactics, from attacks to word games. This is a typical example of an exchange between us on the Talk page, which I think shows more interest in word games than consensus:

Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality.

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Life.temp (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, make an effort. Wikipedia's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. Life.temp (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact or an opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lately, he’s resumed more dismissive, attacking comments. Here he sums up my ideas as “playing politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room.” [12]

Here he dismisses my comments as “bar-room pronuncimentios” [13]

Here he characterizes my concerns & edits as “butcherings…personal POV original research agenda…off the cuff lubrications.” This comment of his also goes on at great length about his important credentials, and demonstrates an attitude of ownership. [14]

Here he calls me a “person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside” for the way I want to shorten the article. [15]

Here he says the article is "being butchered by one highly persistent individual" (that would be me). [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could go on. The main other aspect of this is his sarcastic caricatures of everything I say. Every rebuttal is a strawman argument. I won't document that here, but anyone perusing the Talk page will, I believe, see it.

This attitude has been going on for weeks. Even before he was warned, he made edits like “Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it” [17]

I don't really want to use this board as a dumping ground for every problem, but I don't know what else to do. I've made every effort to use the tools of dispute resolution. I proposed a policy for cases like this at the Village Pump [18]. I requested an opinion at the NPOV Noticeboard [19]. I requested informal mediation (completely disrupted by Colin) [20]. I requested Editor Assistance [21]. I requested a Third Opinion [22] (in my opinion, that editor is now being sucked into Colin's whirlwind of aggression). Nothing is going to work as long as Colin doesn't care about dispute resolution. Life.temp (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should both spend some time away from Anti-Americanism. That's what I did (I was involved in this article for a time). Everyone who spends an extended period of time there seems to have a slanted agenda over which they get exceedingly emotional. I don't see any actual civility violations (at least not by these particular two users) -- just people getting huffy over a difference of opinion. Give it up and go edit one of the other 2-point-something-million articles on Wikipedia where you won't run into your arch-nemesis. Let others worry about this particular article for a while. Chances are the article will benefit from that. No offense. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:52, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I don't actually see myself as contributing to a problem here. I've been very conscientious in following the steps of dispute resolution, and only been cross a few times. Colin isn't going to do this to just me; he is going to do it to everyone he disgarees with. This was his attitude when you were editing; it is the attitude he's starting to bring to User:HelloAnnyong (the Third Opinion editor). He needs some (sharp) feedback about his behavior. Life.temp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this when Colin4c was being given some good advice, by another admin, to cool it in the mediation process. Equazcion also gives good advice to the two of you to avoid each other and let it lie. A brief look at your edit history shows a great preoccupation both with this one subject and the disputes that have circled round it. You'd both benefit from a holiday from each other. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I take a break, and after the break the same issues continue, what should I do? Cut and paste this back into a new complaint on the same board? Why not address the problems now? I appreciate different perspectives. I don't agree that this is a case of mutual antognists needing a mutual break. Colin is acting like he owns the article. It's a problem for anyone who thinks the article has a lot of neutrality problems--which it obviously does. Life.temp (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] See Are you in the right place? and What these pages are not (above). If you post a problem here, people are happy to take a look at it, but generally this is not the place for content or dispute resolution. As these are complex and lengthy disputes involving a number of editors - who also don't necessarily agree with either of you, the advice (above) is to present a case at a forum where the matter can be examined in depth and all parties can comment at length. My opinion is that Colin4c was given advice to calm down a short time ago in one of those forums and it seems to me his later posts have reflected that advice.

While I understand that these matters can get heated, the best advice we can ever give is to allow things to cool down and for the editors concerned to deal with each other civilly. The best way to achieve that is for both of you to take a break and reflect on what it is you can agree on. I hope you don't find that frustrating, but we can't manage your relationships. If behaviour ever becomes unacceptable, then there will be an intervention - and I believe that that was what happened when circumstances warranted it.

Both yourself and Colin4c need to develop consensus for changes to the article and avoid disputes with each other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice doesn't address my concerns. It only takes one person to refuse dispute resolution, to refuse to work toward consensus, to disrupt editing. Suggesting that both parties "cool down" and "deal with each other civilly" is good advice when both parties are heated and uncivil. Why do you think that's the case here? I wonder if you've read through the Talk page and seen Colin's behavior in context, or if you're assuming a middle-of-the-road approach is best. I've tried almost every item in Wikipedia's list of dispute resolution steps, from 3rd opinions to mediation. I agree, this is not the place for dispute resolution. Is it the place for dealing with someone who refuses to participate in dispute resolution? Life.temp (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most dispute resolution processes on wiki rely on voluntary participation. There's no compulsion, as the dispute is only resolved when both parties freely accept the outcome. Non-participation will only be considered material when there's subsequent action - say at ArbCom. As far as I understand, previous mediation was actually between yourself and a third party, and Colin4c presented evidence there - some, as to your own behaviour was (quite properly) rejected.

Article content is developed through consensus and the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article. This forum doesn't make determinations on either content or behaviour - unless it blatantly requires intervention. My feeling is that there are enough admins watching Anti-Americanism to ensure that incivility doesn't go unremarked - and if necessary dealt with.

Maybe someone else has a better suggestion for you on how to proceed, but my personal advice to both of you is take your time and don't edit precipitately. Discuss the changes on the talk page and obtain consensus from others. Leave space for others to be involved. Kbthompson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Last comment on this particular exchange, just in case I wasn't clear. I made this complaint because I think Colin is disrupting the process. I think admins deal with that. I didn't request content and dispute resolution. I don't know what to do with "the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article." I've been doing that for a month, with the results I excerpted above. (P.S. Thank you for the volunteer time you put in on this; I appreciate it even though I don't agree with you.) Life.temp (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, you might want to read WP:What is a troll?. I'm not saying either party is a troll - but that essay does provide good advice on avoiding disputes - particularly behavioural ones. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon at Savant syndrome

I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants Savant syndrome to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the anon's talk page. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm really unhappy about yesterday's talk page vandalism, which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP that has been all over the Savant pages; blocking won't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that one, WhatamIdoing. OK, this has had a couple of AN/I threads, Jfdwolff has intervened several times, but this altering of past editor comments for deceptive purposes takes it to another level. There are two editors (who are friends) and two IPs, one Comcast, the other Utah Educational Network, one edits during Utah daytime, the other in the evening, they're also working on Kim Peek who is a Mormon savant. This has gone on long enough and has been disruptive enough that it now needs a checkuser. I've never done one before, and will be out all afternoon, but I'll muddle my way through the instructions at checkuser later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 and Personal Attacks, 3RR, etc.

Personal Attacks: [23] [24] [25] [26] 3RR: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

I found this user after he responded to a dispute on User talk:Scorpion0422. I found out about the dispute by going to User talk:ChrisP2K5 and wrote a note pointing out some of the things he is saying could be personal attacks, and trying to help him understand the Verifability Policy. However after then reviewing his talk page some more, he has made several personal attacks. I also found a 3RR Warning that he deleted. [32] I feel that his personal attacks are unhelpful and are making matters worse. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some space for a rebuttal here. First of all, I don't believe that anything that I edited was wrong. I also believe the user in question was lying in wait for me to post, just so he could revert without taking the time to check himself if he was doing it hastily, thus exercising good faith. His edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking, so I went ahead and denied recognition. I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary. I also believe the "attacks", as they were, were justified due to the out-and-out stalking and trolling by this member, as well as the fact that his response to my calling him out for his trolling enabled a notorious Internet troll to spread garbage on my page. If user in question would have assumed good faith, then nothing would have been said or done. Instead, the user chose to be spiteful and trollish. That's my story. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The first edit of his I reverted was here. The part I was concerned about was the second part, which didn't have a source and because the page is an FL, I figured stuff should be sourced before it's added, before it's removed. At the same time, I partially reverted this edit because while he was correct about part of it, the second part of the sentence was accurate. About an hour later, the user reverted me with the message "You're kidding, right? Check here, stupid!" He was completely ignoring the WP:V and WP:RS policies, so I reverted him again. I figured it was the first part he cared about, which was partially sourced, so I fixed it. After that, he decided to add two references to TV.com which I reverted because TV.com is not useable on FLs. At this point, he accused me of trolling, and was then reverted by another user. He reverted the other user once, then gave up. A day later, he added a big section of unsourced stuff to Treehouse of Horror III, which is a GA. I reverted him and explained why. He did not like that, and again took to calling me a troll.

While I admit that I have been a tad uncivil in this dispute, I have not been stalking the user, he just happens to have edited some Simpsons pages, which I keep an eye on. His claim of "edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking" is untrue because all I have been doing is following policy. "I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary" The three articles in question were either GAs or FLs, so stuff should be sourced as its added, not added in hopes that someone may eventually add a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether ChrisP2K5 was correct, his use of language like "You're a scumbag, plain and simple", "watch the episode, troll" and "Click here, stupid" is highly inappropriate. I would suggest a change in tone immediately or you will find yourself blocked. The policy just says you are expected to be civil, not you are expected to be civil, unless you are correct. I'll also add that in all this Chris, I don't see a single edit to the article talk page from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the edit warring and the personal attacks are serious, but a bit stale at this point, so I don't know that there's much to do now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit uncouth in what I said, but it doesn't take away that he failed to assume good faith in my edits. Everything I edited could have been crossreferenced. The fact that he didn't assume good faith, combined with the fact that he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post (which is what it looked like to me), says to me that he was bordering on stalking. All this started over an edit that noted that two shows were airing at the same time on the same network, where one of the characters from one appeared on the other.

In addition, in the case of the "Treehouse of Horror" edits, the information I cited was factual, and the removal of factual information from a page is trolling. All he had to do was watch the episode in questio, which is easily accessible. Instead of doing that, he chose to edit blindly. The fact that he has done this suggests to me a pattern of unnecessary edits and an egregious violation of the assumption of good faith. The fact that I resorted to a personal attack, while regrettable, should be trumped by his continued violation of the 3RR. I have never had a ridiculous amount of trouble and have been civil to most users. However, I will not tolerate spiteful reverts, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't believe it's fair that I am the only one who's bearing the brunt of any punishment here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Scorpion did not violate the 3RR. WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. And I don't see anything that says he failed to assume good faith. He left you a polite warning on your talk page. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Scorpion0422, he edits mostly Simpsons articles, and often reverts vandalism and unneeded info on all of them. He always has a valid reason for a revert. The removal of what you added to Treehouse of Horror III may have been factual, but how is one supposed to know without a reference? Another minor note is that the information you added can seem a little trivial. The way I look at it is, if one were to make an AGF edit [33], and a user makes an AGF revert [34], then don't take it personal and possibly learn from it [35]. That is the best way I can put it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While Treehouse of Horror III does mention Cullen, Rayburn, Narz and Trebek", does it say that they are all game show hosts? I'll answer for you: no. Which is why verification is needed and since the page is a GA, sources should be added first. Editting blindly? No, I am aware of the reference, and I am also aware that none of the sources we use mention it and I did cite the relevant policies when I reverted you. "continued violation of the 3RR", actually, neither of us violated it. "he failed to assume good faith in my edits" Assuming good faith does not mean leaving unsourced edits. Of course I assumed good faith, but your edits still went against policy. "he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post" I have reverted your edits on three pages, all of which I had on which before you editted them. This is hardly "laying in wait". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Chris is a long standing problem on this site, check out User talk:TPIRFanSteve. Somebody with an arrest warrant has nothing to do with Wikipedia! That user is certainly not a celebrity, and it was unsourced anyhow. I removed it. I think Chris is very uncivil and assumes bad faith, just look at his edit history! Is there really anything constructive from him? I think not. 70.210.82.149 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you User:Hdayejr2008/User:Hdayejr, who is the troll I discussed earlier. He harasses me every time I post something that he doesn't agree with and takes extreme offense to my posting here. If you look at the user talk page that he cites and its history, as well as his own posting history, you'll realize that his discussion has no merit here.

As for you, Scorpion, being aware of the reference means that IT IS VERIFIABLE, and that gave you no reason to revert it. Just because YOU don't like where it's coming from doesn't mean anything (a violation of WP:OWN). As for what I said about 3RR, anyone who looks at your block history- which I did before I came here- will see what I'm talking about. You did NOT assume good faith, your edits crossed the line of trolling, and I don't see how you weren't bordering on stalking with the edits. Anyone with common sense knows who Bill Cullen, Gene Rayburn, Jack Narz, and Alex Trebek are (or what they are), and if not they can just click on the links to their pages...where the info would be in big bold print.

You were wrong, you didn't want to admit it, and as a result of your unwillingness to admit it you are an accessory to Hdayejr's trolling of my talk page. I will continue to deny you recognition until you admit you were wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone is going to know who they are (I only know Trebek) and not everyone is has easy access to the episode in question. If you feel that it is that important to the article, find a source for it. It may get reverted again even with a source. In the case of it getting reverted, take it to the article's talk page to get other's opinions on it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Denying recognition is for obvious vandals and for banned users, not for people with whom you disagree. If your form of denying recognition is to repeatedly revert non-vandal edits, you're likely to get blocked for edit warring, regardless of how right you are. That's just the way things work at Wikipedia. (And yes, it appears to me that both sides were guilty of at least some degree of edit warring. But as I've already said, that incident is stale.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The concern about original research is that it violates the idea of not using primary sources, like an eyewitness account (yes, I'm aware of how much possibly violates that). Anybody else remember the Netflix distribution centers discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

User:Onorem raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 [36] at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 [37].

The reason User:Onorem was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also."[38].

This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article Diana, Princess of Wales.

User:Onorem justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the Diana, Princess of Wales without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the Diana, Princess of Wales. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard.

Wikipedia Merge criteria says,

“ 3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there. ”

Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country Sri Lanka where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations.

For the question why it is something to do with the Diana, Princess of Wales is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities.

My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article Diana, Princess of Wales until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.

Though I can revert User:Onorem's revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar.

“ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. ”

I am leaving this information here for your opinion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing lack of good faith in me and my edits. I created the new article in an attempt to solve the dispute. I did not copy the HTML code, because I have never created a new article before. There were no hidden agendas behind the simple cut/paste. If you don't like the format of the article, instead of complaining about it here, and making assumptions/accusations regarding my motives, you might want to spend your time improving the article. Put the HTML in, add some images, turn it into a top quality article. When I created the article, I mentioned that it needed work, and I requested that people help improve it, so once more, please show a little good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One more comment/question. Why is this on ANI? surely the article's talk page would be more suitable.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I brought to ANI is you a few people don't know even how to create a page on wikipedia but taking very interest on Princess Diana Institute of Peace and other tad issues like Diana's virginity.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but....1 ANI does not seem like the correct place for this. 2. I don't really understand what you are saying. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is inappropriate. Use the talk page to discuss content issues and controversial merges, if a consensus cannot be reached consider dispute resolution such as using a third party or request for comment. Also consider helping inexperienced editors with creating a page. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Don't get blocked for edit warring. --neonwhite user page talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with you, ANI is not the right place. But the above User is taking extra interest over this issue, but don't know how to create an article on wikipedia. Now turning her stand that he is English and asking me who am I? I will have to ask my ancestors who are from the Nordwestblock region same as Diana, Princess of Wales who am I?. A Gaelic or Celtic stock?Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel that the information about the institute belonged in a biography about the person. Instead of simply removing it, I asked for input on the talk page. Instead of an explanation about why this institute should have its own section on an article about the person, there was a bunch of bad faith accusations about why people wanted the information removed. I'm sorry if you felt that the 20+ hours wasn't long enough for discussion, but there's no reason why that discussion can't still continue. AN/I seems very premature at this point. --Onorem♠Dil 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Really 20+ hours is not enough for discussion.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was. In any case, it's now been 48+ hours, and I still don't see an argument justifying why this institute deserves its own section on a page that is supposed to be a biography about Princess Diana. --Onorem♠Dil 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• If Onorem hadn't removed the section I would have. I was on my way to do precisely that when I noted he had already done it. It was decided by consensus that the material did not belong in that particular article. The information is still on wikipedia and has "pride of place" in it's own article. As I said at the previous discussion on the matter if Bermudatriangle wants to be constructive he can help improve the new article (it is in drastic need). Otherwise the action he is taking is highly disruptive and not beneficial to the project. The "content" dispute was solved by consensus both on the talk page and at the previous discussion on this very page. If Bermudatriangle doesn't like what the new article says than he should help edit it constructively or nominate it for deletion under the appropriate criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What disruptive actions are you referring to? As far as i can see two users, Bermudatriangle and Sennen goroshi are guilty of edit warring. Continue the discussion until a consensus is reached or go to dispute resolution, that's my advice. Remember that consensus can change and claiming a false consensus is not civil. --neonwhite user page talk 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive actions I refer to is the refusal to help improve the new article and instead bringing this up again when matters had progressed through what on the talk page and the section on this very page looked like consensus. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, though I agree with Jasynnash2 on "pride of place", still I have doubt whether the info available is enough for creating a new article for the institute.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree that such an article would unlikely survive an afd on grounds of notability. I can't find much evidence of it's existance considering the high profile but thats something that should be taken to an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why it can't be merged with Legacy section with thin content until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have no problem with the institue being mentioned in the legacy section but, it doesn't require the extensive write-up it had. As for consensus it looked on the talk page like consensus had been reached. I don't understand why content dispute or otherwise Bermudatriangle seems unwilling to help improve the new article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could do the write-up (thin content) about the institute and being mentioned in the legacy section with the link to the new article, then fine I will involve with the new article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I've fixed the content on the new article so it is using the exact html coding that Bermudatriangle was using in "his" section on the section in the Diana, Princess of WalesJasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not "my" section. Then what about these[39][40][41].Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. It was the fact that you are the only one voicing concern for it's inclusion in the Diana article that made me think of it as "your section". Again, I don't understand why you don't wish to help improve the separate article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds, if I were to be totally objective, I would suggest deleting the new article, and not having the reference in the old article. It is a stub at the moment, and is unlikely to grow. It is not notable, and is not relevant to the Diana article. It should not go back into the Diana article, that seems clear, it is a very minor organisation, named after her, with no involvement from her. It is unlikely to grow. But I do think that it might be nice to give it a chance, leave it where it is, let people hunt down some more information, and see if it can grow. If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit Summary shows why you are so keen it should not go back to Diana article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to speak my mind right now, however civility prevents me from typing the words that are on the tip of my tongue. Since I encountered you, you have tried to interpret every single edit I make, you have seen motive - when there is none, you have accused me of lying about my origin, you have accused me of making politically motivated edits. When are you going to work it out? I have no political interest in these articles, I don't have any particular affection nor dislike for Princess Diana - I am just editing wikipedia. The fact that I removed the statement which said Diana was a virgin before marriage is just a fucking edit !!!! I don't know what you are trying to read into that edit, or into the related edit summary - but the only thing you can assume there, is that I like editing wikipedia. Stop assuming the worst about me and my edits. Stop making totally absurd comments and accusations. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind your language first. It is not your blog to use "... just a fucking edit !!!!" and "I don't mean to be an asshole about this..."[42].

You comment "...If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred."[43] shows your total stupidity and arrogance.

I am not bothered of your origin, but you yourself declared you are a "White English". But in your userspace some other editor too questioned of your origin which you have placed as your credential.

Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself how an another editor felt, so I too choose not to talk to you.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is still a content dispute in the end. I'd suggest marking it as resolved and leaving them to go towards dispute resolution which is where this belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Point One. Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like to language such as "fucking" and "asshole" then perhaps you should reconsider your position as an editor of a site that is not censored, either that or make a proposal to bar all profanity from wikipedia.

Point Two. While profanity is not banned, editors are expected to remain civil at all times, and not to make personal attacks. "your total stupidity and arrogance." is clearly a personal attack against me, which is blatantly in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Please apologise for that outburst and refrain from making personal attacks against me or any other editor in the future.Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia is not censored, and you have the freedom to use the words "fucking" and "asshole". Then take this issue to Jimbo Wales that will help a change in wiki policy. Sorry, no appologies, your limitless freedom is the cause for my emotional outburst. Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

well it is really nice of you to not only break the "no personal attacks" rule, and of all the pages to break it in, you chose to break it on the ANI board but also when it is pointed out, for you not to care.. you must either have friends in high places, or really not care about being blocked.Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have friends in high places. Even if I know personally Jimbo Wales, that won't stop an admin to do his task against me here. But what I am concered about is a change in wiki policy.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey !!! I have a great idea !!! instead of expecting an established website with a huge userbase to change policies just to suit you, why not try a website where you can control the policies yourself, you can remove comments, you can decide which nasty words are and are not allowed - and I know just the place Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself. But my personal opinion is a website with huge userbase should have some ethics how its members should communicate with each other.Bermudatriangle (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure if it means the matter is resolved but, Bermudatriangle has agreed to work on improving the new article and I've agreed to put something in the legacy section of the main Diana article. Confirmation can be had on user page but, please don't add to the discussion there. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've agreed with Jasynnash2.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and refusing to see the point

I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding WP:RS citations from User:Naadapriya. The user raised questions about jurisdiction of a Hogenakkal falls as well as removing details about a certain project which is proposed in the falls area. Anyways, leaving details of the dispute aside, to solve the dispute itself I had first asked the user to provide WP:RS material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his beating around the bush attitude on his talk page here. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner[44]. But, Naadapriya sought help of User:Skbhat [45] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my major concern is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (User:Skbhat). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also know if I will be breaching WP:Canvas if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:

• SHEFFIELDSTEEL
• John Carter and
• Renee
  

as well as the other frustrated editor like me @ the $un$hine .. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)

1. Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls
2. Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the WP:RS citations based on Govt sites and Google map
3. Those recent ones presented by user:JeremyMcCracken and user:skbhat were also refused by above group of editors.
4. Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments.
5. Naadapriya did not invite user:skbhat to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page.
6. Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide WP:RS about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state.
7. Most responses by above group of editors except User:SheffieldSteel included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations.
8. All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors.
9. During my tenure in Wikipedia this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information.

It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed NPOV statement that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn.

Naadapriya (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No choice but to respond. Above comment is typical example of ad hoc comments by editors defending current POV statement in the lead opposed by about 10 editors to date. Following are responses to above inaccurate statements.

1. Above Editor did not regularly monitor the page. Joined to canvas on Apr 23, 2008 with possible invitation from Wikiality123 though discussions are going on since June 23, 07.
2. Majority of comments by above editor to date are criticizing approach of other editors and blindly defending current POV statement without giving technical reasons.
3. 'RfC initiated by Naadapriya' is a false statement. It was initiated by editors opposing NPOV statement that falls is on the border.
4. Naadapriya was not involved in 'sockpuppetry' as explained and acknowledged in the talk page. It was a result of multiuser system which was corrected later.
5. Yes most of my edits are about Karnataka a subject I know well. Grew up wondering around falls area. Obtained a post graduate training in irrigation/Hydraulics Eng studying about hydroelectric projects near falls and water projects. Wikipedia expects editors to be knowledgeable about the articles they get involved in. It does not expect editors to jump in the middle and make ad hoc comments to Canvas for someone else as done by some opposing editors.. To date naadapriya has made all comments with WP:RS support.
6. Naadapriya strongly believes in diligent use of wikipedia's WP:Be Bold policy. Naadapriya (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that I was mistaken about who started the RfC. Sheffield started the RfC. Also, it should be noted that I have on several other occasions commented on this page, which makes it clear that the page is in fact on my watchlist. Regarding User:skhbat, it is curious that per that editor's contribution history here the account has been extant since 2005, but only made 8 previous edits before becoming involved in the current debate, and none of them to the page in question. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advice Naadapriya to read what others are saying before you respond. John was clearly saying that he monitors this page (AN/I) page and wasn't talking about the Hogenakkal falls page. Yes I did invite John to the Hogenakkal page as a third party. I also asked another third party User:Walton One here and ShefeildSteel joined us after the AN/I Naadapriya filed agaisnt me. Details of which can be found here. The whole procedure was followed as per Wiki protocols. As in, if we have a trouble with a particular editor, to take it to their talk page and see if we can resolve it, then further if it goes on, get a third party (I asked for more than one third party) and at last an RfC. I, with all my conscience, have tried everything to WP:AGF with this user. Its not just me. The admin (Shefeildstreel)who precided over the AN/I that was filed agaisnt me by Naadapriya would himself later while posting his messages would say as a reply to Naadapriya (in his edit summary) that its difficult to AGf [46].I reckon all that is humanly possible has been done and I'm not a Mahatma enough to show more patience. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is even more painful is that Naadapriya keeps telling us that he/she is a irrigation engineer, but till date, he or she wouldn't add anything constructive to this article which is on a water falls. Nothing about the hydrolics or geology or landscape or anything at all. BUT would just talk about the jurisdiction of the place with no RS. huh? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I against Wikiality123 was because of use of 'BS'. He was warned here. In spite of that he continued to use unwarranted words which were ignored. Wikipedia is a source of accurate summary information not a text book to teach on Irrigation. Yes I am a trained Irrigation engineer therefore confidently stated that there is no relation between water falls and water project (that too when it does not exist). Wikility123 disagreed repeatedly!! without technical justifications and solicited support for his POV from other editors. Now he has dragged the issue here which is unwarranted. Just like the first sentence of the previous comment he appears to condition other editor's views to support his POV.

The latest [NPOV]] lead statement proposed by user:skbhat et. al. based on input of all editors to date is the best solution to conclude this ongoing saga and move on. Naadapriya (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no "et. al." to the rather remarkable proposal of the previously extremely inactive skhbat except Naardapriya himself. I believe that information should be noted. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed obvious that I disgreed with Naadapriya's POV repeatedly and consistently, because it had and has no RS to back it, in spite of us asking the user to produce such a one persistently. This is why am here anyways! As for the use of the term BS, I had already explained to the admin who looked at it that it was WP:Bullshit that I was refering too, and not the user. Naadapriya did not notify me of the AN/I that he had filed against me, which he/she should have done. More over after I explained the use of the term BS, ShefieldSteel struk off the word warning in my talk page to reminder as any one can see here. To add to it ShefieldSteel himself commented that all he can see was examples of Wikiality123 being tirelessly polite to Naadapriya and further more in his own talk page he said that he did not think that what I was saying was that bad [47], but nevertheless in his own words he was trying to resolve the situation so that discussion about the real problem (where the Falls is located) can continue. Which by his good virtue he did and unfortunately Naadapriya still doesn't accept the fact. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd alike to make a couple of minor additions and corrections to the above accounts:

• The content dispute (where the Falls is located) is complicated by real-world disputes over access to an island below the falls, and usage of water from the river. Sources relating to these disputes are often cited as evidence regarding the location of the Falls, although so far none of them address that question directly. Attempts to point this out to Naadapriya have fallen on deaf ears.
• My involvement: I am not an admin, merely an editor trying to help resolve a difficult issue. Apologies to anyone I may have mis-led. It was I who initiated the RfC about the location of the Falls. Unfortunately it did not get many responses, due perhaps to technical problems with the RfC system (or my own ineptitude).
• I have not gone so far to to say that I think Naadapriya is acting in bad faith. I have said that their contribs are now tending towards disruptive/tendentious, but (per my own interpretation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) there's a difference between cause and effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on your position that counters the misinterpretation of your views by others, particularly wikiality123, is appreciated It is unfortunate you did not apply 'so far none of them address that question directly' to editors who are refusing to accept NPOV lead statement. I have listened to your views with good faith. Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on the user's recent editsI have pointed this out in the article page too

Naadapriya has come up with a proposal to change the lead which can be found here. Althouth the user called it for some reason Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement, as I shall show you below, not only that the user had failed to understand the meaning of RS and wasting other's time and energy, but also blatantly used references which do not claim anything what they have been used for.

• The first change was the sentence It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, but the citations shown[48] [49] [50] [51] doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
  

• Next was to include the distance from the city of Chennai, which logically not a big problem, but the reference Naadapriya shows us didn't say it at all[52]
  
• Next sentence Naadapriya stated was near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills backed by this reference, but once again the citation has no content even in the subpages about this.
• Then the last sentence stating that Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls is once again the same story[53].

So basically the changes that Naadapriya proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a case of delibrately misleading the reader. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers to above comments are posted in discussions of the article. It is requested to focus on ANI issue here if there is one and discuss technical issues in articles discussions. Otherwise it is waste of time to ADMNs.Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you still haven't justified using citations which don't state what you use it for as citations. I request an admin to attend to this as a matter of urgency, since we are just going in circles in the talk page of the article, with the progress almost to nill. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article's discussion page.Naadapriya (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting another administrator's opinion over WP:RFP

I requested semi protection for Egyptian pyramids, which was soon turned down by User:Ryan Postlethwaite, with him noting "there's not much vandalism considering how high profile the topic is"

I am requesting another administrator, with WP:PROT and WP:ROUGH in mind, take a look. As I pointed out on Ryan's talk page, the article went on to be vandalized more than a dozen times, from six seperate IP's, just since last night after he turned down the request.

The page history shows hundreds of incidents of vandalism, almost all of them from anonymous IP's, and indeed there is so much vandalism and reverting that you have to hunt to find a constructive edit buried in the history list. You have to go back three pages just to get to the first of the month, and its all vandalism. I don't know what he means by "not much vandalism" but if another administrator could weigh-in with an opinion, I would appreciate it. I will be content to take "no" for an answer, but my view is that the article meets all the requirements for semi-protection and then some, and offering the page that protection would decrease the number of edits to the article at least five-fold, as well as haulting almost all of the vandalism. Brando130 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a week; more than two dozen or so IP vandal edits in the last day is outside my definition of "not much." We'll see what happens after the protection wears off. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even bother to check the diffs? This protection is just blocking IPs out of an editing dispute. I declined because most of the IP edits weren't vandalism. Semi-protection is not the way to deal with contect disputes with IPs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be borderline, because like Ryan stated some of the edits look more like a content dispute while others appear to be vandalism. I guess what I would have liked to have seen here would have been Tony leaving a note on Ryan's talk inquiring as to why he did not protect before he just went ahead and prot'd it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time going through the diffs, yes. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] - most of these in about half a day, and more in the previous day. I don't see the content dispute turning up in the past couple days' worth of diffs, and if there is one that I don't see amidst the vandalism, then isn't the talk page a better place for that to be dealt with anyhow? I protected because of what I felt was a fairly heavy level of vandalism; my apologies for not asking about it first. I still feel it's the correct thing to do, looking at the history, but if you feel it's better unprotected, then have at it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by sockpuppet of banned user, User:SirIsaacBrock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chessy999 has been making constant references to vandalism regarding my edits.

We had a content dispute, which I think has come close to being resolved.

However when the above user reverted me, he used RVV or vandalism in the edit summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey-baiting&action=history

Despite "dont template the regulars" he placed a vandalism template on my talk page, when I explained to him that it was just a content dispute, he replied with "you are a vandal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chessy999#civility

I have tried to deal with this content dispute in a civil and adult fashion, however these comments are trying my patience a little.

I find the vandalism and vandal comments to be rude, and a deliberate act of provocation. The editor has been here long enough to know what is, and what is not vandalism.

This is a minor issue, I won't lose sleep over being called a vandal, however I think there are three issues here.

1. The attitude of an editor who wishes to label anything that disagrees with them as vandalism, even when consensus is against them. 2. The attitude of an editor who is abusing the templates and edit summaries to make a series of minor personal attacks 3. The attitude of an editor who is continuing to make personal attacks, after requests not to, even when the actual dispute is over.

thanks.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I advised this editor to discontinue deleting cited information from the monkey-baiting article. He continued, I advised him to stop vandalizing the article. I stand by my statement. Please advise this editor to stop posting nonsense on my talk page, including profanity. Thank you. Chessy999 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "I don't mean to be an asshole" [66] might be profanity, but it shouldn't be considered to be a provoking statement either. You were engaged in a content dispute with Sennen goroshi. As I said on the VP (assistance) thread, in a perfect world you should have both taken it to the talk page earlier. But that doesn't make SG's contributions vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If I wish to say "nice fucking edit" then that is fine. If I direct profanity towards you, in a negative manner then feel free to complain. The profanity was directed towards myself, and it seems rather strange that you only picked up on that profanity once there is an ANI report with your name on it.

I removed and changed your edits, due to general consensus - that is not vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Cited information is removed on a daily basis, it can be removed for all manner of reasons, yet again - it is not vandalism.

I think that you might be best to rethink your attitude towards editing, comments that you don't agree with are not automatically vandalism, neither are they automatically nonsense. Perhaps a slightly more open mind and a slightly less aggressive attitude would be more suited to a wikipedia editor.

Final note, please don't call me a vandal unless you catch me putting goatse on your talk page or something similar that is actually vandalism. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chessy999, you might want to read what vandalism is not, paying special attention to sections on NPOV violations and Stubbornness and you will see that you are incorrect in labelling Sennen goroshi's edits as vandalism. According to the official vandalism policy, his edits cannot be considered vandalism unless the information in question was introduced in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which is clearly not the case. At the same time, I would like to caution the editors in this dispute that both of you are well over your 3 revert limit within the past 24 hours so please come to some sort of consensus before making any further changes to the article and stop revert warring. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have accused Chessy999 of being the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. The case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (3rd). I think it's pretty conclusive evidence. Chessy999 should get indef blocked--the user is the sockpuppet of a banned user and, looking at his talk page, has a history of civility complaints and tendentious editing. Darkspots (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history of this editor nor the alleged sockpupeteer but WP:CheckUser might be appropriate for this case. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, recommending an RFCU is an indication that, while there's something there, the evidence isn't obvious. In this case, I feel like it's pretty obvious. Darkspots (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Darkspots, I agree with you. Until I edited the monkey-baiting article, I was unaware of SirIsaac and Chessy - however a brief check of the edit histories of the page and the editors made me feel that they were one and the same. I am not very familiar with WP:CheckUser so maybe it would be best for you to make a request, damn I have problems just making a 3RR report. Either way, it would be nice to rid wikipedia of its more disruptive editors. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also had problems with incivility and disruptive editing by Chessy999. In one instance, he deleted 2 sections from and article (the material in both cited sources) with no explanation, then accused me of vandalism when I reverted him. In another, he created a stub about a book, but changed the capitalization of the book's title. I corrected this and, in doing so, moved the article. I also did some significant edits and added some material. He reverted everything I did; I re-reverted and explained the correct capitalization issue in more detail on the stub's talk page (although my original edit comment should have been sufficient). I raised both these issues on this talk page, under the headings Luca Pacioli and De ludo schaccorum; he never responded. From the look of his Talk page, other Wikipedians have had similar problems with Chessy999. Perhaps an admin's guidance would help this editor conform his behavior to the standards of the Wikipedia community. Finell (Talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Finell, this user is the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. Take a quick look at User talk:SirIsaacBrock/Archive 5 and his block log. The user had plenty of guidance already. The fact that, two years later, he's still editing the same way means that I'm recommending that he be indef blocked right away. Like Sennen goroshi said on the SSP report, I would have no problem with this individual editing in good faith--but this is too much disruption, and the community's patience was exhausted long ago. Darkspots (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban

Mccready (talk · contribs) has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban. He is banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Mccready has been notified.[67] Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested review

Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a review of the above topic ban.[68] Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. I have reset Mccready's block to one month for canvassing on this issue. I am not taking any action on a longer block or alterations to his topic ban until the conversation runs its course here. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Since his response to the topic ban reveals a lack of understanding of his wrongdoing and a lack of repentance, I suggest a longer topic ban, or an indef ban. Nothing he has said indicates that he will change in any way after the ban is lifted. He has no intention to reform. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the response I am referring to above:

• "WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the many editors said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous." Mccready [69]

• That response doesn't indicate any degree of understanding that can lead to improvement. -- Fyslee / talk 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Fyslee. Keep the ban, and extend to a year if there is additional disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Response. (This is posted on behalf of Mccready.[70][71]) I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Further response.[72] Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.
    • Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.
    • Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006
    • Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)
    • Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.
    • Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Comment: Notably, the above passage is by far the longest comment that Mccready has made on a talk page in many weeks if not months. During his most recent round of edit warring on Acupuncture, he reverted 15 times between April 3 and April 26 (see archived AN/I thread). In that same period of time, he made exactly zero contributions at Talk:Acupuncture (cf. page history) despite being invited to discuss. His typical explanation is that he has a slow internet connection and "doesn't have time to do detailed battle with believers". Yet he seems perfectly able to write at length when sanctions are imposed (see his talk page). A chronic problem editor with major blind spots, imo. (As for his criticisms of me, why is it that I manage to work just fine with other skeptical editors, like Orangemarlin and Eldereft and Fyslee?) --Jim Butler (t) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we as a community need to make a clear distinction between insistence on high quality references and POV-pushing of fringe sources. Mccready is without a doubt guilty of edit warring and generally showing an abrasive personality, but the value of the research argues for leniency. I think some quality time with WP:Dispute resolution or a posting to the fringe theories noticeboard might have saved some headache, but here we are. The disruptive behavior merits a ban. A 0RR on acupuncture and chiropractic might be considered some weeks or months hence if their confrontational editing style softens. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Mccready's positive contributions are good, but not unique, and are far outweighed by the negatives. On Cochrane Collaboration reviews, I restored a bunch on 5 February 2008 (the same ones Mccready would later go on to attempt to add to the lead section, redundantly and via edit warring: see 15(!!) diffs here). On cultural bias in research, Mccready added two good sources on 6 February 2008, however, I had likewise added refs on that subject on 11 January 2008. So, sure, he had made some good contributions, but they are not unique; other editors are equally capable of doing straightforward Cochrane and Pubmed searches. What most other editors do not do, as we know, is endlessly edit war and disrupt. That's why I believe that little of value will be lost via a topic ban, and a great deal of harm will be prevented. And I'm all for allowing him to contribute and improve his collaborative skills in other areas where his bias is not so intractable. --Jim Butler (t) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse increasing indef site ban There is canvassing afoot, I will disclose to another admin or an arb if this is disputed. I reccomend a longer topic ban. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering the user has no understanding of the term WP:CANVASS (subsequent activities to my first post) and that they've now insulted my reputation via email, I support an indef site ban. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Make the topic ban indefinite: The last time Mccready was topic-banned (in September 2006, by FloNight), he simply disappeared from WP for about a year (see contribution history) only to return with the exact same behavior pattern. He learned nothing from that ban, is impervious to advice, and is oblivious to the extent of his editorial misconduct. Some editors seem to be "incorrigible" in this way, and he is one of them. Make the topic ban indefinite. --Jim Butler (t) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When I see this, it makes me sad: "I don't contribute to discussion...? Since when do edit summaries not count?" I'm sick of seeing edit wars where both parties justify their actions using only their edit summaries. That, to me, is not contributing to discussion. It says to me that the author just doesn't get the wiki process. If there's a solution to this that allows Mccready to return to productive editing in this area, I think it has to start from that realisation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

IP permanent block from editing

Resolved

 – WP:OTRS, Tiptoety ^talk 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP address belonging to this messages' ('this' being the current message/complaint) author belongs to that of an Australian High School, and is reccommended that it should be blocked from editing permanently. My understanding is that you have been recieving many edits which are not of proper standards, and it makes logical sense that those who are familiar with the process would create edits that are satisfactory. Since users who regularly edit can use an account or alternative IP address, it would prevent student misbehaviour in school, and within wikipedia, as well as save time on giving warnings and temporary bannings.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.173.116 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You will need your network administrator, or school to official contact OTRS. Tiptoety ^talk 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve

Resolved

 – Indef. blocked Dennyg2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as sock of Hdayejr. Trolling at Dayton Daily News and etc. gave this one away easy. seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think his edit history speaks for itself. Continually reverting and, in some cases, trolling different pages, but namely the One Bid page for The Price Is Right, along with the "Retired Pricing Games" page. He seems to revert almost any edit made by anybody else. [73] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, some background here. I warned the user above, Dennyg2007, about respecting the user page of TPIRFanSteve after he re-removed content that had been taken down by an anon IP editor here [74] [75]. This IP editor, as well as the others that have been attacking TPIRFanSteve's page today, could very well be this same user, as he also commented on at least one of their pages here [76]. All of these attacks on TPIRFanSteve have led to his page being protected. From an outsider's perspective, TPIRFanSteve seems to be convinced this user (and the anon IP editors) are all socks of banned user User:Hdayejr, who he has quite a history with. Based on the contributions, I'd say that theory is worth discussing.

Following my request he not delete other editor's comments from someone else's talk page, he left these messages on my page [77] [78], which I took as vaguely threatening (especially since we're discussing socks of a banned user who apparently has a history of being legally prohibited from certain websites). After I commented, I was attacked by one of the anon IP's here [79].

I guess, based on the fact that I'm also being attacked, that I'm involved here. I would suggest a CheckUser to sort out what's going on. Redrocket (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: After another editor tagged one of the anon IPs as a probable sock of Hdayejr here [80], he responded with a deletion notice on their homepage here [81]. Redrocket (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redrocket, you must be a friend of this user? You sure have taken interest in defending a person that has a long standing history of problems as far as civility and assuming good faith editing. TPIR's contribs above should speak volumes. I don't see any recent edits that would assume good faith, furthermore, any page associated with The Price Is Right appears to be his property, and not Wikipedia's. Check his edits first before you make half cocked assumptions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never met this user, I only found his page reverting vandalism from hdayejr once upon a time, I'm sure you remember. I found it again reverting vandalism from you.

And I appreciate your concern (and the vague threats on my talk page), but I think you'll find my assumptions come fully cocked. Redrocket (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats? Explain where I threatened you.....????? I merely suggested you not get into a situation that you didn't have a whole knowledge about. And you still don't. Let me know when you are finished reviewing his edit history, and then we'll talk. Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done above. And I checked his history, he's never had a block, even in the face of overwhelming harassment from a banned user that still continues right now. You however, seem compelled to once again remove content from a user page, as you've done here yet again [82]. Please stop. Redrocket (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, do you realize that could be a liability for this site? Do you even care? Of course not, you don't have a dog in this race and it's all gravy to you. That revert is valid and has nothing to do with any article on this site. If he wants a message board, there are other sites, not this one. Oh, and here's some more history for your enjoyment(since I know you won't dig that far back) [83]Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you're so intent on maligning my image, you might want to find something that actually paints me in a negative light. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done that well enough, yourself. Who do you have the connection with at Wikipedia? Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, that edit is two years old and there's not a single ounce of context behind it. You've only been here for six weeks, explain how you have a "dog in that race" with this comment?

This board isn't for arguments, it's for discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it to the talk page so as not to clutter this board please. Redrocket (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

Resolved

I'm becoming very concerned about this user's contributions. Since he was blocked a week ago (for reasons I fully stand behind), he's been going on a crusade of borderline harassment against me. In particular, he's been posting annoying and condescending posts on my talk page and demanding an apology ([84] [85] [86] [87]). This behaviour has mutated into accusations that I am being more disruptive than he is within the fiction scope, citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2's "inflaming the dispute" ruling (the irony is ninety!). Despite being asked to disengage from the situation by Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who intervened because she has my talk page on watchlist), he's ignored her request (because me and SW both like the same band and talk to each other regularly) and is still being disruptive, bringing up his block (which was endorsed by at least three admins) as an excuse for his disruption, including removing a legitimate (and appropriate) comment from WT:NOT. I really want something to be done about this, because it's seriously disenchanting me from productive editing. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And apologies if my post is really badly worded - it is 2:10am and I'm staying up to make sure I write an article before its DYK closes (which I've put behind because of said disenchantment). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn’t you be in bed, young man? :P Anyway, I just blocked him for another 24 hours. —Travis^talk 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Pixelface#May 2008:

You know the no personal attacks policy says "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Is there some diff you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Several diffs here. —Travis^talk 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now this is in response to an ANI thread by Sceptre. Anyone is free to move this comment to the ANI thread if they'd like. I believe that I am the one that has been harassed by Sceptre. He filed a false vandalism report on me to AIV. And yes, he was an involved party with me in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. When I said I was leaving, he told TTN, another involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case, that it was "good news." He also called me a "troll". I did ask Sceptre three questions on his talk page[88][89][90], and he removed each of them without an answer. And yes, I asked him about false claims he made about me at the Administrator's noticeboard and he refused to reply, so I left my rebuttal on my talk page.

Seraphim Whipp apparently took issue with a talkback template I left on Sceptre's talk page. That was my fifth message to Sceptre. (Although I did leave a message on Sceptre's talk page in January, asking him to please stop archiving an ANI thread against me where several people made false claims about me. Sceptre then removed my message asking him to please stop without an answer. I don't believe Sceptre has ever replied to me on his talk page and I don't know why that is exactly.) I was "asked to disengage" by his apparent friend Seraphim Whipp. Calling Seraphim Whipp Sceptre's "BFF" was uncivil of me. But from looking at Sceptre's talk page it appears to me they're both here for social networking, and Wikipedia is not MySpace. Sceptre appears to acknowledge that some people would see Seraphim Whipp contacting me as a conflict of interest. I haven't contacted Sceptre since Seraphim Whipp asked me to disengage. However, Seraphim Whipp has continued to post again and again and again on my talk page, and didn't seem to appear to want to disengage herself. I have disengaged from Sceptre. He posted a message on my talk page saying if I mentioned his false vandalism report to WP:AE that I would be "laughed at." I did not reply. And yes, I did remove a comment by Sceptre at WT:NOT, where he said "Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too." which I felt had nothing whatsoever to do with the WP:NOT policy. J Greb restored the comment saying I should ask an admin to look into it, so I asked J Greb for his opinion on his talk page. J Greb replied on my talk page, and I replied to J Greb, saying I feel I have been harassed by Sceptre. If Sceptre thinks posting 4 messages and 1 talkback on his talk page is "harassment" I apologize. I don't want to harass him and I'd appreciate it if he didn't harass me. TTN is currently blocked for a week and to me it looks like Sceptre wants to do anything to get me blocked as well. On April 9, 2008, Sceptre reported a user to AIV after they made one edit to User talk:TTN and without giving that user a warning first. I feel Sceptre has been abusing AIV. Sceptre has said he has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and I find such a statement by a former admin alarming. I don't know if AGK and Sceptre are good friends. But I don't believe either of them understand the vandalism policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to accuse an editor of social networking? Don't accuse one who got a stub to FA in two weeks. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

Would another admin please review and comment on my action? (No prejudice against unblocking if deemed appropriate.) Thank you and good night —Travis^talk 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While one could say the block was well deserved, at the same time it probably won't do much to help the situation. I think a far better solution would to be a temp ban (say a week) of "no responding/ talking to Sceptre", perhaps? I don't even know if that is a good idea, but I'm 90% sure that blocking is going to make this situation worse. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, the only thing he did recently (in the last day) was remove a comment that he felt was a personal attack. That might be a bad judgement call for Pixelface, but that's certainly not blockable. If he was doing it a bunch of times, then yeah, but not for a single comment removal. Blocks are not a form of punishment, and I'd strongly favor an unblock. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps bringing it up to explain away his disruption and using it as a defence to say "I'm automatically right". He stops it now or I keep brining it to ANI, because it's really pissing me off. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to review this, because I'm not uninvolved; but while I probably wouldn't have blocked for this, I would agree that Pixelface does have a habit of being unable to let things go, believing that if he says things enough times they become true. He has already "proved" that his previous block was incorrect, which it wasn't (probably Sceptre should've reported to ANI rather than AIV, and the block log should probably say "Edit-warring" or "disruption" rather than vandalism, but the block to prevent further disruption was reasonable - even on his talkpage now he is characterising the wholesale blanking of sections of policy pages as "a content dispute") and the hounding of Sceptre for an apology was not a good idea; he was also asked on his talkpage to disengage by "friendly" editors such as FatherGoose. He really needs to let go of this issue now and concentrate on the good sides to his editing. Black Kite 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• And he's using my edit to George W Bush which will, in 20 days time, be three years old - a) it's textbook tu quoque, and b) if 40 people didn't see anything wrong with it to promote me to an admin in January 2006, he shouldn't either. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. I'm actually going to agree with Ned Scott on this one (gasp!). This whole Sceptre/Pixelface thing looks like a personality conflict. They get under each other's skin, and I'm seeing problematic behavior from both sides, for months. This isn't a case of Pixelface harassing an innocent Sceptre, since Sceptre has done his own harassment here, filing a vandalism report on Pixelface,[91] removing Pixelface's comment with an edit summary of "troll",[92] telling Pixelface that he would be "laughed at",[93] or as he did just now, posting at Pixelface's talkpage while Pixelface was blocked, and telling him to "shut up".[94] It's one thing to react to what someone says out in Wikipedia article space, and it's another to be reacting to something that someone is saying on their own talkpage, especially while they're blocked. Yes, Pixelface deleted Sceptre's comment from the WP:NOT talkpage the other day,[95] but then again, Sceptre's comment was a bit of a personal attack. He was definitely discussing the "contributor and not the content". If Pixelface is genuinely willing to promise to disengage, meaning to try and stop reacting to everything Sceptre says, I would say unblock. But Sceptre has to disengage as well. He shouldn't be personally trying to point out Pixelface's "problems". Sceptre has done his piece, he has raised awareness of what he thinks is a problem, and now he needs to step back and let others deal with it. If the two want to continue participating at talkpages (such as about WP:NOT), they should be allowed to do so, but only in a strictly "Discuss the content, not the contributors" way. If either one of them starts pointing the finger at the other again, I'd say block for disruption. --Elonka 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Well put Elonka - I would support an unblock here too. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I did intervene in this situation because I felt Pixelface's behaviour was inappropriate. I stepped in, not as a friend, but as an admin seeing inappropriate behaviour and I cannot stress enough that I would have stepped in regardless of who was on the other end of it. I did tell Pixelface that his behaviour was looking like the onset of harassment and that he should disengage. Father Goose said much along the same lines. In the context of Pixelface already being warned how his behaviour was looking, and then him making an action that was likely going to irritate Sceptre or contribute to a feeling of harassment (by removing his comment, which someone else said could be described as trying to "silence" Sceptre), I can see how the block was justified. Perhaps it would have been better for me to pass the diffs on (the ones I discussed with Pixelface initially), to an uninvolved admin. I did seek feedback on how I handled the situation and I hope that regardless of what I would do differently in the future, that I handled this situation in an acceptable manner. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and unblocked Pixelface, who has given his (her?) word to behave from now on.[96] I'd also like to thank the other admins for their participation here, and I don't think that anyone acted in bad faith. There definitely was problematic behavior on the part of a couple editors which was disrupting the normal flow of things, and as such, a block was appropriate to prevent further damage. However, in this case, I don't think that the damage was being caused just by Pixelface, so I don't think that justice was entirely served here. Now that Pixelface is unblocked, and has promised to let things go, hopefully we can mark this situation as resolved and all move on. :) --Elonka 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts put forward by everyone, particularly Elonka, to resolve the situation and I agree with the unblocking. Thank you —Travis^talk 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism patterns

Recently Desert Vista High School and Mountain Pointe High School have been getting vandalized with near identical vandalism. Which is not too surprising since the same person or persons seem to be doing it. Going through the page history of recent events, I find the following vandalism-only accounts:

Desert Vista High School

Bonzaibaby

Elaborateliar

SlayerofFools

TerminatorD

24.251.53.63

24.121.108.134

68.0.161.91

68.99.94.9

68.107.211.190

70.190.109.69

70.190.161.42

130.13.168.109

130.13.169.247

130.13.170.86

Mountain Pointe High School

Bonzaibaby

Elaborateliar

Keeweeman-ape

Monkeyking123

SlayerofFools

24.251.53.63

68.99.94.9

70.190.161.42

70.190.109.69

130.13.170.86

130.13.169.247

Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan)

68.107.211.190

The Chelsea High appears on the end because curiously the same IP vandalized it as vandalized the Desert Vista High article, in the same general time period.

None of these accounts have ever been blocked, and all the named accounts are recently created vandalism-only SPA (DPA?) accounts that only operate on these two articles.

I don't konw what should be done about this, or if this is the right place to report it. Suggestions? Loren.wilton (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Both pages should be semi-protected. miranda 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Page-move vandal - lend a hand?

Resolved

 – Everything back where it should be. Bencherlite^Talk 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone else could help sort out the works of Remus John Lupin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that'd be appreciated. Bencherlite^Talk 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why am I getting redirects from El Salvador to El Salvador? FCYTravis (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The page move seems to have added funny characters to the page name- look at the URL. I restored the redirect in case anyone searched for El Salvador. The same thing's happened to Mathematics. Hut 8.5 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. Hut 8.5 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to move a couple of the pages to "Pagename (temp)" and then back to "Pagename" (without the special characters) as the move function thought that I was trying to move the page onto itself. That worked for, e.g. Ecuador but (ironically) I couldn't work out Mathematics despite two attempts and somebody else had to do it for me! Bencherlite^Talk 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this a Grawp sock again? It seems to be moving everything to a unicoded version of HAGGAR with junk on the end of the name. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was a Grawp sock. Acalamari 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and this time it's Harry Potter characters (see my WP:RFCU/IP report). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/129.89.193.249

I seem to be unaouthorized to create this user's talkpage to give the IP a warninig. This IP vandalized as shown in the IP's contribs. Someone please warn the IP. Thanks you.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by Gonzo fan2007. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jordanian businesspeople

I seem unable to create the this category: Category:Jordanian businesspeople, which, I believe should be legitimate. It matches an automated regex pattern block. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue should be cleared by now. There was an error in adding something to the blacklisting regex. You should be able to make the page now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Category created; issue resolved. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomorebigots

Hmmm. Nomorebigots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), clearly here to advance an agenda, but is this a username violation? Guy (Help!) 07:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his edits he seems to be very polite, but unfortunately he seems to be one of these people that has mere facts and knowledge on his side, rather than popular opinion, and thus will not last long around here before being blocked for some form or another of violating protocols. The choice of username would seem to be a borderline case in point.

I can see absolutely nothing he has done wrong so far other than pick an inauspicious username, and from the tone of his edits, unless he is a sock, I think he will tire of editing soon and go away by himself, if he doesn't get blocked for some trivial infraction first. I'm willing to AGF and let him weave his rope, and not complain of the choice of name. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Those who have facts and knowledge are fine, it's the ones bringing WP:TRUTH who are the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Claims there's a reason for the username. Edits don't look amazingly horribly bad, yet. Let's AGF and see what happens. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fritzl incest case

As many of you know, this is a huge current case in the news. I've been editing it in the past few days, fixing references and doing other minor stuff. However, I have noticed today, that the article is now fully protected for vandalism! I wouldn't mind seeing the article semi'd but fully-protecting it is a little too much IMO. Besides, most of the vandalism was coming from IP's, and if any other vandalism would to come, it would be doubt with very quickly I'm sure. I just think in this case it should be semi-protected, not fully-protected. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick (talk · contribs) changed it back to semi, and correctly so, I think. Sandstein (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring & personal attacks by User:Kolkhianboy

User:Kolkhianboy wages an endless edit war on the Laz people article, removing reliable and sourced information. He ignores requests to explain his edits and several warnings on his talk page. He repeatedly leaves offending messages on my talk page and on User talk:Iberieli, full of ethnic insults and accusations of "fascism".[97], [98], [99]. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy's a troll who can barely speak English. I've alerted User:Moreschi, an admin who's dealt with him before. With any luck we can pull the plug on this. --Folantin (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat disruption

I got an issue that needs inspection on Saeb Erekat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Two editors tag-teaming to edit war a "dispute" tag out of the page even though both are uninvolved in recent discussions and a mediation.

One of the two, PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already given a last chance pre-indef block via forced mentorship and also previously noted by one of his multiple previous mentors that "[removal of dispute tags is] usually frowned upon". The other editor's (Rama (talk · contribs)) last contribution on the talk page was in September 2006.

PalestineRemembered also repeated the same personal attack that got him a 31 hour block: "01:18, 29 October 2007 GRBerry (requested by mentor)".

• See: Block recommendation
• And: Arbcom evidence of WP:HAR.
• Recent repetition:
  "After months of harrassment of people on their Talk-Pages, and a block of him..." PalestineRemembered, 16:36, 30 April 2008

And also managed to recently cast a support vote to a permanent ban adding that "It's time this cancer of gang activity was cut out."

He also noted there that "There is another top "Palestinian sympathetic" editor I've really wanted to contact but who has been similarly impervious to my advances." (PalestineRemembered) - apparently, User:Rama was not that editor.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I don't think the removal of the totally disputed tag was a controversial move by PR. I think there's consensus now for the current version and all editors apart from yourself seem to find it acceptable. Tagging an article as disputed, when there's an overwhelming consensus against that isn't really appropriate. Not a huge fan of Rama rolling you back, I think a manual edit would have been better. If you still have concerns, could you consider bringing them up on the talk page and we can work them out? I still don't see any need for a disputed tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The AE case has just been closed and there was a clear and final reminder to everyone involved on this mess. I know Rama is not directly related to this issue but it is clear that his rollback revert action is not appropriate adding more troubles than it could resolve anything. Jaakoubou and PalestineRemembered know better; Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions.

Jaakoubou blocked for 1 week.

PalestineRemembered for 1 week.

Rama blocked for 24h. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am (fortunately) not familiar with the amount of bickering and mediation around the whole case, but isn't it quite harsh? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given both of their rather lengthy block histories, 1 week apiece was benevolent, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rama is unblocked as per this discussion. 1 week is the least minimum Lucas. Too much troubles and noise but fortunately we haven't lost yet the sense of judgement - with all the disruption caused at a large set of articles including BLP ones. Next time we can just go direct to article bans if people persist - and without warnings because there have been thousands of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Fayssal. El_C 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, seconded. There's been a lot of bickering and needless reverting been going on from the pair of them for months. A 1 week break to stop the disruption seems fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't PalestineRemembered under CSN mandated mentorship? Where is his mentor? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

His mentor is here. PR's been away for a while and this removal was one of his first edits back. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just checked your talk page and apparenly Jaakabou brought this to your attention hours before posting it here. Why did no communication occur prior to him posting here? It seems like this could have been taken care of before it spun into ANI drama.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some things take longer to deal with than others, and given I've just come back off holiday, I've got plenty of other things to deal with. I was planning to look through it all today, but Jaakabou had already posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod. I don't disagree with this block and hope that once PR comes back we see some more proactive mentoring rather than letting things get out of hand. He needs watching. It took him four whole days to get blocked for a week after being gone for two months.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you have to tell to his mentor Kyaa? Jaakobou's mentor is also informed. Mentors are feeling tired and suggest better things to sort this out but these users, instead of partcipating at ineteresting discussions as this proposal they go on with their troubles. Do you have a word for them Kyaa? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that jaaka responded to Durova's note (the same one you linked to) on his talk page in a not-completely negative way. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was his response and he was not blocked for replying positively or negatively but blocked for all the reasons mentioned above. And if WP:IPCOLL didn't want to walk through it is because real administrative action is missing a bit. It was decesive for the smooth running of WP:SLR. We cannot push people to be friendly with each other but we have no better offer. This is a collaborative project and there are limits. There are plenty of projects around here serving for the main purpose - building an encyclopedia in a friendly and neutral manner. So we won't spend more time wikilawyering while keeping the articles locked or open for wars. Nope. Establish an online magazine or something similar. SLR is working and editors from both sides are feeling better. The I-P area is full of bickering and wikilawyering. And there's one single solution to that --> discipline (after all "discipline" is not-completely a negative thing). Please think about it. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, I don't disagree with this block. Jaakabou has made some damn fine, even featured, contributions to this encyclopedia. He gets into deep shit in Isreal/Palestine articles. Maybe he should change his focus.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody gets into deep shit in Israel/Palestine articles and that's why some order is needed. We don't want it to smell like 'shit' all the time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)What may be helpful here is upon PR's and Jaak's return, there should be some form of temporary injunction on each one from communicating with the other. The two have individually made contributions to the project, but they seem not to be able to get out of each other's way; as if each one is the other's catalyst. As sad as it sounds, if they could first learn to IGNORE each other, that may be the initial step in them--eventually--learning to work with each other, if only from a distance. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I have long thought you would make a good role model and additional mentor for Jaakobou, as you are someone with a similar (but not so extreme) POV, long experience, and who knows how to edit Wikipedia ethically and within the rules. This is no reflection on Durova, who has done a good job in encouraging J to spread his efforts outside I-P articles, and whose mentorship I hope continues. It is clear to me, however, that something extra is necessary to improve J's behaviour, and reduce the problems he causes. Would you be willing to consider such a role (with Durova's agreement of course)? What do other editors here think of this proposal?

--NSH001 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the note left by Jaaka on PR's page the other day, but I don't have time to deal with this kind of thing (wikilawyering, imo) anymore, so I leave PR entirely in Ryan's capable hands. A week's block for both is fine, though it's not helpful that Jaaka keeps a running list of every even slightly dubious edit PR ever makes and constantly works to portray those edits is the worst possible light. Someone really needs to tell Jaaka to stop running to AN/I every time consensus forms against him, on top of endlessly pushing PR's buttons. I doubt a week long block is going to get that through to him. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)NSH, with Durova's permission and blessing, I have been trying to work with Jaak. Here is one of the major issues in my opinion, and the following may equally apply to PR. Jaak has contributed many valuable edits to the project. However, Jaak also has a history of being somewhat, shall we say, confrontational in his edits. This, in my opinion, is due as much, if not more, to feelings of isolation and defensiveness as to a natural personality trait. Jaak feels that he can not perform an edit without someone reverting or complaining. Now much of this is a result of past interactions that were less-than-civil. However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" and not dig up old history for new issues. This does not always work, ala Isarig, but without the ability for others to allow the mentored editor some freedom from the past, then it is not fair to the editor in question and is bound to fail.

I would be glad to take a more active role in mentoring Jaak, with Durova remaining the primary mentor. That would possibly include temporary topic or userpage bans, but it must also include a commitment from the wiki project members, especially those who have fundamental philosophical differences with him, to allow him the fresh start; to understand his POV and realize that as long as he conforms to wiki policies and guidelines, he is allowed to have them; to treat him with the same civility and respect that they themselves desire; and to contact his mentors with issues, and not even always on-wiki, to minimize any wikidrama. It takes time for people to change habits, and everyone should be afforded that opportunity.

I also feel that the same measures should be applied to PR in the interests of equity and fairness.

-- Avi (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Jaakobou came to me yesterday about the problem and I advised him to contact PR's most recent mentor. He did, and then while I was sleeping a lot of other things happened. I certainly appreciate assistance with mentorship, and this dispute in general would benefit from more attention on the part of the community. Most of the editors on both sides are intelligent and basically reasonable people. This situation needs clear boundaries with consistent, swift, and (usually) mild enforcement.

To other admins and editors who'd like to help, I have a few positive suggestions:

• Please put relevant articles on your watchlist.
• Please intervene early in mild ways. This ANI thread and its blocks probably could have been avoided if someone had placed 48 hours of full protection on the article when the template dispute first broke out.
• Please recuse yourself if your own history creates an appearance of bias, even if you know in your heart that you're neutral and perfectly fair. AGF is worn and tattered around here.

I've done what I can, and I'll continue, but one mentor can't work miracles alone. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I think you and Ryan should discuss the possibility of some suggestions for both PR and Jaak vis-a-vis each other; just a thought. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion. I also think this problem is not going to solve itself without intensive community oversight; the problem isn't so much two editors as an area that's underadministrated. Too many people who might have intervened have shied away for too long, so anyone who's active on either side of the dispute has a laundry list of legitimate unaddressed grievances. These complaints that keep erupting aren't entirely frivolous or disruptive--they're the symptoms of deep frustration. On the one hand I agree that it was exceptionally poor timing for Jaakobou to open this thread less than 24 hours after the lengthy AE thread closed. On the other hand, he has a point when he says this effectively denies him all means of seeking intervention when a problem emerges at a dispute where he's outnumbered. He is not an SPA who pushes fringe theories; he's a featured content contributor who wants to see a notable but controversial viewpoint included in the range of discussion. As a community, we're not handling this dilemma well. A handful of mentors for the individuals in this dispute is not going to make the problem go away, when the participants keep running into the problem that sysops don't intervene with the tools on the mild, consistent, and firm basis that would actually regularize things. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not difficult. We've wasted far too much time on Jaakobou and PalestineRemembered. We have better editors to worry about who aren't here just to fight out the Middle East wars all over again in cyberspace. Next time either of them gets caught treating Wikipedia as a battleground, in such a manner as this, we should just topic-ban them indefinitely from all articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Neither of those two is going to be part of a constructive solution to the problem of Arab-Israeli articles. IMO they're incapable of writing neutrally on this manner, and, perhaps more importantly, understanding this policy when it comes to dealing with their fellow editors. Ok, this is my "ban the bastards" approach. Simplistic, yes: also effective. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together like that, Moreschi. If I'm following this episode right, Jaak taunted PR for what everyone agrees was a consensus edit,[100] PR complained about Jaak's threats in no uncertain, perhaps even colorful, terms to his mentor and upon Jaak's own request,[101] and then Jaak came here and labeled PR's complaint about Jaak's threats as being the real harassment (above), and so now they are both blocked. Jaak used to maintain an entire User sub-page tracking PR's every edit with a paragraph long complaint next to each one (long since deleted, I believe). If it wasn't for Jaak's endless goading of PR, I don't think we'd have a problem here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moreschi, Kendrick, and everyone, talking about indef banning either PR or Jaak from various articles is premature, especially without input from either of their mentors. Furthermore, one cannot just look at this one incident. I think it is fair to say that in his own way, PR has been similarly difficult as Jaak, to the point he was almost indef banned from wikipedia in toto, if it wasn't for my intervention with the suggestion of mentorship. Both of these editors have problems with each other, and with the I/P topics in general, and, in my opinion, both of them should be put on regimens that will help them learn to deal with the frustration that comes to ALL OF US when dealing with topics of these sorts without ending up at WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC every other week. If a strict regimen, combined with the authority of the mentor to both discipline and protect each of them does not work, then we can reopen the topic ban discussion. However, not only to the both need to break certain bad habits, they both need the time, and latitude to do so. It will not work if everyone is just going to dump on PR or dump on Jaak every time there is a mild infraction. Let the mentors know (and there should be multiple mentors for both, some JOINT in my opinion) and lets give them the chance they need. -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, right, that ban almost happened because Jaak insisted PR had accused him of war crimes, which I think was pretty ridiculous. It's the same pattern, Avi. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Has no one read my posts to this thread? Durova^Charge! 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have. Did I say something different than what you said, other than perhaps asking the mentors to put them both on some kind of regimen? -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very different. The community needs to become more involved in solving this dispute. It's unrealistic to expect a handful of mentors to pull rabbits out of a hat. I've been on this for months; I'm fresh out of rabbits. And I'm keeping the gerbils to myself. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible abuse of Delete tag

Resolved

 – was sent to WP:AFD

User:Harjk‎ may be abusing the delete tag in Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj... placed a delete tag without explanation. Could an administrator check? If the article violates certain wikipedia guidlines, tag it as such or delete it, otherwise remove the tag and warn User:Harjk‎. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been tagged and sent to WP:AFD. The template will remain until the discussion completes. -JodyB _talk 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thankyou. Can you advice me how to resolve it, or who will resolve it? I may be able to help out on this topic. Is there a limit on how much time an article can be tagged for deletion if there is no discussion about it? The original tagger's complaints have been addressed but he has not posted a followup 205.240.11.90 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Without discussion, articles will tend to remain tagged as such forever. Discussions typically last ~5 days, and this may be extended if there's inadequate discussion. WilyD 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant harassment, personal attacks, and stalking by repeat offender.

Resolved

User:Shabiha is not a stranger to this board. This person has previously been warned by site admins and was also issued a temporary block for insulting me on my talk page without provocation. This did not stop them from actually using the same insult again right here on the noticeboard.
Recently, this person has now been harassing myself and others in addition to edit warring and disruptions. This all began over a simple editing disagreement just like the last two incidents but started again with insulting edit summaries and such. I tried, as always, to mediate this myself first by contacting User:Itaqallah to mediate as a third party and then warning Shabiha myself. Rather than help things, this person began Wikistalking me, following me onto random pages they never edit and reverting decents edits of mine; in one instance Shabiha stalked me onto a page, reverted my edit, and then accused me of editing warring even though THEY were reverting ME. This person has also insulted me on the talk pages of other users without provocation. To top it off, they said something cryptic about making personal attacks on Itaqallah and myself and has now launched into attacks on that user too.
Look, according to the last encounter Shabiha had with site admins they were told by User:DGG that they were receiving a final warning and a number of other editors have also warned Shabiha about this. This user has been temporarily banned before for less offensive behavior and this has now escalated. I recommend them for a permanent ban at this point, because all attempts including by site admins have failed at moderating this person's behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see edit warring and POV edit summaries on both sides, but nothing that is really a personal attack. FayssalF has already appropriately warned both parties, and protected some of the articles. DGG (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like consensus supported at least one removal by the reported party. Rudget (Help?) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MM has now posted on my talk page that he is satisfied, and does not want to pursue this--and promises to pay attention to the advice & warnings. DGG (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling it done then (or at least done here on this page...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger Chapin article

See prior incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User:FactsAreFacts

An anon has begun making edits to this article which have effectively restored a POV version that had originally been created by user:FactsAreFacts. The version that this user is creating has multiple issues: POV, use of cut-and-paste of external marketing material from charities, peacock terms, etc. The anon also blanked the article's talk page, removing comments that provided references to negative information about the subject from the talk page.

The prior incident resulted in the named user being temporarilly blocked. I've already reverted the anon's edits to the article once and posted warnings to his/her talk page. The anon then restored his/her edits and blanked the article talk page. I will revert one last time after posting this; but I request an admin to monitor this article as I suspect the anon will likely return and continue to press their POV within the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find the version you have reverted to is highly POV as well, and lacks inline citations for all the negative facts; my own inclination, in keeping with WP:BLP would be to blank the article and insist that it be carefully rebuilt with every sentence properly sourced. Perhaps an administrator with WP:BLP experience should review. Risker (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the inline issue, so added the tag prior to your commenting here. The two main negative comments do have sources (the Forbes and ABC reports), but not inline. I could likely move those inline now; but I have no major objection to someone restarting the article, as it does need rework. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've located the refs, and added them inline. Most were already listed in the article as ELs and in a non-inline refs section. I agree that the article could use some balancing in the POV, but the negative comments can be sourced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

This user keeps stalking me and another user and repetaly critisizes or deletes anything he doesn't deem constructive.He gives me the feeling that he doesn't like me and I decided I would react in a mature manner and take it here. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? D.M.N. (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacob Green696/Naked Chicks
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacob Green696/Naked Chicks and he always does this sort of thing.I'm not experienced enough to put the other incidents. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that page does nothing to enhance the encyclopedia and should be deleted. But how does that show he is stalking you? D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it is possible to edit without a user account, every single User Page does not contribute to the encyclopedia. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 has been notified. Rudget (Help?) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is nominating one article for deletion "stalking you". I've deleted (not just nominated) 10 pages so far today, does that mean I'm stalking the authors? — iridescent 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalking? Absolutely not. As far as I can see, Toddst1 has done well in nominating an unnecessary page for deletion and you seem to have got the hump. Rudget (Help?) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if my talk page and user not been Oversighted I could show you the other parts that would prove my case. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On a skim through the history this seems to be the only previous interaction between the two I can see - hardly "stalking". Toddst has no power to oversight your talkpage, and if someone with oversight powers did, it would be because you were either publishing gross libels or releasing someone's personal details. — iridescent 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was Oversighted because I put my birthdate on my page and it was with my permission.But before it was oversighted you could've seen that he went to my page frequently. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he also deleted "Metal up your ass" from your userpage - is that the deleted edit you mean? — iridescent 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me help Mr. Green out here: 1 2 3. There are a few others, but I think this shows the pattern. There's a difference between stalking and keeping someone on their watchlist. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have about 30+ user talk pages on my watchlist, not because I'm nosy, but because I've had close conversation with them in the past. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest SNOW-closure of the MfD as delete. Enigma ^message 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K I win.Toddst, sorry for bringing this up. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

At the MfD, Green requested deletion. Enigma ^message 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia processes aren't contests.-Wafulz (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (after creation of this thread) points to the source of the problem - a pattern of thinking (including this thread) that constructive feedback is in some way persecution of this user. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gina Bold and Keithmb (talk · contribs)

I'm getting increasingly concerned about Keithmb's edits on Gina Bold. A bit of history first: Keithmb was allowed to edit here following no objections to his agreement with JzG that he could perform some edits on the article that he and JzG had discussed on OTRS. Fair enough, I trust JzG and OTRS in general. However, following these edits he has started to remove references and make other edits that have nothing to do with enforcing BLP[102]. I asked JzG about this[103], hoping there was a good explanation that I simply weren't aware of. I was asked to ask him directly which I did with no response[104]. I made a partial revert[105] as I saw no reason for the edits and wasn't getting a response from him. Today I see that he now returned to the article and once again made significant removals of references[106]. This concerns me. He is basically here to edit just this article and is not communicating at all. He has been asked nicely to explain his edits either in edit summaries or on the talk page. I have offered my assistance without getting any response. We don't normally allow people to edit on behalf of the subject, a rare exception was made. Where do we draw the line? I'm not going to edit war over this but surely something needs to happen. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• He is editing on behalf of the subject, who is not at all computer literate - he seems to me to be a pleasant chap. That does not give him a free pass, of course. I'll email him ad ask him to start discussing on talk pages. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

need help with Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association

I would be grateful for someone's help with Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association. JCeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and an IP, 66.93.111.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (both presumably someone at the organization itself) has added back what appears to be copyvio text that I deleted. I do not want to get into an edit war or risk a 3RR sanction. This may be pigheadedness rather than actual vandalism, but the end result is much the same. I think that the old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Protection_Programs_Participants%27_Association&oldid=209380065 (which includes references) is more appropriate than the current version. --Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the copyvio and left a second warning for the IP, asking to discuss the matter before they re-add anything to the article. Some of that information may be useful as background, but it can't be added verbatim, as both the IP and the user have done. Though the connection between the two appears obvious, I'll add that JCeph and the IP have not been editing together; the IP started in when JCeph stopped. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

expansion of range block

Resolved

 – Anon blocked 189.192.160.0/19.

Yesterday I requested a block on an IP range as several of them were repeatedly making identical vandalism edits. I blocked a few of them individually and a small range block was put in place after I reported them on WP:ANI. Unfortunately another new one popped up today so I'm afraid the block may need to be expanded a bit. Can someone check this out?

My report from yesterday is located here. The newest IP is below.

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

Thank you. - eo (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it, again :) -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not call a 26,624 IP range block "small." I'll add the 8,192 IPs in 189.192.160.0/19 for now. Please realize that range blocking like this does affect tens of thousands of people, and if we can live with 34,816 instead of 65,536 that is a 47% improvement. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature

Resolved

I’ve just come up with user:Aditya Kabir's recent contribution and his misusing of rollback feature. Rollback feature (for non admin) is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (Vandalism). But his recent action on these pages ( [107], [108], [109] and [110]) seems to violation of rollback feature and sign of edit warring. The rollback should only be used to revert any vandalism. Misusing this feature is not helpful at all.--NAHID 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am wrong. But, both my reverts were part of an ongoing discussion (see here). I really can't see how it was considered as an edit war. I have noticed that my rollback right was removed, which may be fine if an edit war was involved. I hope you have noticed that from a whole host of edits made by User:Blnguyen (see here), I have reverted only two that explicitly concerned the discussion. I have been within the confines of "as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits" per WP:ROLLBACK at all time. Do you really believe that it represents an edit war? If yes, would you, please, explain how? It would be very helpful to know. On top of that, though it may be a minor issue here, out of the four examples provided against me one was made by using Twinkle, and not rollback (see here). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK is not to be used for anything other than the most unconstructive edits. If you wish to revert a constructive edit, you should at the very least, leave an edit summary which rollback does not permit you to do. [111] does not appear to be vandalism, no matter whose POV you believe in. Thus the argument of BRD is not applicable here. If you can appreciate the difference, I will not be opposed to any admin re-adding your rollbacker rights. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

aggressive editing of Deborah Jeane Palfrey ..

Resolved

 – protected for a week to muffle an unseemly melee --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with it, the page changes by the second. The allegations of suicide should be removed as the body isn't cold yet ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

emacsuser (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user edit warring on Ayn Rand (again!)

Anonymous user who has been disrupting Ayn Rand article pushing POV point is doing it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.111.29.12 His contributions are almost entirely limited to Ayn Rand and he has been pushing hard for his POV while other editors are still debating certain points about the lead and reviewing sources. I think the article needs protection from anonymous users again. Thanks for looking into this Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as this one are absolutely unacceptable. I'd agree that this is a problem, though I don't know about protection if it's a discrete few editors. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a user from an IP address, so I don't know if blocking the user is beneficial. He appeared and started supporting the POV pushed by spinoza1111 who was posting from an IP adress around a block. That IP address was blocked, so now he posts from Starbucks in Hong Kong noting he can't be blocked. They are both rude and insulting. The issue at hand is one worth debating and getting right as it's cropped up before. These two don't help as they just start either insulting, posting OR, or claiming that I'm the rude one and that they already have a consensus. It's getting dull at this point. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As is too often the case, the person who comes here to complain is the guilty party. Ethan is an incorrigible edit-warrior who is responsible for getting Ayn Rand Protected recently. He's been dismissive, dishonest and generally disruptive. Since he is unable to justify his desired changes or participate in a genuine consensus, he's taken to trying to trick admins into creating a one-sided block that would let him edit but silence some of the people who have prevented him from making a mess of the article. He briefly got his way, but a wiser admin upgraded from Semi to Full protection. If he won't stop edit-warring, I guess you'll have no choice but to Protect the article again, but if you do, then please save a step by using Full Protection. Oh, and by the way, I'm not anonymous. My name, my real name, is Bert. Hi. - Bert 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

I hope the admins will take the time to read the edit history of talk ayn rand. If they do and find that I'm in the wrong, then by all means act as it warrants. I comfortable that the truth is right there in "Bert's" comments and mine. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The owner of indef-blocked User:Spinoza1111 has self-identified as Edward Nilges. Recently a long-term block was issued to 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) (a static IP in Hong Kong) since he identified himself on his Talk as being the same editor as Spinoza1111. But the IP being complained about here is from New Jersey, so it's unlikely to be Nilges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He's surely not Edward, but jumped in to defend Edward who was hurling insults. This seems to becasue they have the same POV they wish to push. Bert, as the other anonymous IP person signs his posts is the one currently edit warring. Edward made his poiont, and has kept his word not to edit the article so far. He want to make his point and, at least provides arguements, although they are OR or, in the case of one site, outdated. Bert just trys to stir the pot and push. In any case, this is my opinion, but an admin should read through the comments. I can provide a timed transcript of comments (mine too) if anyone would find that easier. Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You may withdraw my complaint. I'm leaving the Ayn Rand page to the blocked user Edward Nilges, and the anonymous edit war warrior "Bert." Apparently wikipedia source guidlines are meaningless if the article is about someone people don't like. I can't hold the line against them and their friends. It's just not worth the effort Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

tag team (meat puppets) attacking Obama article

Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Scjessey are tag teaming (meat puppets) who are wiping out the Malia Obama article and making it a redirect. If they claim the article is not notable, they MUST discuss it, not tag team dictate their whims.

They are getting rude and uncivil.

Please force a discussion, not allow them to destroy hard work and article building. Block them for 6 hours if necessary to stop this encyclopedia destructive behavior. Watchingobama (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure for them is not to tag team but AFD and vote merge/redirect, not destroy (wipe it out completely) the article by tag teaming. Watchingobama (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference - Malia Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it appears that some discussion has taken place at the article's talk page, prior to the article being nominated for deletion. The concern is that there is only trivial mention of the subject in reliable sources, all of which relate to her father, Senator and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama. I'll add that, as you note, the proper procedure is in place and being followed at the deletion debate, so further discussion on the merits should be directed there, particularly if you have any sources or information which would document the subject's notability in and of herself. Do you have diffs of any rudeness or incivility in relation to this article? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They were tag team throwing the article away but it has stopped for now. It is now an article for deletion debate. That's ok but vandalism is not. I suggest that if anyone wipes out the article, they must be stopped and blocked. You can't vandalize an article just because you think it should be deleted. You have to wait until the formal discussion is over. Watchingobama (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should probably review what vandalism actually is. Grsz^talk 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was getting there, as well - we're all on the same team, here, and accusing other editors of vandalism and meat-puppettry (as Watchingobama appeared to do above) isn't really assuming good faith. Let's calm down and discuss the merits, instead of each other, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that a deletion debate is ongoing, I agree wholeheartedly - blanking the article, redirecting it while it is under discussion in this manner, or removing the AfD tag would be vandalism. However, if the consensus at that debate is to redirect to Barack Obama, as is proposed, then that is what would happen. So, as you indicate, the formal discussion will continue for the time being at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, it was redirected first, then undone by watchingobama, then prodded, undone, and now brought to AFD, and will be deleted. Grsz^talk 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the fortnightly posting of Tvoz (talk · contribs) and Bobblehead (talk · contribs) (plus another, this time) accused of bias regarding either, or, and and, the Obama and Hilary related articles. Since the bias complained of generally changes depending on the viewpoint of the complainee, it appears to me that Tvoz and Bobblehead are generally getting it right (which is a whole lot different that spreading the truth, eh?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read the AfD and watchingobama's contributions, I'll note that one editor may see tag-teaming where another sees consensus. I particularly liked the piece in "her" article (added by wob) where she asked her father if he shouldn't be vice-president first. Nicely done, that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspected spamer: User:Halahala123

Resolved

Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

looks like this user promotes a company, has bot warning about ads and one of his/her spam articles was removed. see contribs. not sure if it's really spam...pls investigate admins. thx. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very prolific if this is the case. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Mykungfu: Indef Block Evasion via Socks

In a nutshell, user has returned, via multiple socks, after over a year, attacking the same articles & editors. Several admins refused to re-instate him/her after wikistalking, personal & racist attacks, etc, but there is question as to whether he is subject to a permanent ban, as likely he should be (currently tagged as such). Current suspected socks listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th) (backlog). I would appreciate clarification and action, if deemed necessary, on this issue. Thanks, -RoBoTam^ice 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User willfully violating fair use policies past final warning

Jughead.z(1) (talk · contribs) has created and is maintaining Wealthiest families in history. However, over the past week this user has been adding fair use images into this article against our fair use policies prohibiting such usage in lists/galleries. The history:

• 15:48, 23 April: I remove the fair use images from the article noting they violate fair use policy in the edit summary [113].
• 19:33, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images [114].
• 20:17, 24 April: I remove the fair use images, noting again in the edit summary that the images violate policy and including a commented text in replacement of each image which says "Do not place non-free licensed media here, per WP:NFCC policy" [115].
• 20:56, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images [116]
• 14:06, 25 April: I remove the images again with similar edit summary and comment text [117]
• 14:08, 25 April: I leave a note on Jughead's talk page informing him that the use of the images is against policy and advising him not to reinstate the images. [118]
• 16:40, 25 April: Jughead reinstates the images [119]
• 17:37, 25 April: I undo Jughead's edit [120]
• 17:39, 25 April: I leave another note to Jughead, advising him that if he continues to do this he may be blocked from editing [121]
• 20:14, 25 April: An anonymous IP obviously using a pool of IPs begins a series of reinstatements of the images [122][123][124][125][126]. I revert all of these as vandalistic reinstatement of fair use images against policy.
• 21:59, 28 April: I request semi-protection on the article to prevent the IP from continuing to vandalize the article [127].
• 22:01, 28 April: I inform Jughead that I've requested semi-protection for the article to prevent the IP from continuing their actions [128]
• 06:25, 29 April: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protects the article [129]
• 15:39, 1 May: In a series of edits, Jughead reinstates the prior removed images and adds more fair use images [130][131][132]
• 17:51, 1 May: I give Jughead a final warning [133]
• 17:56, 1 May: I remove the images again [134]
• 18:51, 1 May: Jughead places the article for speedy deletion [135], not citing a reason.
• 18:56, 1 May: I undo the speedy deletion request, since the article seems reasonable for inclusion [136]
• 18:57, 1 May: I inform Jughead of my action [137]
• 21:31, 1 May: Jughead reinstates the images yet again [138], then removed one [139], then reinstated it again [140].

During this series, Jughead attempted to add fair use rationales to the various logos as an attempt to satisfy WP:NFCC. But, the issue isn't the rationales. I informed Jughead this was improper [141] and removed the rationales.

I am requesting Jughead.z(1) (talk · contribs) being indefinitely blocked until he agrees to abide by our fair use and image use policies. His talk page contains a large number of postings regarding image problems, with this latest problem just being the last in a long line of problems. He refuses to communicate on these issues and has willfully acted in violation of our policies despite multiple warnings. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant as I have AfD'd this article here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The behavior is not irrelevant. Jughead refuses to abide by our image use and fair use policies. Whether the article exists or not, this is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in UEFA Cup 2007-08

Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the UEFA site you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the discussion page a few users decided that it's not fair and want to count 10 Pogrebnyaks goals, and that way making 2 top scorers. The thing is, i dont think Wikipedians are allowed to decide what's fair and whats not. An UEFA desicion, an offical one, is what counts.

P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Wikipedia and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. Shpakovich (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shpakovich, please read WP:CANVASS. This is the third place I know of where you've posted this. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Do I really have to read uncivil profonity on my talk page. Especially by one editor ChrisNelson who has been banned before? I work hard, follow the rules and get abused. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You may remove or delete anything from your talkpage that you want, so far as such removals do not distort or change others comments in a disruptive manner. Feel free to archive or remove anything you like. See WP:USERPAGE for more info. You may also wish to create an account, as membership has its privileges. Good luck.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership also has its problems. I will do as you suggest, and remove the profanity, but what I was looking for is someone in authority to "cool down" chrisnelson and yankees10. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mate everyone is in authority here. An admin is just another editor who was handed a mop. They handle what we those without the mop can not handle. I will warn the user if he continues and then if needed report to WP:AIV or here. Though I am looking at his conversation and seeing that he is just pointing out truths..though with an over use of profanity. Rgoodermote  02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We've gone to italics I see

Resolved

A comment would not sum up how weird this one is. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of Wikipedia text is in italics. Who gets trouted? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...what are you talking about...it looks fine on my side. Rgoodermote  03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... OK, apparently it's just me then?

WTF? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: WTF? Looks fine to me, except that hideous screen shot you just posted. Darkspots (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And back to normal now! I guess its good I at least hadn't gone plaid? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Er...check your internet browser settings..and maybe a couple of scans..because that just isn't right. Um marked resolved. Rgoodermote  03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistant Spam Account (Part 2)

 Done User indef blocked by admin. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Yesterday, I mentioned a problem with Skimurphyski and their continued addition of material to the Take a Bow and Good Girl Gone Bad articles concerning "...the video may be seen at her official website www.RihannaUpdate.com..." The result of that complaint was a 72-hour block of the registered user, as well as a one-month block of an associated IP address.

Tonight, I logged in to WP, reviewed my watchlist... and lo and behold, a new user, Rihannaupdate has appeared and is making the exact same edits to the above mentioned article. Thus, if someone could run a checkuser and assist, it would be much appreciated.

Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Report to WP:SSP and present your evidence there. Rgoodermote  03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)