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

User:Hrafn

Unresolved

 – large thread split to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hrafn --slakr^\ talk / 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked & ban discussion

Unresolved

 – emergency split (131kb) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion per WP:SIZE and WP:ACCESS and consensus clearly established for long AN/ANI threads. --slakr^\ talk / 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Emergency split? The whole reason the thread is so long is because it started as one thing (a discussion about a previous AN thread and Kurt's contribution there) and then segued into the predictable ban discussion. The ban discussion should have been at AN, where the size wouldn't have been a problem. Now someone can try and work out what to do with my comment when they put the subpage back here. Taking it off people's watchlists and putting a ban discussion on a subpage is not acceptable. I will note that the last three comments were opposes, so yanking it off ANI and onto a subpage looks even worse. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Full agreement - This discussion really shouldn't be shuffled back and forth between an unwatched subpage and ANI. It should stay put, and preferably here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just brilliant for people with a slow internet connection. Also, brilliant for people who love multiple edit conflicts. Majorly ^talk 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right..let's just keep going back and forth. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the sarcasm link. All joking aside, why not move the active bits of the thread out here, leave the inactive bits there (mark with archive tabs and links to here), and also provide links here, back to there. Then archive as a whole when finished. See, a constructive comment. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As has been discussed multiple times before, threads are split when they become large. Consensus is that we usually split threads >= 50kb, especially if they look like they're gonna keep growing; this one was 131kb. The discussion page for AN* boards is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Please discuss the current splitting/archiving consensus there if you feel it should change. Otherwise, please continue the discussion on the subpage and update the {{Unresolved}} tag to {{Resolved}} or similar when things are settled. --slakr^\ talk / 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was there for those discussions at WT:AN before, and I disagreed with automatic use of subpages due to size then, and I object now. Ban discussions are a clear example of a case where exceptions need to be made. Discussions on subpages do receive less attention, and the minimum standards for a ban discussion require it to be conducted openly. And as I've said several times now, ANI is more active than AN, so ban discussions should, for that reasons if nothing else, be held at AN where there is a less pressing need to split off to subpages. Even if a ban discussion results from an ANI thread, the time, space and decorum needed for a ban discussion are better suited to AN than ANI. But certainly not a subpage. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split. It won't load in my iPhone. Also, it is slagging my Firefox implementation. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It won't load in your iPhone? I'm speechless. Is that really the most important consideration here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish a sucky internet connection on some of you. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. My browser was slowing down, too, which is why I also did the same to several other threads. We have an entire encyclopedia to run. If one action's discussion that affects only one user, however perceivably unjust the action may be, is preventing people from reporting/responding to problems here, it needs to be fixed so that the other 99% of the encyclopedia can be covered. I'm sorry if you feel this action is unjust, but it is firmly grounded in our accessibility and article size guidelines due to technical and readability issues. --slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And my suggestions to bring the ban part out here and leave the other stuff in there? Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support split FFS. It's linked from AN/I. This page is already absurdly long and it is nice to get a permanent link to it. It isn't some nefarious plot to hide the secret admin goings on from the regular drama boards. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Split- I have a very slow internet connection and it's hard to load AN/I, plus edit conflicts crash firefox. So I'd really like to see this kept on a subpage. It's easier to watchlist anyway... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [title corrected 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Wikipedia toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Wikipedia; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville^BONK! 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• There were no rules. I boldly corrected an error. I was informed that were i to continue in my correction of errors i would "very likely be accused of vandalism", to which i replied with cites of previous complaints about the abuse of the [:Category:Pseudoscience]. I could also have made mention of the 2 previous CfD for the entire category itself. I have already explained my support for the category's restrained usage primarily in its non-pejorative significance. The characterization of "tendentious" is false, because i was correcting toward the neutral point of view. I was correcting tendentious use of a misused category tag. That i did so a single time with numerous tags also contradicts this characterization, which could mean "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Once i was resisted then i stopped that method of correction and sought another method, engaging more people. This indicates to the contrary regarding 'disruptive' editing style, which is "persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." In the case of the former, i wasn't persistently editing a single page. The latter (undue weight) was what i was attempting to restrict from perturbing the topics i observed as under contention. I saw the opportunity to improve Wikipedia, and so may have ignored some rules, as charged. Which ones? I'm not actually sure.

• I thought my strategies for addressing the error was inventive, creative, and gradually focussed. First it followed after a specific user suggestion by MartinPhi by removing the poorly-related subcategories. When this was opposed, i recommended a complement category tag which i agree was indeed making a POINT. I accepted this ruling and decided that i was not likely to produce a change in the overall trends and dynamics in Wikipedia (as i set about exploring other Wikis and began to notice how they looked and behaved like MUDs) and, during observation of certain cultural struggles in the topical areas of my interest, provided my observations on the whole as a basis for attempting to redress the problem from another tack: the restraint on the abuse of the pejorative Pseudoscience category.

• The CfD ruling was that this (correcting the Pseudoscience category) was my apparent point, and some of those who contributed seemed to agree that the pejorative tag was problematic. Where better to address the problem than on the Talk page of that category? So i began engaging conversation there and following out both pro (usage) and con (abuse) discussion there clarifying rational examining of its employment. I think i have addressed the relevant portions of your commentary.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" [1]?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Wikipedia policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Wikipedia as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Wikipedia policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Wikipedia) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question Massive POV push? and request for "some help on understanding what the heck is going on". Rather than answer the question, you attack the messenger and instead of giving your own explanation, attack my attempt at giving a concise answer. You object to my description of "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Wikipedia, it would seem", but that seems to me to be a fair description of the massive amount of impenetrable prose at Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis and Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Helpfully, Self-ref has given an "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" of the former post –

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If my translation is correct, that means that he doesn't like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR being applied to non-notable subjects. As shown at #Summing up above, the latter discussion suggests that he doesn't like WP:NPOV/FAQ much either. I've also commented there on Cat's objectives. By the way, you will note that today's featured article, Anekantavada, is fully supported by citations to reliable third party sources. Think about it. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi dave. Could you give specific quotes from me that indicate that i don't like those things? I would appreciate it.

• In regard to WP:V, i like it very much, and i would prefer not to see it abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong.

• WP:NPOV informs my motivation for correcting the POV-intrusion of pejorative category tagging. By its very characterization it is obvious that this type of category is easily abused. There have been adequate explanations for this in the Pseudoscience category Talk page (arguably justifying its complete removal). I have explained why it ought remain, as comparable to Category:Hoaxes or Category:Fallacies, which are helpfully explained as to how and why these are conventionally so regarded. In general, the error that is being committed is in consideration of a topic and where its borders extend. To the extent that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" topic intrusion inserts hyper-skeptical and opposing topical matter into the main article. This is disruptive of encyclopedic content, and should be curtailed as a form of POV-pushing. I am taking both specific steps and broad-ranging explanatory means of correcting this. I am open myself to correction, and since i am a new editor at Wikipedia am continually taking cues from my elder editors (and especially writers). It is my aim "to present each of the significant views [within a topic] fairly and not [to] assert any one of them as correct." I think that until a topic is generally evaluated as a hoax, or as a fallacy, or as a pseudoscience, it is POV-pushing to apply such a blatantly pejorative categorization to it, and especially to ambiguous referents which these pseudosciences may study. With that in mind, i do dispute that a proper treatment has been given to Pseudoscience categorization in this arbitration, and have explained why in the Pseudoscience category's Talk page as seems appropriate (there are several sections challenging it). I am still waiting for rational arguments against me in any of those sections. Perhaps it is a convention that cites are necessary for Category Talk pages? I haven't noticed this.

• WP:NOR seems completely common-sense to me. I don't think that i have ever edited an article in Wikipedia and failed to support it with proper sources. If you know of an instance, please point it out. I don't think that this applies to User_pages, Talk_pages, or Village_pump_pages which have been my primary contribution thusfar in Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia i have of course constructed many pages with variable citation, since they weren't all encyclopedias. Surely i have much to learn as regards this principle of Wikipedia, but i am neither opposed to its application on non-notable subjects (examples?) nor do i think that the notability guideline has as much weight as do the editing principles (in fact i think notability guidelines are too heavily emphasized and should be moderated against an unlimited data holdings so as not to treat Wikipedia as if it were a paper encyclopedia).

• With regard to WP:NPOV/FAQ, i very strongly agree that "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific ideas and concepts. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." I also like the rest of the page very much except the presented Pseudoscience arbitration, which i dispute is illogical, should not apply to an expansive use of the Pseudoscience category, and contains four decisions by 8 people on the category, 2 of which are not even unanimous. I am not out of line to dispute it, especially as i am helping to clarify the referents of its application -- something which is barely touched on in the arbitration because its focus is elsewhere.

Dave, you maintain that i have a "tactic of posting huge screeds at the Village Pump", and yet i don't think i've contributed more than a single extended essay there and, when asked to provide an 'executive summary' did so without complaint, answering all questions put to me for clarification. You also state that i made "proposals at Category talk:Pseudoscience where he appears to be objecting to WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy." I think i clarified that above. I agree with the policy, and agree that the arbitration produced that result, but i dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification, thinking that it extended a ridiculous expansion to the support for applying this pejorative category tag. I support its restriction to nouns only, and have made this penatrably clear both on Category talk:Pseudoscience and in the couple of essays that i wrote explaining why the category's misuse is a problem and why i think that it is being misused (an extension of cultural struggles into Wikipedia, sullying its content).

Therefore, in brief, dave, your contentions about my positions are extreme, unfounded (you don't provide pointers to where i dispute these principles), and for all but one exception in the last, which i answer to above, are 180 degrees off-base. Can you explain how you got such an incorrect impression of me? Is there something i can do to help you penetrate my prose, see my support of Wiki editing principles, and allow me to object to the Weapon of Effacement in pursuit of a healthier Wikipedia? In Good Faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, hopefully you're getting the hang of WP:TLDR. Apologies for the extent to which my quick attempt at translation fell short, however you still don't seem to like "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The notability guideline gives a basis for working, subject to common sense and consensus on any particular article, and there's rightly no exemption clause for "esoteric topics" unsupported by third party reliable sources. Some New Thought related articles have been improved a bit by being stripped of some peacock language and wording completely unsupported by sources, but even a reasonably notable subject such as the Christian D. Larson bio is supported only by passing references in a couple of modern books, a 1919 history, and a history published by Optimist International – an article supported only by self-published sources, and so another article needing improvement to meet the threshold of WP:V. The other core content policies all have a bearing on how "esoteric topics" are presented, if at all, and have to apply. If you wish to dispute the legitimacy and wisdom of the arbitration's specification at WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy then you've got to persuade a lot of people before you start implementing your own ideas about it. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dave. I consider WP:TLDR to be a hostile means of addressing communication problems that would be better and more faithfully resolved by clear, thoughtful questions. Thank you for your apology, accepted.

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:V, just repeated your contention that i still "don't seem to like it". Where dave? Does some part of "i would prefer not to see it (WP:V) abused so as to support quick reduction to stubs of that with which a hostile editor-shooter does not agree. I would like to emphasize that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and i think hostile cite-tagging and hostile category-tagging are not supporting a helpful reference source for Wikipedia readers based on its policy support of effacement of esoteric topics under assault by critical POVs seeking intrusive showcasing where they do not belong." mean this to you? I can tell you that the practice to which i refer has me writing elsewhere than Wikipedia. I know others for whom this is true, and some who seem to be about to transit to that activity also. I don't think driving away writers is what is best for Wikipedia, do you?

You have still not quoted me substantiating your repeated assertion about my dislike of WP:NOR, with which you appear to be associating notability. I thought ANIs were supposed to be more thorough and specific than that. Since i'm just now learning about the details of administration and negotiations in Wikipedia i'll watch for what standards should be engaged in an ANI. So far it appears to me a distraction from conversations better had elsewhere about the actual categories and their use and abuse. Making it personal seems to me the wrong way to handle such discussions, because it assumes bad faith rather than addressing the issues proper in a polite and clear way in the context of the topic, category, and page of the dispute.

I will now no longer respond to your accusations without substantiation referring to my writing. I have adequately refuted your contentions about what principles you think i "seem to dislike". I will now proceed to address only what i regard as substance in your comments.

Your point about WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy seems very sound, and i like it very much. Can you give me some advice here? If nobody discusses the implementation of that policy on the Talk page of the Pseudoscience category, then where will it be discussed? I don't see anyone arguing that i am incorrect on that page, only (at least recently) a silence, allowing me to make the first (possibly unpracticed and misguided) attempt to do what was already agreed: discuss each of the subcategories and consider them for inclusion or exclusion. If anything, i offer an intermediary position between those who demand the category's deletion and those who seem to be abusing it. I don't accept the legitimacy or wisdom of that policy's implementation, and so of course i proceed from that basis, explaining what i think is logical and rational (and most conservative). Others may argue to the contrary regarding each of the subcategories' inclusion/exclusion in response. If they do not, and if people just remain silent, does this mean that there is a consensus, or that the category has been abandoned, or what? I hear your direction to "persuade a lot of people" before i start implementing my ideas of it. I thought the best course was to have a conversation about the implementation, and then implement what was hammered out in the Talk page. How long should i wait in silence unopposed to my arguments for these subcategories' exclusion before i begin implementing that? Should i wait 3 weeks and then begin implementing those which aren't covered by the policy arbitration first, referring to those who object to my edits to engage discussion on the category page instead of engaging in an edit war with me? You're an admin here, dave, surely you know the best procedure. Thank you for your assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "Ah, Malcolm Schosha, you're failing to assume good faith in Zero1328's question..." Ah, Dave souza, since when do users bring complaints to AN/I because they assume good faith? I would have thought that, by now, you would have figured out that this is where users come when they have run out of good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably not relevant. What would seem to me to be relevant would be Cat and Self-ref's flouting of WP's policies regarding verifiable, reliable content, vis-a-vis the persistent use of the word "hostile", to paint said policies as "evil". Let's try to stick with that point, and leave the digressions on user talk pages. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant? It is a comment exactly on the accusation (disguised as a question) originally made by Zero1328. If you can't remember, take a look at Dave souza's edit just above, and at the top of this section on the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But, how does it address the real issue? It doesn't. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and came back to find this. I've seen ANI discussions before, and this one is certainly atypical. Normally the complaining party supplies diffs, examples, a desired outcome, and such, but this is just a lot of opinionating and fake mind-reading. The complaining party has failed to bring forth (dare i say it?) verifiable evidence that i don't support verifiability, NPOV or other Wikipedia policies -- because i DO support those policies.

My concern has been that editors with an agenda (political and/or religious, primarily) are misusing deletion selectively against topics that fall into their pet peeve categories. I gave stated (and supported with diffs and examples) my belief that at least one editor deleted rather than upgraded older and less-well-sourced articles on spirituality, self-help, New Thought, Creationism, Christianity, Spiritualism, divination, folklore, et al. I write in many categories (e.g dog breeds, collectibles, celebrities, music, science, religion, folklore, etc.), but only in religious and magical categories have i seem articles targeted for stubbing and deletion by editors who show great disrespect for the writers who created and/or upgraded the articles in the past.

We all know that Wikipedia standards are changing, and that old articles with no citations as well as last year's articles with end-of-article footnotes are getting tagged. It would not be difficult for the taggers to play fair and notify the writers who have worked on the articles that inline citations are being sought -- because getting the refs will be easiest for the writers who wrote the pages, since they were working from material they have in print or know how to find online.

My record of writing, copy editing, and cite-tagging for veriifiability is clear. I am not interested in low gossip, name-calling, or baiting. Since no "incidents" have been mentioned in this supposed incident report, i shall now take my leave, thanking those kind souls who supported me, and leaving what remains of this gossipy thread to the mind-readers and mentalists who prefer Wikidrama to writing encyclopedia entries.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, glad you could join in. Unfortunately your confidence in your mind-reading powers seems undiminished, and again your argument is based on your presumption that an editor acting properly in accordance with policies, working through related articles in a normal way, had an "agenda". Your belief in his "agenda" is unfounded and irrelevant, and again you don't seem to realise that the editor was never in a position to delete any articles – that's an admin decision. You do seem to have learnt the idea of requesting references, though an unreferenced tag with the edit summary (entirely void of sourcing)[2] is rather POINTy on an article with two inline cites to BBC articles, and external links including the Guardian and The Times. However, your next edit is fine,[3] and you are of course free to delete any completely unsupported text. As always, it's up to those wanting to keep the information to provide verification. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Recommended to pursue RFC.

Administrator User:Docu seems to be currently signing all his comments simply with the text "User:Docu". The lack of a timestamp or links to his userpage/talkpage make it more difficult for other users and I, and others, have asked him why he doesn't include these.

Looking through his talk page:

In March 2008, User:Rarelibra raised a concern about Docu's signing of comments.

In July 2008, Gary King asked Docu to "add a link to your user talk page at the very least in your signature". Docu doesn't do so, nor does he explain why not.

On September 6, 2008, User:Quiddity suggests Docu adds a link to his signature who doesn't do so and lightly rebuffs the suggestion saying that "User page can be accessed quite easily anyways".

On September 16, 2008, I ask Docu to explain why he doesn't include a link to his pages and a timestamp to which Docu replied that the issue was being discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia talk:Signatures. This discussion is quickly removed from his talk page in line which his practice which appears to be removal, rather than archiving, of old comments.

Failing to find an answer to my original question at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, I then asked again on his talk page and User:RFBailey raised the same issue. Docu has yet to really answer our questions.

There could be other instance where this issue has been raised which I am not aware.

The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures about the guideline now appears to becoming distracted by Docu's signature, or lack of it, and as such I am looking to see how this can be resolved. If this isn't the appropriate venue then I would welcome and advise as to where may be more suited. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but seriously, is this issue really that important in the scheme of things? His sig isn't misleading, and it isn't disruptive. Let's just leave it at that and go work on the encyclopedia... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, different circumstances, but apparently sigs are a BID DEAL, why I have no idea. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, definitely not familiar with that case because I make it a point to stay away from Arb stuff. It's so much easier to just use common sense and do what you think is right. But looking at that case, the party had a deliberately confusing sig. Simply not having a link is not disruptive in the least bit, nor does it really relate back to that Arb case in terms of what the ArbCom stated in its decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative attention. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Docu's still around? Do you realize he's been using that sig since, hell, at least 2003? I remember people grumbling about that before. It's not that big a deal. Try spending more time on the writing and less on pointing out issues like signatures. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minor issue when compared to say, world hunger, but basic etiquette would be nice. I'd rather not delve through the history of talk pages to work out when someone has signed their comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has been done for five years doesn't make it right. And while I agree it's a minor issue, community norms (as defined at WP:SIG) requires a link to either his user talk or user page in his signature. As he's an admin, it seems even more important that he follow community standards (which also includes adding a date/time to all talk page comments). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority anyway, and so what it says is irrelevant... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And heeeeeereee we go with the random drop in of "Arbitrary Committee" attacks. Don't you have another windmill to tilt against, Kurt? SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Go on Kurt, stand for ArbCom this year. I'd vote for you. Black Kite 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I voted for Kurt for the board, if he stands for Arbcom I will vote for him for sure. Sticky Parkin 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see this become a teapot tempest. I would hope, now that the matter has been brought to Docu's attention a couple of times, that he would just add a link to his user or talk page to his sig, and sign with a datestamp (just like everyone else does). While we allow all our editors a fair bit of leeway with their sigs, having a link and a datestamp is simple courtesy to other editors. (Links make communication easier, while datestamps are helpful in long, threaded discussions on busy noticeboards.)

As admins, we're supposed to at least try to stick to best practices on Wikipedia and set a good example; those include signing with four tildes and not doing things that inconvenience others. Please, Docu? While I doubt you'll face any sanctions over this, is there any reason why you'd want to make work for other contributors, or why you wouldn't want a link in your sig? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I agree with the above. I've been watching this unfold on WT:SIG and haven't jumped in because I've hoped that Docu would simply consent to using a more standard signature that at least provides users with a link to the user page or talk page, and please try signing talk pages with the datestamp. The signature confuses bots, makes it difficult to tell when a comment was made (in some cases making it difficult to realise that Docu commented at all), and adds an unnecessary step for users who are trying to access the user/talk/contributions/etc. I really can't see any good reason not to link, and I do believe it's a wholly reasonable request that people are making here. Shereth 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he's been using it since 2003. I honestly cannot believe it's been dragged to AIV. It's not the first time it's happened. If he was acting in a disruptive matter, I could see it. He's not, he never has, and I'm not particularly happy with the constant instruction creep flowing into WP:SIG being hauled up as if it were policy. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this was something that should have been brought to AN/I OR AIV, but since it's here. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for him at least to have a timestamp. We have quite a bit of leeway with signatures (which might be hypocritical coming from someone who essentially opposed an rfa because of a signature, but oh wellsies) but the whole point of a signature is to know who said something and when. We have the who, now we just need the when. L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disruptive, albeit minor. As for leeway, please see WP:SIG, specifically the section which mandates a user or user talk link in signatures. There doesn't seem to be much leeway there, IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question...why is a timestamp on the page necessary, when all of our posts are timestamped regardless if we add one or not. It is on the diffs and our contrib pages, I am just curious as to why that it is necessary for it to beside our sigs as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (the previous statement was made by a non-admin)

Two reasons, one so that people reading a discussion can see the order in which it was made, particularly on deletion discussion, RFAs, etc. Second, it lets the bot know how old a thread is and when to archive it. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Well, there's many reasons. Mainly, if you're looking at a heavily edited talk page or archives, the edit in question may be buried hundreds of diffs ago. This can be especially difficult for users utilizing assistive technology, text browsers, or just plain old hardware. The point of having a timestamp attached is that you know immediately who said what when without having to dig through the page history. This is random, but you do not have to mark your comments as being made by a non-admin. Many of the contributors here are not admins, it's not a requirement for posting on this board.
Locke: at risk of sounding like a broken record, WP:SIG is a guideline and by it's very definition has leeway. Please see WP:IAR. L'Aquatique[parlez] 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is typically only invoked when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I fail to see how ignoring community norms (and a guideline; which I believe is more like a policy given how widely respected it is) and making it more difficult to interact with you helps the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread IAR- it can be applied wherever it needs to be. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, but going straight to "let's block" is not helpful either. L'Aquatique[parlez] 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to reread it yourself (on a side note, telling someone who's been here longer than you to read something they've edited repeatedly themselves is borderline silly)— "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Exactly as I said, "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", neither of which ignoring WP:SIG does. So I again ask you, how is Docu in the right to ignore community norms? BTW, nobody is going straight to "let's block". As I understand it, he's been talked to about this for years. At some point you need to escalate things if you expect conformance. Otherwise, all the rules/guidelines/policies in the world won't mean a thing if you refuse to enforce them. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and IAR does not mean you can go on blindly ignoring something if people call you on it. If people call you on it you have to discuss it and get consensus for the change which doesn't seem to have happened here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now I know who I can ignore if I run into a conflict or discussion with. People who make their pages inaccessible or difficult to reach get no dealings from me. seicer | talk | contribs 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly making it difficult to reach, User:Docu in the address bar and off you go. It's just not as easy as if there was a sig there. --Ged UK (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is as competent enough about URLs and using computers that such a thing is obvious. Including (mandating) a user or user talk link makes the site more accessible to new editors/computer users. Using plaintext signatures does the opposite.. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. While I could do that, I'm not because it involves modifying my URL bar, doing a query in the search bar, or doing an action that only impedes communication. That's not difficult for me, but it can be for many new users or users who just don't want to communicate with a user who is choosing to be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can just put it in the "search" and wait for it to pop up. User:Docu is being kind of a jerk on this, but it's a crime akin to tearing a tag off a mattress. I'd like to see this trivial matter go to ArbCom and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. I'm just replacing my signature with

Most excellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cripes. I surely did not intend to open such a can o' worms. I didn't realize Docu had been using the unlinked sig for years, nor that others had asked before.

To clarify: I added the sentence to the guideline, in July 2007, primarily (at the time) because User:Anthony was linking his signature directly to Special:Emailuser (see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 5#Recourses for other links and context).

The thing I'm baffled by, is Docu's apparent refusal to answer the simple question of "why not?". There must be a reason he doesn't like timestamps and a linked signature (I can guess at possibilities), but despite all these people asking, he seems to keep ignoring that specific question. I think this refusal to communicate (along with his admin status) is what is making this into a bigger deal than it otherwise would be. (I think this is what Adambro was trying to explain with his initial post here).

It's all very trivial/minor (no link, no timestamp, no explanation), but still frustrating. Mostly the lack of timestamp is the real concern. It makes it very hard to comprehend the flow of certain threads. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a guy won't answer a question, there's usually a very good reason: He doesn't want to. And since the penalty for not signing properly is roughly the same as that for driving without a seat belt in your own driveway, he can't be compelled to testify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't have the courtesy to answer the simple question as to why he won't include these details then why should the community be prepared to tolerate the nuisance of this? Quiddity sums up the situation very well. It surprises me not only that someone would consider it appropriate to omit these details but also that someone, especially an administrator, would not actually explain the reason behind their decision. If Docu can't provide a good explanation then this can be described as him being disruptive, plain and simple, and some kind of action should be taken to stop this disruption, what form this action should take is the big question however. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor deliberately makes it hard for other editors to communicate with him. He signs in a way which can disrupt archiving. He repeatedly fails to respond to other editors concerns about this. Maybe a short block would attract his attention (and before anyone claims that that is not what blocks are for, I have seen plenty of examples of admins explicitly blocking just to get a response from an uncommunicative or unresponsive editor). DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I find his signature (along with the lack of willingness to talk about it in a meaningful way) disruptive. I guess the question would be, no snarkiness intended, is it selfish and lazy of me or any other user for wanting to see the time stamp or being able to click through to the user page of this admin straight off? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Locke- your comment has long passed, but to call me silly for asking you to reread IAR is also silly- and the "I've been here longer than you" argument is both condescending and irrelevant. Moving on.

Why doesn't someone open an RFC about this? Going around and around in circles about it here is only going to stir up drama- but taking it to arbcom would be ridiculuous. If the user has been asked to change it for some five odd years and has not yet responded, chances are good they aren't going to respond. So do something about it. L'Aquatique[parlez] 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense another admin food-fight coming on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever get the feeling there might be too many admins with too much time on their hands? Doesn't anybody write and edit articles anymore? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Either make an RFC, or take it to ArbCom, or do both (one after the other) - the community can't do much, and I see no benefit in keeping this discussion open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I originally commented, I wasn't sure where best to raise this. The suggestions to start an RFC have been noted and I'll investigate doing so. Clearly this isn't something for ArbCom. Adambro (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unsigned}} can be used to add link and timestamp where an editor fails to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What good would an RfC do besides foster drama and ill-will? There is absolutely NO chance that ArbCom or any admin will block or otherwise sanction a longtime user for having an incomplete (as opposed to disruptive or misleading) signature. I wish I lived in the sort of sunny, happy-go-lucky would where someone's sig was something to start dispute-resolution processes over... or even think about, for that matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to both Adambro and Starblind) As was suggested very early on in this discussion already, ArbCom have intervened in a variety of types of disputes on-wiki. Should an RFC fail, unless there's an intention on proposing a community ban discussion (which will almost definitely not go anywhere), this isn't the place and that's the only other avenue left. I'll emphasise: nobody is compelled to use any of those processes, but these are merely the options available - the appropriateness of each option is something for each individual to consider themselves. We're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I had thought it was self-evident by by post at the top.

  But before trying to further to clarify, may I ask if you looked at the diffs (both, before and now), and to share your opinion of them. - jc37 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diffs, and I must say I'm afraid I can't see what this thread is about. Unless there are deleted contribs that only admins can see, other than this uncivil post, this editor's contributions don't even seem particularly problematic to me. If there are allegations of socking, where are the diffs please, where is the related SSP or checkuser case? Oppose ban. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question i ran trough the history of his talk page, and i noticed the absence of both warning templates or even an explanation before he was blocked the first time. Unless discussion took place somewhere else or there has been some form of grave misconduct i am unaware of, it is customary to warn a user before blocking him or her. Besides, i ran trough his recent edits and i fail to see any PoV pushing that bad it warrants an instant block. At the same time the diff above is unfriendly, but if it is the only misconduct i would say like to note that if that offense was a reason for an instant ban, we would have to do so for quite some people. Pure vandals must receive four warnings before being eligible for a block, so i fail to see why this case should warrant one without warning? So for now Oppose Ban. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Arrr, he can walk the plank. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, all that is visible to me is small amounts of POV-pushing followed by an excessive block, and no attempts to discuss the issue with the user. There is nothing here yet that supports a formal ban. If there is more, please show it. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Kusma and auburnpilot. No to a ban on the basis of the "evidence" presented here. I don't see what the diff jc37 posted is supposed to prove. And where's the checkuser case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The diff posted is only one example of the trolling and POV pushing exhibited by this user. The fact that he came back right after an extended block to wave an edit in Raul's face is simply childish. We don't need editors like this here, who are not only unwilling to learn from their mistakes, but persist in acts of seeming "revenge" against those who opposed them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  This is a fair part of the concern. That and the edit history (and gaps thereof) suggest that they are using socks to achieve this (on the articles noted, and presumably elsewhere). - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would not characterize a 1 week block (and unblocked the next day) as an "extended block", and have difficulty understanding how anyone else could. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the block log for some reason. Either way, he hasn't improved any, and we don't need this level of immaturity here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - a "long time missing" is surely not grounds for any administrative action at all, let alone a ban. I'll just add that I have informed the editor in question of this thread, as no-one else appears to have bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. An editor who has made but 45 edits, very few of which highlight behaviour arising from anything other than a poor understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are expected to conduct themselves, does not deserve a formal slamming-of-the-door. I would suggest instead an experienced and uninvolved administrator sit down with this editor and give some serious tuition about how we behave on a collaborative encyclopedia, and make clear the consequences if s/he does not conform to the communal standards of conduct we hold here. (My message at User talk:Dpmuk#Skin Hunters may be a useful example.) However, on the proposal to ban this user, I do not believe this to be a move that facilitates the improvement of the encyclopedia; and, if the worst comes to the worst and Boondocks37 disrupts in the future, an administrator can simply issue a preventive block. Now, let's get back to some article writing. Anthøny ✉ 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you would like to be that person, please feel free. (Though after using this account to POV push, they seem to have gone "inactive" again, so I'm not sure you'll get through, but please, feel free to make the attempt.) - jc37 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nah ah, definetly premature for a community ban, a good way to the solve the issue is not always the right way. Also theres something wrong with the diff you provided and that is he said it against Raul.......seriously its Raul so im not to fussed about him trolling a troll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pot, meet kettle. Black Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Would solve the "perceived" problem sure..but I just don't see it. Inappropriately dealt with in the past..no warnings..just a strange (possibly immature attitude) with a few troublesome diffs. I'm just not seeing the appropriateness of issuing the ban. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't use the nuclear option on people out of pique. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to deal with the consequences of controversial actions the same way as us lesser beings. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the attention. Just so we're clear, I am not getting banned. This jc37 character has something against me, and can't stand losing. Which he did, when he tried, unsuccessfuly, to remove an edit of mine, which I provided with a valid reference, for no other reason than it didn't agree with his personal POV. It is sad really. But, once again, I do appreciate the attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, jc37, not sure how going "inactive" for periods of time can be used as part of the justification to ban anybody. Is having a life a bad thing, in your books? Also, can anybody tell me what "using socks" is? Again, my life outside of computers and this website limits me to only knowing one use for socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

accusation anti-semitic bias

I have concerns about an unsupported accusation of anti-semitic bias on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Tene Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite often when an article is nominated for AfD, the author of the article detonates. It's understandable, I suppose. And when they detonate, they grab at the first thing they can think of that "proves" the nominator to be at fault rather than the article. In this case, you're (s/he says) an anti-semite, so the AfD should be withdrawn etc and you banned for good measure blah blah blah. I know it's tiresome and offensive, but such ludicrous attacks are best ignored. Nevertheless, I'll give the editor in question a quick tap of the cluestick about WP:NPA. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not you they're attacking, it's the other person to comment. Nevertheless, I'll still tap. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, am I missing Talk Like a Pirate Day? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrrrrr. Orderinchaos 11:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [4], [5], and this [6] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:

• Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
• [7][8][9][10][11] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
• On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...

• Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.

Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)

• Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny ✉ 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement

I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

• In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
• I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
• The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
• The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
• My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
• The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
• In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
• In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
• The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigris the Majestic

I am here to report on User:Tigris the Majestic, whom I suspect of being a sockpuppet of User:Yorkshirian\User:Gennarous. He pops up every once and a while and changes the Fascism article without consensus. He replaces the summarized text in the Italian Fascism section with nearly whole Italian Fascism article. He also deletes chunks of cited text (I suspect because he just doesn't argee with) and changes Nazism to National Socialism when Nazism is the peferred title since may non fascist groups used the title "National Socialism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arr, I be notifyin' Tigris the Majestic (talk · contribs) of this thread, maytey. Down the hatch, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Very likely  Confirmed per checkuser. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Steelerfan-94

Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Today, this user created a second account, RKO 4 Life (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). He redirected the Steelerfan-94 userpage and talk pages to the new account's pages. Is this allowed? iMatthew (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what he is planning to do with it. You should ask him about that and tell him about the user account policy. It is most likely that the user just did not know about it. Regards SoArrr!Why 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be fine, long as the two be the same user. Users be able to do what they want. A note on User talk:RKO 4 Life 'bout it be good, though. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, after reviewing, I think he just did not know about changing usernames. You could tell him about that as well. Point is, you should ask the user first before posting it here. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to answer a question of his, "Is it ok?" iMatthew (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I think you should tell him to file a request at WP:CHU so that his old edits can be transferred to the new name. I am sure one of the admins there will be able to sort it out. At least of his new account has few edits worth keeping. :-) SoArrr!Why 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note this user has created sockpuppet accounts - see here. He has also had the DH Michaels (talk · contribs) account. I class that he has used five different accounts. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrr! Checkuser be determining that there is no abusive sock-puppetry going on here. Previous accounts have been declared, per policy, mateys, and this incident is well and truly in the past, and was debated publicly by the community on ANI at the time - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now he's going back to his Steelerfan-94 account... D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hexhand

Since I participated in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe), I'd like others to look at this situation. The afd has been a bit heated at times and admin User:Dreadstar relisted after he previously closed it as a redirect and merge. In the current afd, Hexhand has responded to every participant that wasn't supporting a "keep". Hexhand and Dreadstar have discussed several points related to this afd. Today Hexhand placed notability tags on 5 articles Dreadstar had created-4 of them in 2006 and one in 2007. IHMO this is disruption to prove a WP:POINT and possibly a WP:STALK violation also. These articles were all tagged today within a 3-minute span: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Notices posted at the afd, and talk pages of Hexhand and Dreadstar. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all the above articles to the pre tagged version. I shall notify Hexhand of my actions, and this discussion, and comment upon his tagging. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I be thinking, this here may be a good taggin'. The article thar do be a bit shy on th' notabil'ty and references. Avast mateys, thar be a reef ahead! lifebaka++ 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis may be correct, me hearty, but tis be lookin' very pointy indeed! I be thinkin that tis be still yer primary concern! SoArrr!Why 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If every time anyone who challenged someone who disagreed with them became the subject of an ANI, we would have a never-ending tide of ANIs resulting from nearly every contested RfA, as well as most XfDs. While I can't say that Dreadstar will have enjoyed Hexhand's responses and actions, he has explained the issue of consistency. Making claims of stalking in this regard is rather questionable. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series, when coverage of the series thus far consists only of coverage of the pilot, is beyond me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(exX2)I tagged the articles because, in the course of the AfD, I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article. I decided that to better understand his point of view on the subject, I should see what articles he had worked on (all noting edits within the last few months, and not years, ago) and created where notability was on point. I found a surprising number of articles that would likely not survive an AfD themselves. After pointing this contradictory position in the AfD, I tried to figure out what to do with articles that were even less notable than the one Dreadstar wanted to have merged as non-notable on its own merits.

Rather than nominate the article examples for deletion, which I think would be retaliatory (or at the very least mean-spirited), I thought noting that they needed to be improved/expanded so as to improve their notability, so that someone else wouldn't come by and nom them on their own. The tagging was to mark the articles as needing improvement, not remove them. I took no action beyond that, have not followed Dreadstar's edits (beyind noting when he last worked upon the articles in question). At least one of the articles in question were worked on by Dreadstar as recently as June of this year.

I must confess that though I think Dreadstar seems to be a good person, I still don't understand his views on notability, and in fact find them contradictory. However, I don't think that tagging articles that I discover having notability issues to be stalking, as the goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Dreadstar and others would be able to address the notability issues and expand/improve the articles. I think it would be a POINT edit if the concerns weren't valid, which isn't the case here. The proof of that can be found in the fact that in all but one of the examples LessheardVanU pointed out, some improvement was offered by either Less, Lifebaka or Dreadstar himself. The articles still have some pretty big notability issues, but at least, they are better than they were before I tagged them. - Hexhand (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(and I just realized what day it was, after seeing Lifebaka's and SoWhy's pirate-y mode of speech!). - Hexhand (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JzG re "Quite how one can say that the pilot is notable independent of the series..." Your response belongs at AfD, not here, and I think you may find that consensus appears to disagree with you on the matter. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hex-Dreadstar never said ALL pilots aren't notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, you're right, I'm being misquoted where Hexhand says, "I became confused with Dreadstar's interpretation of notability - that pilot articles aren't notable, and that their content should be merged back to the series article." I have never said that pilot articles aren't notable, what I did say was that not all pilots may have sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. I asked what criteria should be used to denote a notable pilot separate from its series, or if all pilots should have a standalone article [17][18][19]. If one is trying to "better understand" an editor's position, it's better to ask them rather than making pointed edits. Dreadstar † 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a major violation of POINT to me

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

In case an explanation is needed: somehow, Hexhand got around to putting notability tags on all these articles Dreadstar started or edits a lot??? By chance, no doubt [25].——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, I didn't say it happened by accident; I said that I noticed the articles while trying to glean Dreadstar's philosophy on notability, and decided to tag them because they weren't especially notable or cited. POINT would have been to nom them at AfD. The diffs you provided are not new links, but recreations of the ones that initiated the report. My tagging articles with little or no notability or citations is disruptive how, exactly? Are you suggesting that the notability of the articles tagged were in fact splendid articles chock full of citations? - Hexhand (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't an emergency, was it? You're an experienced user. If it wasn't POINT, you could have waited a couple days till any conflict was over. However, I will not assume bad faith, since I don't know what was in your mind. You might at least have known that this would increase the conflict a lot. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. I guess I should have - as you said - waited until the AfD was complete. It never occurred to me that the worst would be presumed of my behavior. When we (as editors) see something wrong in an article - any article - our first instinct is to attempt to fix it. that's just natural. I was cognizant that making too many edits to the articles would seem vindictive (and excessive cn tagging or AfD nom was out of the question), and truly felt that simply placing a notability tag on the articles needing serious expansion and citation was the least intrusive way to draw attention to them. It wasn't a POINT edit (and doesn't seem to fit the criteria of that anyway). That Dreadstar and others have addressed the tagging by improving the articles is proof somewhat of the validity of the tagging. I had actually planned on seeking out sources this weekend for some of the articles (Superpup had some interest), but then this came along. I am pretty hesitant to make any contribution at this point, as it might be misinterpreted in the worst possible light. - Hexhand (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb

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

I have just reblocked WordBomb with email disabled due to email abuse. Predictable enough, under the circumstances, I guess. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You unblocked and immediately reblocked with email disabled. Now I understand what you are saying. I don't think there is anything to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no discussion necessary, I was just letting people know. Disabling email is a fairly unusual step, but WordBomb knows how to contact the foundation should the need arise so there should be no issues arising from it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions[26] [27] [28], removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff[29] [30] [31], and doing massive refactoring of talk pages[32] [33] [[34] [35] [36]. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Wikipedia as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times [37]. If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to a particular school, maybe someone - preferably local to the area - should contact the school. We had a problem here in Western Australia with what turned out to be a trio of vandals who were wreaking unholy havoc in a range of areas and had gotten well and truly ahead of themselves, and after the school intervened, all problems ceased.

I've blocked the account indef for block evasion per the above but I'm happy for any subsequent resolution of this matter to unblock the account - it's more a case of "this account should not be editing so we'll stop it from doing so". Orderinchaos 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the ranges here with the ones on Simple English, there is one stand out entry but the rest fall under the same ISP/location. 72.28.33.218 does not geolocate near the known location and would likely not match if checked. The ranges needed to shut this down are 70.146.192.0/18, 68.220.160.0/19 and 65.0.160.0/19. I would suggest having a CheckUser look at the ranges for collateral damage as this is taking out a major ISP in a fairly good sized US city. Creol (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone working on this idea? It would really help if he was at least slowed down. Dealing with this almost every day, including new registered accounts, is getting really old. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from archive since new suggestions had been added

Have another one: Bambiisadinosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have this over on Simple English Wikipedia... obviously, being smaller we can see articles as they come up. He'll often copy and paste stuff from here, along with all the templates. We block/delete on sight. Majorly ^talk 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably explain his creatingthis. I usually spot him when he starts in on one of his usual articles, but by then he's often hit another 10-20. *sigh* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wtf is up with Wikipedia's servers today? Anyways, I thought somewhat interesting to note that I used to teach in the elementary school adjacent to Lincoln Middle. Still live in the area. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity

Seems to be a long-standing and heated edit war both in the article and on its talk page. Really could use some sorting out. JNW (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would request to please look into this issue. The editor Goingoveredge is choking other editors and not letting any discussion to take place on article talkpage. Additionally he is using tags and wikipedia policy keywords against other editors unwarranted. He seems adamant on pursuing his own POV and deleting everything else on the article talkpage. All my attempts to have civil discussion with him have failed. Please also see the RFC on Goingoveredge for some more information on his activities. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I blocked Roadahead and Goingoveredge both for edit warring, but beyond their accusations and bad blood there may be some actual shenanigans that could use sorting out, or at least extra eyes.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, is about a book that takes a strong POV, so it's not a complete surprise that extremely partisan editors are working on the article. Due to the edit warring, the article has been full-protected twice in the last few weeks. I suggest that the article subject might not meet the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books), and an AfD of the article might be a reasonable solution. (We have no article on the book's author, G. B. Singh, and it's not common for a book to be notable while its author is not). EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

subtracting all the vitriol, this is about a crappy book that is pushed by one ideological group and vilified by another. Goingoveredge is right in stating that the book is crap, but he is wrong in prolongued rants about it. It is enough to cite the issues raised in the reviews cited. As EdJohnston states, it may be worth an AfD to look into whether the book satisfies WP:BK in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti

This user is edit warring on multiple articles with multiple users. He has a consistent pattern of making 3 reverts, then sitting and waiting till a few minutes into the next 24 hour period and resumes. Shortly after a 3RR report with a result of (no violation no action) that can be seen here he/she goes to the same article and reverts the same user literally minutes into the next 24 hour period. He/she is doing this on multiple articles and has recieved several recent warnings regarding edit warring. Is gaming the 3RR rule like this acceptable? I myself was involved in an edit war with this user on Thousand Foot Krutch which ended by me self reverting my last edit just to put an end to the edit warring. Some other examples of the same behavior can be seen here, here, here. This is just some of the most recent ones, it would appear Prophaniti has a long history of doing this. He calls the other editors edits "vandalism" in content disputes often as well. Basically I just want help explaining that it isn't ok to edit war just because you are "right" and the other editor is "wrong". I'm not asking for a block or anything, just think Prophanity should stop edit warring so often. I also want to make it clear that I'm aware my behavior on Thousand Foot Krutch was totally unacceptable, and that I did violate 3RR and self reverted when I realized I had. Landon1980 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point about Prophaniti and the Hed PE article. He made a fourth revert shortly after the 3RR case was closed in his favor. I've blocked Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio)

Resolved

 – rouge admins abusively applying WP:BLP in defiance of brand new users. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

can someone nuetral please take a look at alex jones (radio). There are a few administrators on there that are using there powers to turn the article into the alex jones fan club page. Info on current events, no matter how well sourced are being removed for BLP reasons. even thought they are on the news, filmed by multiple sources.. anything remotely negative is being deleted by obvious fans/non nuetral parties. please see now the page is protected for blp issues and a whole section that has been worked on for weeks (and all ready widdled down to the bare minimum) has been totally removed. something needs to be done or this whole page should be deleted as it is 100% biased and BLP is being way over used.. not to mention they are using alex jones own network of websites as sources on half the items on the article. thanks for looking into it.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on the article talk page? At a glance, it sounds like a content dispute, better taken to dispute resolution, not an issue for administrator intervention. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is concern about administrators misusing their tools to try and push a point of view that goes beyond a content dispute.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now what this is about, I think. It appears to be under discussion on the talk page (and through the next several sections there), and the admins involved are (from my view, at least) enforcing BLP because the sources being used for the section in question are not very good. (YouTube videos, blogs, et al, from the looks of things.) Due to repeated BLP concerns from the sources being suspect, the page has been protected. Seems reasonable enough to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs on Shark

A number of IPs have vandalized the same thing on shark. I wonder if they are sockpuppets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have concerns that they are sockpuppets of a certain user, you should list them at WP:SSP. Otherwise you should warn them and report them to WP:AIV once they were warned enough. If the vandalism is too much, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogger3140

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm coming here because I don't really know what to think in regards to this user.

Frogger had joined awhile back, he's been here for at least a few months to my knowledge, and while I have, in the beginning at least, tried to help him learn what not to do here, per his recent edits, it still seems that he doesn't quite understand.

His first few edits are mainly to userpages, which could be said are mistakes, where he adds a cabal template to various users' userpages, as seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4. In later edits, he continues to edit others' userspaces: 1, and 2. He even claims that the user in question(for the last edit) has said it was okay. When searching through, I found no such thing(you can check if you don't believe me). He made this claim to me, and an admin I believe, as can be seen here as the admin responds, telling him he cannot.

His editing from thereon(and I mean for the amount of time starting around the time of the above edits, and the most recent stream of edits) appeared to be normal, however his most recent edits have vastly deviated from any kind of constructive editing. Even though he was warned in the past about editing userpages that are not in his his one userspace, he has done so here, and again here, even when told not to several times by the user who's userspace the page was under. This happened several times. The user in question has also created several POV categories, which of course have been deleted. Last but not least, the recent edit found here, of which the user has yet to explain.

In the past I have suggested this user apply for mentoring. I don't know if they have, but it doesn't appear they have, according to his history.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to the belief that this account is on a mission to see how much and for how long they can get away with. I only skimmed the contrib history, so perhaps someone can point to any constructive edits - I certainly missed them. I also have the suspicion that they are GHawPgger wannabe (without the suss). I would not missed them if they were indeff'd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, hoping that someone will clarify, I have no idea what gwa p means, or is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Whotheman2006

• Whotheman2006 (talk · contribs)
• BoA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This generally uncivil user has reached final warning stage for repeatedly removing a sourced statement (BoA official website saying that her favourite musicians include Britney Spears and Brian McKnight) because he doesn't want the singer "compared to that skank with the baby" [38]. Could we have a block? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I decline to block for this single incident. The user needs to be told about Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and asked to refactor their remark. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility is an aside; the report was about the repetitive arbitrary deletion of solidly sourced material [39][40][41][42][43][44] with the promise to "do this to the end of time" [45] - which has continued even after a uw-delete4 warning. The remark about being "a TOOL!!!" was Whotheman2006's, so he needs no apology. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did block - for a week - when I saw that edit; I don't think such comments should be tolerated, and the tariff was determined with regard to Whotheman2006's disregard to consensus in the BoA edit war. Once a day since the beginning of September is not the action of someone who is interested in community editing practices. However, if anyone feels the block is wrong in fact or duration please feel free to change it without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed

Breaking news this morning, a plane crash killed 4 unknown people, and injured Blink 182 ex-drummer Travis Barker and Nicole Ritchie's ex-husband DJ AM. Eyeballs will be needed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles look OK at the moment. It's not breaking news where I am. I guess you are saying to watch the article for insertion of rumours on their current conditions, and not to allow updates in their conditions without a news source to back it up. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying given that they're relatively popular celebrities, and Barker has had numerous publicized death "hoaxes" in the past, eyeballs are needed to ensure that references are properly followed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the speculation in the articles that Perry Farrell and Gavin DeGraw were on the plane, and that several IPs had posted the fact of their deaths before confirming that fact, I semi-protected the articles for 48 hours. Did that before seeing this thread, though - so if I jumped the gun, please revert me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that neither Farrell nor DeGraw were on the plane; probably OK to unprotect their articles. Just FYI...Gladys J Cortez 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing's edit warring continuing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think JzG's note on his user page resolved this. Docu (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

As the previous thread was closed early, I'm opening new thread about the above and his recent edits, such as this and that. -- 14:41, 2008 September 20. -- User:Docu

Since you persist in wanting to continue to discuss User:Pigsonthewing's edits, despite there being no obvious link to the previous issue of his userpage, I've moved this down to create a new section. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I left a note on his talk, [46]. Now, Docu you go this way, he can go that way, and the two of you can leave each other alone. First one to start on at the other again gets blocked. Fair? Guy (Help!) 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Docu's refusal to let things go is becoming tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Suicide threat being dealt with

Resolved

 – authorities contacted; no further action needed. --slakr^\ talk / 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have noticed the suicide threat at [47]. This is just a note to say that I did the checkuser and am following this one up with the relevant authorities - and to ask please don't delete the edit, I've referred to it in emails so they can see what I'm talking about :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do things my way or I will kill myself"??? That reminds me of this part of an intro from a Tom Lehrer song. He said he had received a letter that read, "Darling, I love you. Please marry me or I will kill myself." He was rather disturbed at that, until he looked closer and noticed the letter was addressed to "Occupant". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bum; I didn't even think to look here (not having super dooper admin powers these pages slip my mind) before I reported it myself. I am suitably embarrassed. David, I have a URN number if you want to know it to help them merge it please drop me an email. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it's all good :-) You should forward details to Mike Godwin, the WMF lawyer - mgodwin at wikimedia.org. I mean, it's probably not a serious threat, but just in case ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Noroton's disruptive editing has made work on various presidential election-related articles just about impossible (see Talk pages of Bill Ayers for a start). This has gone on for months, and instead of improving with experience and coaching, his work has deteriorated. He has shown no interest in encyclopedic facts, structure, style or wording. Instead, he has a clear personal agenda and searches for 'sources' that support his virulent anti-Obama attack mode, no matter how fringe (or second- or third- or fourth-hand 'quotes') they may be. He completely ignores the spirit of Wikipedia and instead looks for 'loopholes' to justify his POV edits. This simply can't continue. We're getting to the end of September and he's diverting editors who could be doing work elsewhere into constantly reverting his edits and discussing with him (for the umpteenth time) variations on the theme of what 'encyclopedic' means. Other editors have simply given up in disgust and left. If he's blocked until mid-November, it's possible he will come to his senses after the election is over. Right now, he seems to believe he's on some mission to save the world from encyclopedic editing. I think we're at the end of the road right now, and blocking is the only thing left. Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this thread, although I don't have much time today, I'll be back either late tonight or early tomorrow morning (that is, about 8 hours or 18 hours from now). I'd like administrators to look at Flatterworld's comments at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and Violence (this diff [48]) and Talk:Bill Ayers#First paragraph (this diff [49]) and see if Flatterworld is not acting more like a troll than a constructive contributor. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about information previously not considered (which is what I'm also trying to do at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC) and Flatterworld, on the Bill Ayers talk page, is immediately trying to turn a civil discussion into a mudwrestling match. I've certainly let Flatterworld get under my skin in the past, but I'm really trying to avoid responding in kind to impolite comments. Please help me to do so. Please remind Flatterworld that working with others in a civil way, discussing new facts and how they may be helpful in developing articles is what talk pages are supposed to do, and working together to reach consensus is what we're supposed to be doing to build the encyclopedia. And please tell him that if he can't work that way, he will be banned from Bill Ayers and related topics. Because, really, he's being a pest and he seems to think it's proper behavior.[50] I asked MastCell for help here, but he seems to be away from the keyboard. This kind of abuse is depressing. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll be making new proposals soon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC with information previously not considered by editors on that page. Some editors interested in shutting down discussion now while their own POV is reflected on the pages of Weatherman (organization)-related articles might find it useful to review WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if no administrator is willing to do so on their own it is time for a community topic ban. For my part, after trying for months I am more or less giving up on interacting with this tendentious editor. At the same time he is mangling some important articles, and I do not want to let him bully me into letting him have his way with the encyclopedia. I took a bad faith report he had filed against me here as an occasion to file the content-oriented Obama/Weathermen/terrorism RfC here where we conclude conclude once and for all in an orderly way whether his content position has consensus (it obviously does not), reach a result, and stick with it. But he is gumming up the process with procedural game-playing on the RfC. After utterly failing to get consensus for calling various living people terrorists and murderers, he refuses to accept the result, announces he has won, forks the discussion to re-propose the exact same thing again and again edit wars BLP vios on the affected articles in the middle of the RfC discussion to the point where one is protected and another currently in a state of edit warring. This continues a months-long campaign of BLP vios, edit warring, game playing to the point of bad faith, personal attacks, incivilities, fabricated complaints against other editors, and dozens and dozens of rejected proposals all on a single POV point. It may not be too late to simply close the RfC as no consensus, revert the edits he has warred into place, and start an RfC or other behavioral process from there if he does not comply. But he obviously is not complying with consensus or our behavioral policies, and he is demonstrating a propensity for messing up RfCs, so that time is probably now. There are 2-3 other editors of dubious legitimacy and an equal number of new SPAs making the same point who will probably show up here or anywhere else we try to deal with them, and who themselves probably should be dealt with as well. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't think an AN/I report at this time could lead to a lot of argument but is unlikely to lead to any administrative action. We should probably conclude the RfC and if the results aren't respected, file a new AN/I report, behavioral RfC, and if all other recourse fails, an arbitration case over editing abuse. I note that some of the parties seem to be planning (another) arbitration case against me(!). Hmmm. Anyway, for the sake of Wikipedia tranquility and so that this board can concentrate on easier problems it's probably best to withdraw or conclude this one unless any administrator is ready to deal with Noroton and some of the other editors at this time. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Resolved

 – article indefinitely protected by User:Slakr

[51] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, could an admin please take a look at the Bill Ayers article, in view of calming an edit war over there? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit war that you and Scjessey have provoked and participated in. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A misleading non-sequitur attack from one of the problem editors I refer to above. I'm fully expecting plenty of tit-for-tat counterattacks - I've been subjected to them as long as I've been trying to keep peace on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While I myself support Obama and try to check this personal political inclinations at the door while I edit Wikipedia, still, in this totally whacked out and silly political environment, I think it would be great if Wikipedia could somehow await until the first Tuesday of November has come and gone before we tackle the complaints and counter-complaints represented in this report. However (if it's decided to go ahead with this examination of Noroton's editing behavior now), let me say that I am familiar with the diffs that Noroton provides in the section above and understand his frustration with Flatterworld, feeling the same myself. As it is, doesn't Flatterworld's modus in this very report mimics hi/r talkpage style: to eschew actual discussion of precise citations from sources and exact language of WP guidelines and to replace this with simple pronouncements in the tone of "Trust My Words!"? As most proper on an article's Talk page, so here. With the sole exception of open-and-shut cases, I think the best protocol to take with regard to alleged problematic behavior is to provide diffs that would be thought to plainly back them up.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're using a resolved section on an edit war for complaining about other editors. Flatterworld has been just fine. Noroton's calling Flatterworld a troll, above, is par for the course. Noroton is getting worse, and is vexing quite a few long-term, serious, legitimate contributors like Flatterworld, a 2-year editor with 10,000+ mainspace contributions to 3,800+ articles. We are growing tired of discussion and citations, which have been provided again and again in response to Noroton's many dozen attempts to upset consensus to avoid calling Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn terrorists or murderers, and to avoid linking them and terrorism to Obama. Chronicling his behavior problems would involve several megabytes of differences, something best done should there be a need to explain this to the uninitiated in a serious discussion of a topic ban. Noroton is also a prolific editor who makes uncontroversial contributions in other parts of the encyclopedia. In the meanwhile, a pause in the game playing, edit warring, incivilities, etc., would be most welcome.Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino and user:Kww

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Dispute resolution is indeed the avenue for the underlying factual dispute, but not for the name calling and insults.Kww (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped. Had not realized that dispute resolution was supposed to be the first avenue for dealing with people violating WP:NPA. Seems a strange path to go down for obvious policy violations.Kww (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

user:G.-M._Cupertino

This user seems to be having difficulty grasping the concept of WP:NPA, judging from his comments on my talk page. I asked him not to call me lazy, and his response was to switch to army brat. Not the worst of personal attacks, but I'd appreciate some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

user:Kww

This user seems to be a pain in the ass without sense of humour. It's a minor incident in a specific case, no other problem in here, I've seen - and done - much worse!... I'm the one who needs some assistance not to be unjustifiedly adverted or worse!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.-M. Cupertino (talk • contribs)

Response

You should, if you have any problems with each other, consider dispute resolution. This does not need any administrator intervention. SoWhy 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article:Critisms of Facebook

Something's happening on there which is not yet a proper edit war, but at least two IPs are constantly removing well-referenced material with controversial views of Facebook, despite of reverts by registered users. I've reverted two such deletions including citations of The Guardian (which were called "unreliable"). I'm not going to call that Facebook is trying to clean their slate here, but the whole affair smells bad. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <- For reference. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think semi-protection, requested at WP:RFPP, should take care of the problem, as we can expect that anyone trying to clean their slate will have countless IPs to try with. SoWhy 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I requested semi-protection for that one. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am one of the IPs who is not yet involved in a proper edit war. A semi protect would be improper here as I am not vandalizing the page. I am simple removing factually inaccurate, misleading information sourced from one Opinion piece that does not claim where its information comes from. Just because someone chooses not to register an account does not mean they are not making GFE. --24.98.5.45 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have declined the protection for now. I am going to keep an eye on the article. Further edit warring is going to result in blocks and full protection of the article. Take your dispute to the talk page and try and work towards some consensus. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Historian19

Please look at User:Historian19 edits. This editor appeared a few days ago, is making hundred of edits with no references/citations/any other apparent factual basis, many of which are immediately reverted by other editors who cannot keep up with this ongoing activity, which may simply be vandalism. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, you should use {{user|Historian19}} in such cases to automatically add links for the user (i.e. Historian19 (talk · contribs)). Then, if you are correct and those edits are vandalism, you should use some warning messages and report the user to WP:AIV once he received a fourth level warning. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant POV/soapboxing by an IP

Per this diff, the IP 86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has openly stated his intention to edit war on a number of articles. Assistance would be greatly appreciated to resolve the situation. MSJapan (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• must... stop... thinking... "architect sketch"... Guy (Help!) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist.' HalfShadow 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fennessy

No admin help needed at this time. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Last year Setanta747 was blocked over a dispute surrounding a deleted userbox. The polar opposite of this userbox still exists on User:Fennessy's userpage. I removed it per consensus and president. He reverted and told me where to go. I have pointed to the president and reverted, he has ignored this. Can an administrator please enforce consensus with this user as happened with Setanta.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The userbox is a modifed version that was added after(and without knowledge of) the discussion that is being used as an excuse to edit war by the above user. By the way what gives User:Traditional unionist the right to completley ignore WP:Civility? ʄ!•¿talk? 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not start another MfD considering the outcome of the last one? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the last XFD still stands. There is no need to have the same discussion twice, a decision was arrived at my consensus and it should be enforced.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of citing a year-old discussion in the most inflammatory way possible, I suggest you (a) start a new MfD or (b) let sleeping dogs lie. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SO you believe that consensus expires and must be renewed? That is a new one on me.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. I do believe the prior discussion is relevant, but I'm not entirely sure applying a small handful of comments about one specific userbox to some other situation -- a year after the fact, and without any assurance that the users commenting previously had any idea their words be interpreted as enduring precedent to cover all cases -- is prudent without at least some discussion of whether doing so is appropriate. If the box is as obviously and totally problematic as you seem to say, then I don't see what you have to fear from reasonable discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't DRV be the place for that? ;-) —Animum (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is the breach of WP:CIVIL? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "Engaging in incivility" section alone I can count rudeness and Lies(deliberately asserting false information). ʄ!•¿talk? 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lies? Where?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha so you admit rudeness! Not even gonna fight that one eh? Seriously though you are misrepresenting an old discussion that I had never even seen before today. That userbox has been on my userpage for... months on end. If you were editing in good faith the least you could have done was bring it up in a polite manner. But no you had to edit in an aggressive way. It's not on really, come on now. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! So you can't stand over your claim of lies! I did bring it to your attention, and you have chosen to ignore it. You cannot bypass consensus by claiming emotional stress.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting an old discussion is lying. And from what I can makeout from skimming through that discussion, my modified one actually bypasses any of the claimed "offensiveness". And this has nothing to do with stress, it has to do with basic wikipedia policies. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an inverted version of the same info box. It is even of the same style.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? The userbox isn't offensive. All the wikipedia issues with N Ireland have been ironed out, is it necessary for you to find people you don't like to argue with, and post your own self-created drama on the admin notice board? Kind of reminds me of WP:POINT. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we take that as a withdrawal of your civility objections? If one userbox is unacceptable, its inverse is likewise. That is self evident.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] It doesn't look like admin intervention is necessary at this time, although you two could probably stand to be a little more civil to each other. Traditional Unionist: if you don't like the userbox, take it to MfD and let the community decide, but don't edit war on someone else's userpage... L'Aquatique[chitchat] 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There has already been a MFD on this and the community has decided. I was attempting to enforce consensus.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IP is adding inappropriate nationalist material to many articles

Resolved

 – blockified. cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a hurry so couldn't look at this too closely but it appears that an IP [52] is deleting mentions of Iraq in various articles and replacing it with Kurdistan and is adding a flag to each article. This happened in the Shanidar cave article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism to me. Warn him/her with the warning templates and then report the IP to WP:AIV if it continues. Regards SoWhy 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

An editor on a number of occasions has made accusations against me, however, when I ask for diff's to support this they ignore me. This is the latest here. I can accept I was edit-warring as indicated on my talk page, but edit-warring to get your POV across. I don't think so. How can I get an editor to support their accusations when all they do is refuse to answer? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) might not be seeing your posts on your talk page, since she's usually pretty busy and may not have watchlisted your talk page (and thus didn't check for your responses/inquiries). Try posting to her talk page requesting clarification. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right here, Right Now...Yet Again

There is an edit war once again brewing at Right Now (Van Halen song) over the use of the song in a political context. There was a previous thread about this on ANI here [53]. The article was being edit warred upon by anon IPs, so it was semi-protected. Now Coberloco (talk · contribs) has come in and is making the exact same edits as the IPs. The editor has no other substantial edits except to this article, and although he is commenting on the talk page, seems intent on reverting to his preferred version regardless of the discussion. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment): as a result of the previous thread here, the page was semi-protected. This prompted a series of responses from an anonymous IP: accusing an editor of vandalism while requesting that the page be unprotected, filing an WP:AIV report against an apparently good faith editor, and again accusing the editor of vandalism while requesting a 3rd opinion. All of this was directed at User:Tbsdy lives, apparently in retaliation for daring to post here.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked due to 3RR violations. --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please assist at Ulster Special Constabulary. Domer48 is engaging in an edit war which is threatening to spill into 3RR and is an extension of similar at Ulster Defence Regiment. The user is preventing the formatting of the article and deleting sourced information. The Thunderer (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Troubles ArbCom, is the best way to deal with this. Because I've had it with this sock. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry. I beg to differ. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock. I have asked you not to edit war. The Thunderer (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR has now been breached. The Thunderer (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides have violated 3RR; both sides are POV pushing, removing cited materials the other seeks to include. Both sources are questionable, one's to a pro ulster site, the other to an apparent anti-ulster author. I say give both liberal 3RR blocks, neitther seems inclined to stop this. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect don't you think that's a little unfair as I've been tag teamed all day by two editors including this one? I am the one who has brought this to your attention and I'm not the editor who's being abusive. If you consult Alison you'll discover that I've been the subject of contstant harrassment by two particular editors since registering this account. The evidence of continually being called a sock is indicative of what I've had to endure. The Thunderer (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – both editors violated WP:3RR; both are aware of it, as evidenced by prior history. In the future, please report three revert rule violations to the 3RR noticeboard. --slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually - what Thunderer says here is largely correct in that he's been repeatedly tag-teamed by two other editors over a period of months now. He's also been repeatedly accused of being an abusive sockpuppeteer, in the complete absence of any evidence and contrary to the findings of Checkuser. I'm getting rather tired of it all, too - Alison ^❤ 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tasteless image title

Is it possible to move Image:Rachel Stevens holding right boobie.jpg to a title that is a bit more tasteful? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

boobie..... :-/ anyways, this image is from commons. You have to ask there. Anyone knows the correct noticeboard? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Depaulicize

Why was my report archived? The issue is still live, the user continues with the same abusive edits, and the matter has not been resolved, or even apparently looked into? RolandR (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have edited after a 3RR warning, and strictly hadn't hit 3RR anyway. If he reverts again, please take to the 3rr noticeboard. Meanwhile, your previous thread is here and looks too detailed for here; that's what specialist pages like WP:CHU and WP:SSP are for; long-term behaviour isn't an "incident", although it might come under long-term abuse. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)--Rodhullandemu 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber block/ban bump

This is merely a bump thread. Some people were crying foul that the page wasn't visible enough, so I'm creating another section for the purposes of promoting this subpage to further community attention. All kinds of input are requested and appreciated, but piling on at this point isn't really constructive, in my personal opinion. Anyhow, the subpage discussing Kmweber's future is here. Thanks, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 89.240.197.164 WP:ENGVAR Changes

89.240.197.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Decolonization of Africa;. Editor is systematically going from article to article in violation of WP:ENGVAR and changing the English variant from one style to the British style when no strong tie to a specific English speaking country exists. In the Decolonization of Africa article, they even go so far as to edit Winston Churchill's name to precede Franklin D. Roosevelt's (diff). A review of all his edits is necessary to reverse possible vandalism. Some edits he has made appear constructive, but his changing WP:ENGVAR rampantly is the substance of my complaint.«JavierMC»|Talk 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of one of these pages Decolonization of Africa was recently changed from Decolonisation of Africa without explanation, despite strong national ties to the Commonwealth and the EU, and almost no connection to the USA, whose language was being arbitrarily and improperly imposed. You didn't open a discussion on the user who did that. Something similar had previously happened to the Industrialisation page, and yet instead of examining the history of the article to establish the correctness of my action, you rushed in and reverted me, and have been posting patently inappropriate warnings on my talk page, when all I did was correct those earlier, improper alterations to the original language. Churchill takes precedence because his government had executive responsibility for the colonies and more direct influence over their legal and political position.89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

America had remarkably few colonies in Africa, Britain had remarkable many. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And that preponderant influence is reflected in the form of English used in African nations as well as in the EU. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The ENGVAR of Decolonization of Africa was established in 2002 when the first editor wrote the article. It has stood many revisions and additions since that time without a change in ENGVAR. No discussion or consensus was made/reached on the articles talk for a change. You posted today on the article talk page about moving the article from Decolonization of Africa to Decolonisation of Africa and also said that a change in ENGVAR should follow. Then you go ahead and change the ENGVAR of the article prior to any move. Another change you made to Industrialisation (diff) of the ENGVAR to the British variant, I weakly agreed to because the article name was Industrialisation, but in no way can you state that Industrialisation is dependant on the ENGVAR for strong national ties. Industrialisation effects the entire world and should have stood with the first ENGVAR it was written in and moved to Industrilization if your statements above hold validity.--«JavierMC»|Talk 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said Industrialisation had a strong national tie to British English, so once again your complaint is unfounded. I said it was the title of the original page. Systematic and improper changes in the text to US English had made the text inconsistent with the page name, so I corrected these to harmonise the text with the title. As for Decolonization of Africa, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the line in the edit history: “(moved Decolonisation of Africa to Decolonization of Africa over redirect)”. However On the Talk:Decolonization talk page where another user had complained about the topically inappropriate US spellings, he was advised to go ahead and make the changes: “Be bold, especially on such matters”. Since Commonwealth English is the form of English used by almost all African nations (which include many millions of native English speakers), and is also the form of English officially used by the EU, there is no good reason to be using US English in an article which primarily concerns African and European nations, and so there could be no reasonable objection to the change, except from those from a third continent, apparently unaware of local usage, and intent on imposing US English where it simply does not belong, even thought it is jarring and culturally intrusive to the parties directly concerned. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you adhere to Oxford spelling, the -ize variants are correct in BrEng. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both forms are correct in British English anyway... WJBscribe (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except hardly anybody uses Oxford spelling outside of the OUP and Clarendon Press, so that cuts no mustard. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that -ise is the correct primary spelling in British English and related variants (except Canadian English, where only -ize is correct), but -ize is an acceptable, allowable and correct alternative spelling. I personally always use -ise except on articles where either American or Canadian variants are in use (in both, -ise is considered a misspelling - Canadian follows the English on almost all other points). Orderinchaos 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yasis is wikistalking me

Yasis (talk · contribs) was blocked temporarily for edit warring on several articles and continuing the edit war using several IPs (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis). Recently, he returned and has been posting repeatedly on my talk page from several different IPs (see my talk page for the discussion).

Now (not having gotten enough of a rise from me???) he has resorted to wikistalking me to pages he has never edited to revert my recent edits with the summary "new information added":[54]. NJGW (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not just one article: [55], [56], [57]... NJGW (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this with me stalking you?

I asked you politely on your talkpage for discussion of articles and sources NJGW.

You are making false allegations against me NJGW.

That is unfair and childish.

218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)