Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

The disruptive editing career of User:Abbarocks

Resolved

 – User has announced his resignation.

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

---

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

Abbarocks's very first edit was in August 2008 to AN ([1]) and then the account was dormant until January 2009. Perhaps this is a newbie who magically already knows about AN and how to leave savvily misleading edit summaries to confuse third parties and knows how to walk right up to the 3RR line without crossing it rather than an experienced editor pretending to be a novice; but the disruptive effect on the project is the same if Abbarocks somehow still doesn't understand the OR and EW rules as he claims.

Every single edit of this editor has been either (1) edit-warring against consensus to include OR or other text not supported by the claimed cited sources, often with fake edit summaries;[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] (2) edit-warring to delete well-sourced information with edit-summaries falsely calling it OR;[9][10] (3) tendentious argument on the talk-page to include conspiracy theories of John Buchanan (American politician) about Prescott Bush in articles, or (4) edit-warring to sanitize Buchanan's biography.[11][12][13][[14]

The absolute last straw is that he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor, complete with a fake edit summary "well sourced" (compare [15]). This is the sure sign of someone trolling and not here to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Far too much productive editor time is being wasted arguing with this user, who has made the grand total of half of a constructive edit in his Wikipedia career, and lots of time is being wasted trying to explain OR and EW rules to him.

At some point it needs to be said that it's not worth the candle. I'd like a community ban or, at a minimum, very strict probation. THF (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC), diff added 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is obviously not a newbie, and that should be looked into. Meanwhile, I'm reminded of something - my mother has an excellent-tasting fruitcake recipe. Maybe I should post that on my user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Newbie": I have been reading Wikipedia as a resource for years and have observed the various notice boards and editing process in the context of how articles are developed. I am newbie in terms of making edits myself cause now I have more free time than I used to, but I am really slow in typing and still not "up" on the policies, which means it takes me forever to respond to criticisms. I readily admit to having read a lot of books about Skull and Bones but that's about the only so-called conspiracy theory stuff I have much knowledge about.

• THF's complaint about me (directly above in this ANI ) making 1 edit at Richard Rossi is beyond hypocritial and hostile.

• Re: Hostile:His reference to me directly above: "he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor" is a perfect example of the hostility and false accusations coming from him toward me; e.g., I don't even know who the "banned editor" is that he accuses me of working for.

• Re: Hypocritical: Here is where THF threw himself wholeheartedly into an article( this is just the first of many edits he made on that article related exclusively to content I was working on) I had put a lot of work into and which he had never edited before.[16].

Here are some diffs which might be useful to look at. [17]. Here THF referred to me as a "meatpuppet" [18]. I'd like to improve the editing atmosphere between THF,Collect and myself. That's my hope and objective. Abbarocks (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just with me: THF has a generally AGF-NOT approach throughout his editing.Here it can be seen that his edits show clearly his habitual use of personal accusations and assumptions about someone's NEGATIVE intent: "He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous,.....As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation..." It's amazing to me that such behavior is tolerated here, because, most importantly, it slants the content of lesser edited articles in the direction the attacking editor wants them to go. Nobody like me is going to want to edit very much when I have to put up with being called derogatory and totally false names and have to defend myself against those slurs. Abbarocks (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I should advise everyone of this WQA filing that is wholeheartedly related (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Abbarocks's latest edit is to claim Prescott Bush stole Pancho Villa's skull for his Yale secret society--even though his cited source is a conspiracy theory from the antisemitic fringe source Voz de Aztlan and Pancho Villa was alive when Bush was at Yale. He has been repeatedly warned about the OR policy. How much more of this trolling and disruption are we going to take? THF (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And now edit-warring to include it in two different articles after he was told both by myself and by User:Will Beback that Voz de Aztlan is a fringe source. Admin intervention needed. THF (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF is making a mistake by not clicking on the reference[19] . The RS is NOT the one THF seems to think it is.The RS is the Yale Herald which is quoting this person (who happens to work for a newspaper that THF is slandering above: which,btw, I have no opinion on and have never heard of at all) and THF has already accepted the Yale Herald as a RS. This is just another example of his shoot from the hip aggressiveness. Abbarocks (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Yale Herald quoted the ramblings of a clearly unreliable source, does not suddenly make it a reliable one. If that was the case, every time a newspaper regarded as a reliable source printed yet another "Elvis alive - seen working in Starbucks by Elmer O'Reilly (aged 85)", we'd have to add it to Elvis Presley ... Black Kite 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yale Herald is quoting the person,not the newspaper. Abbarocks (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; just as in my example above, newspaper X is quotihg a guy who thinks Elvis works in Starbucks. Neither is worth inserting in a serious article. Black Kite 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but has this person being quoted been determined to be an unreliable source and if so, by whom? Abbarocks (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether Abbarocks is trolling poor Black Kite or whether he is as oblivious as he claims to be, but I suggest that the ultimate disruptive effect on the encyclopedia is indistinguishable. THF (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A ten minute review of Abbarocks' history indicates a single-minded effort to add urban legend, OR, and Synth to Bush & S&B related articles in an effort to push his own POV. Efforts to explain RS, OR, V, Synth, NPOV, and so on have produced no effective result. That he pushes his edits in spite of the fact that he's the only one who supports his POV has now crossed the line into the area of disruption. I recommend a topic ban for Abbarocks if not an outright community ban. This sounds extreme, so I urge those interested to review Abbarocks' edits and come to their own conclusion. He really is that obvious. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also would urge those interested to review all of my edits and lmk what you think. If I'm not welcome here I'll certainly leave voluntarily. As of now I'd say there are 2 frequent Editors (3 counting Collect) who want me gone. Abbarocks (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like us to take a vote? If so, under what terms would you leave? Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Belief in a flat earth is still a fringe viewpoint even if the New York Times interviews a flat earther. We don't need to include finge viewpoints in every article on which there is a view.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Update

Here are 2 recent edits between THF and me: I really can't figure out why I am the one being put on the defensive here.

Note that Villa died in 1923 while Prescott died in 1972 yet THF accused n=me of inserting false information because he thought Prescott Bush was not in Skull and Bones when Villa died. THF was very much wrong in his facts and yet no apology at all. Abbarocks (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge all interested parties to also look at these edits from THF for balance. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] notice the weasel words he uses and how he disparages those with opposing viewpoints, calling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, urban legends, etc. I think worst of all is this attack on a valiant public servant. Others have brought up issues of incivility with THF before [27] and THF has pointed out that he works for a think tank. The question is does wikipedia want a person working for a POV pushing think-tank pushing POV on wikipedia, or should wikipedia strive for neutrality and stop all these nasty personal attacks THF is using? If people think that type of editing is okay behavior to tolerate on wikepdia, is it really okay to edit your employers entry with some dubious category tags? MehTsag (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: Which of the fringe conspiracy theorists that I called a fringe conspiracy theorist do you believe it is beyond the WP:CIVIL pale to call a fringe conspiracy theorist? Because I'll be happy to show you admins (or, at a minimum, reliable sources) who agree with me for any of them. You realize that we have a whole WP:FRINGE policy that necessarily requires us to discuss whether anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Voz de Aztlan are mainstream or not, right? The fact that you have to reach back to August and point out a defensible neutral edit that no one in a highly-trafficked article has objected to in six months to make a COI claim against me speaks for itself. And NB that the "before" in the "Others have brought up issues of incivility before" is 2007. THF (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided on a brief highlight of the vile material you posted. But if you want me to trim it down even more, then I will point to a former Major General and a former Attorney General. With respect to editing your employers entry people probably assumed good faith since you did not point out that you worked for the organization in the edit summary. For clarification did THF start this Incident report before the Wikiquette alert or is it vice-versa? Whoever started the second should apologize for splitting up the discussion. MehTsag (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not the place to ask for a community ban of a disruptive editor; the fact that Abbarocks preemptively opened a WQA report complaining that I threatened to ask for a community ban is just further evidence of his disruption rather than something that prevents me from asking for a community ban. Each of the two edits you complain about are accurate and well-sourced--indeed, one of them is undoing one of the disruptive edits of Abbarocks that every other editor who has looked at has recognized was problematic under our policies. You still haven't identified anything wrong with the noncontroversial housekeeping AEI edit, which was completely within the province of WP:COI, which permits noncontroversial housekeeping edits. THF (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand I am pointing to or you are trying to dodge the facts. I provided the links now I will provide the quotes. You added in the vile claim " The lurid allegations were scoffed at and dismissed and hurt his post-military standing." to an article that has a referenced statement "... the McCormack-Dickstein Committee (precursor to the House Un-American Activities Committee) corroborated most of the specifics of his testimony, no further action was taken." Those two ideas don't jive with each other. Corroborated does not imply scoffed at and does not imply lurid. And yet you have added those non-sourced weasel word statement. In the other link you say "NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." (emphasis mine). The things you have added are neither well sourced nor accurate. MehTsag (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The uncontroversial cumulative edits I have made to Smedley Butler have improved both the citing and accuracy of that article. You still haven't explained how one is supposed to address the credibility of a source under WP:WEIGHT without discussing the credibility of the source. I stand by my comments on Clark, and they're supported by the D.C. Circuit, among others. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It seems excessive to ban Abbarocks at this stage. He's asking questions and has shown he can accept consensus.[28] THF pushes a viewpoint, so his conduct needs looking at. His attitude is summed up by this comment he made: "My material wasn't unsourced: it was sourced to me." It's in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Skull_and_Bones. Ty 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's now the third time you've taken that quote out of context to misrepresent my argument after you've been corrected. Not clear that you have a good-faith reason for continuing to make that misrepresentation to make it falsely seem like I was trying to violate WP:NOR, when in fact I was talking about your frivolous claim that WP:BLP required you to delete talk-page commentary about whether a source was fringe. THF (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If abbarocks could accept consensus, then I wouldn't have suggested a ban. If you would review the S&B article's edit history, for example, you would see repeated attempts to add material against consensus. Rklawton (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I will quit immediately if the post on Wikiquette says what I think it does

Am I reading this [29][30] correctly? Does THF work for the American Enterprise Institute? If so I'm going to quit Wikipedia right now. I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way, and he's already told me "there will be heck to pay" if I don't revert an edit. I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner, especially since it appears the info may have been on and deleted from his User page. I will immediately resign permanently from Wikipedia and revert every edit THF told me to and never be heard from again. Is it true? Abbarocks (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF has pointed out that he works for that think tank, I think you are over-reacting Abba. For Sam It is important to understand WP:OUTING where it says, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. MehTsag (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I resign. No hard feelings with anyone, from my end. Wikipedia is just not for me. I don't fit in. Sorry to waste people's time. Abbarocks (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read that diff was even more benign: "was able to sell it as a free-lance piece to The American (magazine)" seems to suggest to me that he does not work for them, but submitted a piece as a free-lancer. He was correct to worry about a COI, but to describe him as an employee seems to be a stretch based on the diffs above. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article, and scroll to the bottom. Anyways Abba is gone now. MehTsag (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you signing with a nonexistant User name? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed user names, but that is out of the scope of this discussion. Are you the same as This flag once was red? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, got it. Oops, apologies for the noise. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this in relation to the article and employer, or are you Who then was a gentleman? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The former, and no! They do, however, have the username I wish I'd thought of. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was confused for a minute because it was within a few minute of each other and Who then was a gentleman had popped up out of the blue. Cheers. TharsHammar (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

THF and Collect sockpuppetry

The evidence points to abusive sockpuppetry by THF (talk · contribs) and Collect (talk · contribs). See User:Tyrenius/THF and User:Tyrenius/THF 1. Other sockpuppets may have been generated, so checkuser would be advisable, though the edits are not necessarily generated from the same computer. Ty 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run the chart for 7 February, and then come back and apologize? THF (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that these guys are pretty abusive in how they work together and claim consensus where none exists. But I don't see how your stats show more than that they keep the same schedule. I'm pretty sure both are in Washington DC, and probably don't have any regular events on their social calendars except their morning alarm clocks and their Wednesday lunch together. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say "they work together and claim consensus". Rather a lot of unfortunate coincidences then. Have a more careful look. Ty 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They work together and claim consensus? Sure, that's easy to do when going after cranks and POV pushers. It's very easy for two (or more) people to spot the obvious and appear to work together to undo the damage. Indeed, that sort of thing shouldn't be suspicious at all. It's when two or more accounts suddenly start editing together with the same freaky, deranged point of view that we should start getting suspicious of socks - after all, what are the odds? Rklawton (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice rhetoric, but doesn't address the evidence. Are you saying that everyone who has disagreed with THF/Collect is a crank and a POV pusher damaging the project?Ty 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When their edits appear to overlap, its against cranks. Cranks make it easy for them (and me) to agree and take very similar actions. I think you're on a witch hunt. Rklawton (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we have major disagreements with one another, our edit times intersect (um -- how do sockpuppets get edit conflicts?) and we are about a thousand miles apart, this accusation is a gross abuse of WP process. By the way, I am nowhere near Washington, DC at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no basis for this ludicrous, uncivil, and disruptive allegation (see, for example, Christine Gregoire and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)--not to mention all of our edit conflicts), but feel free to go to WP:SPI and ask for a checkuser if you aren't immediately laughed out. (Our editing styles are also completely different.) If Collect and I end up on a number of the same articles, it's because we both read WP:NPOV/N. I wonder if Ty thinks that Will Beback, Rklawton, Paul.h, and Jaren466, all of whom have agreed with me and Collect in a variety of different disputes, are also socks. There hasn't been a single content dispute where I've agreed with Collect and we've been by ourselves on the issue. THF (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want, look at the "Evidence" which is primarily based on "dots matching in size," and the fact that we edited different articles at precisely the same time <g> which, last I checked, was not likely for sockpuppets. While at CompuServe, I found a lot of "alternate personas" and the way to show it (other than having the same IP addresses) is to show vocabulary usage, especially where 'misspelings" are used. As for agreements -- Ikip and I have a huge number of agreements on MfD -- yet I scarcely would expect you to accuse us two of being sockpuppets, eh? Collect (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is not a case of sockpuppetry, then obviously I apologise to you both for any embarrassment and awkwardness caused. I realise that coincidences occur and what appears to be convincing evidence can have another explanation. However, you do not give me any reassurance by applying mockery as a rebuttal, or by strawman arguments that I have not advanced, such as the fact that you have edited the same articles. There are a number of strong points which would in the normal course of things be taken as substantiation:

1. An odd edit pattern over a three year period with low activity, inactivity and a sudden amount of large activity
2. The pattern of edits by hour and day or "dots matching in size". The circles show the times of day you both edited and the size of them indicates how much you edited at those times of day. You have a significantly higher incidence of exactly the same amount of activity at the same times of day than four other comparison users also editing during those times of day, 60% higher in fact.
3. The edit histories 12 December 2008 - 7 January 2009, when Collect was editing heavily and THF was editing much less, show a number of "smoking gun" juxtapositions.

It is these factors taken as a whole that leads to my concern. I note that none of them has been addressed. Ty 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a a fairly impressive set of coincidences. I would say it falls short of hard proof. I recommend that such statistical analysis be used to find people to watch very closely until more concrete evidence comes about. I am not convinced of the allegations, but I do find it very suspect and I will certainly be keeping a close eye on the accounts. Ty, have you considered doing an analysis of the types of spelling errors the users make? Chillum 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Per my post below, I don't intend to pursue this any further myself. Maybe someone else will find more material one way or the other relevant to the apparent anomalies. Ty 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can we end this nonsense? On 16 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at the University of Chicago Law School, the podcast of which is available on line. On 23 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at Stetson University College of Law. On 2 March, Collect is editing Wikipedia at the same time I am appearing in the audience of a live webcast asking a question to Michael Greve about the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Sherman Act. On 3 March, I am editing at the same that Collect is blocked. And, again, compare our edits on 7 February. THF (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, which I am relieved to hear, and accept is the case. I trust you will also grant that I had cause for making this enquiry and did so in good faith. My apologies for taking up any unnecessary time and any inconvenience caused. Ty 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not grant that. An honest look at our edit histories would have definitively shown that we are not the same editor. This was needlessly disruptive. THF (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that these two are not sockpuppets, they edit at the same exact time. It is reasonable how someone could think they are though. The two have a very similar style - they are both abusive, uncivil, love edit warring and personal attacks but that does not make them sockpuppets. They both resort to similar argument styles - invoking strawmen, running to friendly admins, claiming what this admin said or that arbcom member said furthers their case, and they both have selective judgement. THF especially loves wikilawyering and throwing policies out like WP this or WP that. They probably check the same boards or do something else to see where each other needs help, but they are not socks. Abusive uncivil pov-pushing meatpuppets is a better description of the two. That may sound harsh and sound like a personal attack but see my evidence about of THF's editing style. TharsHammar (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NB this is the same editor as User:MehTsag, who couldn't substantiate a single one of these allegations with a single diff above, but repeats the lies here. THF (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did change my username as I pointed out above. Saying I couldn't substantiate a single allegation is a lie, since I pointed out directly and explicitly the uncivil diffs. TharsHammar (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It'd be very simple if the accuser take the extensive evidences (?) to WP:SPI, not here--Caspian blue 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before: the basic rule with accusations of Sockpuppetry is that you either take it to WP:SPI/WP:SSP or STFU. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Response intended for entry below which was closed. That is very relevant, but does not address the Conflict of Interest issue that was raised. THF had stated "I'll avoid all main-page edits to avoid unnecessary contention." in regards to an appearance of a conflict of interest. That was not done, he continues to edit main-page areas where there exists a reasonable conflict of interest, such as this edit which is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest and should have been discussed on the talk page first as it involves the removal controversial tags of global warming denial organizations and neoconservative organizations. Maybe instead of an all out block a broad or targeted topic bans for certain main-pages is in order? THF has stated he would avoid editing main-pages where Conflict of Interest could be claimed, but has not followed through on his word so maybe it is time for action and blocks. TharsHammar (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:HOUND: this is now the fourth time you've misunderstood WP:COI and complained about a non-controversial housekeeping edit that does not violate WP:COI, even after other editors explained the guideline to you. Take it to the article talk-page if you think this seven-month-old edit was incorrect in some way. THF (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged." "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism. 2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. 3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors. 4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged. 5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page. To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial." Your edit was not in compliance with this policy, since another good faith editor had inserted the category tag it is therefore controversial that you eliminated it. TharsHammar (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone whose contribution history only goes back a few days there seems to have been a rather rapid propensity for wiki-lawyering, narrow-range of editing topics, getting involved in 'controversy', axe-grinding and attempted character assassination. Not to mention the initial username 'faux pas' (MehtSag - GasThem in reverse). Something smells decidedly fishy about this editor TharsHammar. Less fishy, but nonetheless suspect, having the initials TH whilst attempting to 'out' THF. Perhaps an admin more au fait with sockpuppetry would like to make further investigations? --WebHamster 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As said above about SPI, Put up or STFU. The filth on your userpage is disgusting and juvenile. As for my name, Thor and who is know to have a hammer. I thought it was clever to put in the a in the last vowels of both to make it sound like arrrrrr, like a pirate, because ThorsHammer sounds too cliche. TharsHammar (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What does their userpage (or, rather, your view of it) have to do with anything? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it's interesting to know that you consider an image of a healthy human female to be disgusting filth, it's also interesting to note your attempted misdirection. Also noted is the hypocrisy of your previous complaints about others' civility being replaced with your own "STFU". Bernie, the bolt please. --WebHamster 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll up and see I was referencing BMW. Would you please obscure reference to Bernie and a bolt. TharsHammar (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I was the one who said "STFU" ... perhaps TharsHammar should have quoted me directly ...? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting it or saying it amounts to the same thing, either way it shows an element of hypocrisy. Regardless, this digression is yet another attempt at misdirection from the point I raised. This has all the hallmarks of the sockpuppetry of a banned/blocked POV editor. Once again it seems I'm in a position of pointing out that WP:DUCK appears to apply. --WebHamster 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, just noticed a rather strange coincidence! It appears that User:THF was actually the editor who reported User:TharsHammar for his original 'accidental' user name of MehtSag (Gas Them!). What a coincidence eh? --WebHamster 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay people, the horse is dead. One reason why personal attacks are not a good thing (besides that they are not nice) is that after they've been made, & one side has eloquently & conclusively made her/his point (as THF did above in proving Collect was not his sockpuppet), it allows the other side to admit that they were in err with some modicum of self-respect & to end a dispute without any lingering bad feelings. Everything since that one edit, IMHO, has been squabbling for the sake of squabbling: you're not helping to improve Wikipedia. If you can't find anything better to do, there's almost three million articles, most of which aren't Featured or Good quality -- go & make that one less. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip

Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for WP:HOUNDing me. According to Tyrenius, this libelous claim of sockpuppetry was orchestrated by Ikip's "research," and Ikip's response confirms this. Ikip has previously threatened me, and this seems to be one of the manifestations of that threat. I'd like further sanctions against Ikip--perhaps a community ban to leave me alone, please. See also the diffs at the pending WP:WQA. THF (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban works for me. Ooops, maybe I'm a sock, too? Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the evidence presented by THF against Ikip[31] you at least merit being banned, as I left you exactly the same message,[32] which I also left to WebHamster,[33] and C S.[34] The case for sockpuppetry was no more "orchestrated by Ikip's 'research'" than it was by any of the other named editors. I did the research into the various users' edit histories to compile charts. Ikip had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I didn't even realise he'd left me a response till I followed the link just given. It is ironic that THF jumps to accuse someone else on an erroneous basis, and won't take seriously facts that cast doubt on his own behaviour. Bans seem to be being mooted with surprising speed round here nowadays: discussion and, if necessary, warning are the first stages. And talking of "threats", THF, please confirm that your remark "libelous claim" does not carry any implication of legal threat. Ty 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The currently self-requested blocked editor Ikip continues to make accusations against THF on his user talk page. It would be best if both editors just left one another alone, but I have to say that getting reverted by Ikip when pointing out that he is incorrect in his statements (just happened here[35]) does not give a good impression of Ikip. While he is usually willing to apologize when he makes an error in judgment, it is a bad sign when a long-time editor has to apologize often in a short term, and continues with questionable behaviour. Not archiving his talk page (but simply removing things) and making his block log hard to interpret with multiple short self-requested blocks are both not prohibited, but make it harder to accurately judge the editor. Fram (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip appears to be the subject of personal attacks by at least one other editor. See this succession:, first Ikip's praising another editor is declared an "oddity;" second, he is renamed in that listing in an obviously derogatory manner; and finally, when it's removed, well, we have this edit summary. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that THF is Edgarde, I'm not sure what the relevance is. I do note that you're mentioning a tangentially related page in order to get attention to someone who has slighted you, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It provides the context of Ikip's state of mind, i.e. that he is himself being personally attacked from multiple fronts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Spongebob Squarepants related articles.

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Armenian nationalist flare-up at Mitanni

This article has just been semi-protected as a result of an IP editor warring to insert a claim that the Mitanni were ancestors of the Armenians, based on what other editors see as inadequate sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has now taken up the cudgels, reverting back to the IP's preferred version with an uncivil edit summary, and making hand-waving claims that many academic sources support the relationship but failing to specify any in spite of repeated requests. In the disputed material, the only "source" that directly supports a Mitanni-Armenian relationship comes from a blog site. I have reviewed the issues to give context here, but this is not a content dispute, it is a question of disruptive, uncivil, and tendentious editing that calls for admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has been notified of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention that the Armenians are descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these sources on the Mitanni article, get called a troll and threatened with blocking. Are all the cited authors who wrote about this, trolls as well? Or is there some foul play here that is trying to exclude relevant information exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that modern-day groups claim descent from them, and probably wouldn;t want this view suppressed by editors who think they "know better" than these sources and therefore they must not even be mentioned. I have already stated twice, and am now stating again, that the correct place to bring this up would have been WP:RS/N where regular editors are quite familiar with our standards of verifiability for reliable sources if there is any question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If anybody finds this response cogent, please say so and I'll answer it. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly how we get vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. If you think there are no "reliable sources" saying this, the reliable sources noticeboard will clear up your confusion. And the discussion was fairly civil until today when a certain admin suddenly shows up namecalling editors "trolls" just for citing these sources (are the sources written by "trolls" too?) That admin is known for regularly using his admin tools, or threatening their use, as personal tools to make sure his own POV take on a subject prevails over what the sources say, but I'm not afraid. This type of behaviour is a serious black mark on wikipedia, and it needs to be exposed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this requires an answer either. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unable to come up with any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just stumbled on this when taking my daily dosage of AN/I. After having read the discussion at Talk:Mitanni#Removed Armenians, it does certainly looks strange that Til Eulenspiegel repeatedly claims that sources are easy to find, and even continues those claims in this discussion by stating that it would only take "about a second to find a source", yet still has to actually come up with any, even if this whole discussion could easily be closed by the provision of such adequate sources. Though that is still just a content dispute, and not exactly AN/I matter (unless 3RR have been transgressed). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a content dispute, but more of the beginnings of an edit war and a gross misinterpretation of reliable sources. By repeatedly attempting to insert original research and uncited materials and then claim that "sources are easy to find," then you are edit warring. The burden to find the sources falls not on other editors but on the individual who makes the claim -- in this case, Til Eulenspiegel. I take it that this issue will not reoccur again, because a block over something this pathetic really does no one good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over the reliability of the sources, and thus the correct place to settle it is WP:RS/N as I have said all along, so I have now begun a discussion there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Til Eulenspiegel have just continued the same line of reasoning by stating that sources are easy to find and then fail to provide any examples of such easy to find sources at WP:RS/N (what is the point of discussing it at that forum then when there are no sources to discuss). I can only concur with seicers view on this matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but there are sources to discuss, and that is exactly where we should be discussing them, and where I will be discussing them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So..."discussion" is going on over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Systematic_Bias_over_RSS_at_Talk:Mitanni, and I have to say that if this is typical of User:Til Eulenspiegel's contributions to Wikipedia I'm not impressed. I think I might disagree with seicer's comment above just a little bit...a block over something this pathetic might well do some good. If Til Eulenspiegel usually acts like this, we have a good example of tendentious editing on our hands. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy has a history of adding unreliable sources to cite cranky information. For instance I remember he added this ref [36] to Hungarian prehistory. It's to a self-published novel by a Christian fundamentalist (IIRC). Not the sort of thing most people would regard as encyclopaedic. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree that a block would be warranted, but it would be for the lamest of avoidable reasons. seicer | talk | contribs 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually request a block at this point, just a clear notice that any further behavior of the same sort will lead to a block, and I think that message has come through unanimously. Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegal is a reincarnation of user:Codex Sinaiticus. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WLaccount

• WLaccount (talk · contribs)

Originally posted this at WQA here, but this is starting to spiral quickly out of control. Incivility issues are noted at the WQA, and I don't know what the hell is going on at Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. Other relevant pages include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Mortensen (actor), User talk:WLaccount, User talk:Shawnpoo, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters. MuZemike 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, he is taking things very seriously and being offensive. He's ranting about articles of his that have been proposed to AfD, and attacking other articles. Something needs to be done. All of the controversy has been linked above by MuZemike. §hawnpoo 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, keep Henry out there. The article is there since 2007 and mostly built by other people. It gets a lot of bad faith only for being somewhat related to the other three). The Kriss Perras article also is quite old but has some IPs ranting at the talkpage. Our friend is either Kriss or a close friend or simply a fan. Funny enough Kriss is accused to be nothing more than a fan of Viggo Mortensen herself. Also note, that another account with the name of the production company has been blocked yesterday (if I remember right).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also report these two people who deleted my request for deletion at the top of the talk kriss perras Running Waters page - Administrators said you are not supposed to do that and yet you did delete the request for deletion which is against Wikipedia rules for reqeust for deletion. The things listed on that page are grossly inaccurate and do not belong on a Wikipedia page. And that is why I am writing. I am neither a friend nor affiliated with Kriss Perras Running Waters. I came upon the vandalism on the page yesterday and decide to rewrite the page according to accurate information. My my this gets very petty on Wikipedia. This is really bad and I think I might report this page to the PR firm that represented the magazine the poster said was only a Vanity magazine. The irm was listed as Dick Guttman Asscs. and he represents Barbara Streisand among some other notable people. That was who was listed on the masthead of that magazine that this person says is vanity: Dick Gutman. Chek here for the facts on where it is listed this director lives: It is People Search http://www.peoplesearchnow.com/summary.asp?fn=Kriss&mn=&ln=Perras&state=CA&x=18&y=7&vw=people&Input=name It states on there the director lives in Topanga

the reason I am mad is the whole thing onmy edited pages was about no citations other than IMDb but when I say that someone is posting bad information without even one single citation other than OpEd News, which I guess is considered credible by Wikipedia, then yeah I get upset. If this is suppose to be about factual findings then why is it when I call the Administrators to the carpet for facts on someone else they do nothing but when I post edits with citations from known sources then all of a sudden it is request for deletion - that makes no sense. And the article on that talk page said more than just a fan the person states "However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." That is not just stating she is a fan - if that was all then so what but god what the Hell? That is all I am saying is if this is suppose otbe about facts then why not make this person who wrote this without even posting a signature delete the posting? WLaccount (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the template off the talk page as it was being used in the wrong namespace. Please handle all article debates ont heir appropriate talk page or AfD page. §hawnpoo 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the request for delete on that page because it was specifically that page I was requesting be deleted - where are you suggesting I put the request? please post a link here and I will put the request for deletion there as you say - it just is not right there are no citations on that page and it is not neutral so that is my reason for request for deletion. Your rules state there must be citations and the article must be neutral. WLaccount (talk)

It's irrelevant there. Period. It doesn't belong there and nobody is going to be looking for that talk page at random. You have an option right now. You can either (1) continue to whatever you want to do, attacking every single person who disagrees with you, ignoring all advice, putting warnings and statements everywhere you want until you find yourself blocked and the fate of those articles decided without further discussion by you or (2) grow up and actually attempt to help get them saved by listening to people and doing the things asked of you. Go to the deletion discussion pages and try to convince people why they should be here. Read the policies they cite and be polite. Really, what is more important to you at this point? Getting a few minutes of insults and screaming out of your system or keeping that stuff there? Because, to be honest, blocking you to stop the disruption and moving on is a million times easier than actual conversation and dealing with you. And believe me, this pattern comes again and again. Some grow up, stay, become productive and things work out. Others have their ten minutes of fun and then are locked out forever. It's totally on you. Sleep on it overnight (nothing is going to get deleted in 24 hours and if it does, then go to my talk page and I'll personally put up a stink about serious violations of process here), and come back with a cool head. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't pan on posting anything else on this site and whatever happens to my two hours of research on what I posted and the article that cites not sources is whatever happens. I no longer consider Wikipedia credible about anything now that I see what happens here. WLaccount (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. §hawnpoo 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• It appears as though s/he has friends/sockpuppets who have stated their intent to disrupt the process in the AfD. Tagged notavote. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but I didn't even open a sockpuppet case for this. Doesn't make sense at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD descending into mud throwing contest.

Resolved

 – caution issued to party

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This AfD was started three days after the first AfD (which resulted in WP:SNOW keep). It's currently grown into a monster of an AfD and the same arguments and reasons keep being reiterated to no effect. I don't believe anymore discussion is going to contribute to it. The nominator is now descending into personal attacks against the editors of that page. I request an admin to review it as soon as possible so we can put this past us. It's occupying to much time on both sides, and we would like to get back to editing pages. Please consider my request, thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I read every word, but I at least skimmed the discussion. I don't see obvious personal attacks or other mud throwing, can you point me at some? While the first AFD did close as snow keep, it looks like this is much more divided. How is administrator intervention called for?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be the most recent one, and this is an older insult. I'm requesting an admin to close it with a decision as soon as possible because I think this discussion has run it's course, nothing new is being contributed that isn't a reiteration of something that's already been said. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw at least four deletes and a small fistful of merges. Why can't the discussion run its course? I will leave a note on Psychlim's talk page about the second one. The first is unfortunately par for the course around here, saying that someone doesn't grasp a policy is in my view impolite but not abusive.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can run longer, I'd just rather it not degrade any further into personal attacks. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to report any personal attacks. Also, it is polite to notify anyone about whom you have concerns that a discussion is taking place here about their actions. I have done so in this case. I did cautioun Psychlim62 about his comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Created new section, didn't realise this was marked as closed This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker's polynomials (again)

reposted from WP:AIV Hello,

Could someone please block Arammozuob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Auclairde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and semi-protect Wikipedia:Notability_(numbers) for a little while?
Both accounts are likely sockpuppets of Boubaker et al.: a couple of regular edits and then going straight into editing notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination) for a better understanding of the whole story. Thx, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Auclairde and semiprotected Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Arammozuob's immediate interest in Notability (numbers) is surprising but he has yet to make any Boubaker-type edits. For previous background, in addition to the AfD discussion that was mentioned, see:

• Long-term abuse report for Mmbmmmbm on the French Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183#Boubaker polynomials
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm
• User:Lucasbfr/Boubaker

EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the other one as well.  Confirmed as the Boubaker polynomials vandal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Bluescreenofdef

Is there any chance of an admin looking into the current editing exploits of User:Bluescreenofdef. In a re-occurence of a similar stalking episode from last year this editor is following my edits and doing his best to undo anything I've done with a special interest in an article I've done a lot of work on. His/Her contribution history is proof enough. Although some of his edits are righteous his main aim seems to be to annoy me. --WebHamster 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on List of lead guitarists and similiar, the other editor is right. You keep adding non-notable names to those lists and articles. [37] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at his contribs and tell me that they aren't targetted at me. When I first saw his edits I just did a blanket undo. It was afterwards that I realised that some legitimate edits had been undone, which I referred to above. Any person who sees his contribs and doesn't see the stalking must be blind. --WebHamster 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of WP:HOUND and this clearly is a case, yes. Still he's right at least on the articles I've seen. Not to mention the warning templates you posted on his page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now here is a most revealing edit by your chum Mr Screen (talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All articles surrounding the "not really notable band " The Hamsters are badly written and reek of WP:OWN and WP:COI from sole contributor User:WebHamster. I implore you to look at the edits and accept my WP:AGF that I am acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster needs to explain how [[38]] satisfies WP:AGF. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSOD, it is incredibly hard to assume good faith when you make edits like these. — neuro^(talk) 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just how credulous do you ["Bluescreenofdef"] think your readers are? The article on The Hamsters wasn't even created by WebHamster, as its history clearly shows. Meanwhile, would you care to explain (preferably in thirty words or fewer, or in sonnet form) how one should "accept an assume good faith" (which even syntactically is a blunder), or assume any good faith from the perp of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good durable control (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of BSOD, since User:WebHamster/fucking had no edits for a year, and then suddenly after BSOD's vandalism two edits occured reverting the article to the offending content. Yes, it's stale, I realise, but it still is not acceptable, and makes it hard to assume good faith (although, admittedly, not impossible). — neuro^(talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluescreenofdef for reference. Is there maybe a connection to User:Elspeth Monro? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any sockpuppets, however I must say it is hard to engage in reasonable talkpage discussion when you are confronted with replies like [39], and then immediatey brought to an admin noticeboard. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like both of you have some civility issues. Regardless of who started what and when, you should always remain civil and assume good faith. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not a robot. I do not show civility or assume good faith automatically under any circumstance. It's patently clear that this user's edits are not done as a result of good faith and are specifically done to annoy the hell out of me. Now you may like to be civil to someone in those circumstances, I do not. Likewise I don't say "please desist" to the mutt who's chewing my leg. I tell it to fuck off and give it a kick. Now, as far as I am aware this is the English version of Wikipedia, not the Stepford version? --WebHamster 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to not assume good faith, at least stay calm (which you aren't, at the moment). — neuro^(talk) 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When some youngster pipes up with the over-used mantra of AGF and WP:CIVIL and then uses it to lecture me then that is not a prescription for my calmness. It stokes an already warm boiler. --WebHamster 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits do not have anything to do with you. They are to improve the encyclopedia and improve all "Hamsters" related articles. Please engage in civil talkpage discussion and treat every edit on its merits. Do no assume everything is all about you. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the band you referred to as "non notable garbage" would it? Plenty of NPOV editing going on there then. Perhaps you'd like to bullshit us enlighten us with the reason you chose to use your expansive editing skills on The Hamsters article first after such a long absence, especially given your activity last year? Add to that the fact that it's a band you know nothing about, know nothing of their material and know nothing of what they do. Yet here you are deciding that's the article you want to, errr, improve. Given your propensity for using WP shortcuts, here's another one for you: WP:DUCK. --WebHamster 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluescreenofdef writes to WebHamster: My edits do not have anything to do with you. Reluctant though I am to play armchair psychiatrist, and unwilling as I am to call Bluescreenofdef a liar, I can only infer from this edit that Bluescreenofdef is deranged. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSoD continues to remove sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet User pages, and continues to remove references to the Hamsters from articles. There needs to be a resolution to this concern. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

he also called the other user a "fucking idiot" and he doesn't even have a warning. an admin needs to step in here. untwirl(talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case has been closed as "stale". What I didn't see first, it was February 2008 and not this year. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done, some expert on the field should confirm if diffs like this are legit or not. Mediation? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall I didn't put that in the RTH article, though I can't swear to that as it must have been a long time ago. But as an expert on The Hamsters I can say categorically that the bass player's pseudonym came directly from the radio show as the band, though mainly the guitarist are big fans of the show. As the diff you gave was in the "cultural effect" section I can't see what the problem is. "Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist" is indeed a character from the show as any RTH fan could attest. Further to that if one puts "ms zsa zsa poltergeist" into Google... --WebHamster 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, should you want an expert on the show, try The British Comedy website (see "The Escaped War Criminal" section) which is a reputable, reliable and independent source for all things British radio comedy related. --WebHamster 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you added to the article [here]. It is part of your long running conflict of interest to insert you non notable band into wikipedia for self promotional purposes. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Either prove these accusations of WP:COI or quit using it for your dodgy reversions. I referenced that paragraph yet you still spouted about consensus and COI yet you have proof of neither. If you have proof then I suggest you bring it up at WP:COIN. I am simply a fan of the band who obviously knows more about them than you do. Likewise you don't have a consensus on those edits, so quit with the accusations as if they give you power to do what you want. Now will some admin sort this out? One way or the other before this person gets his way and I get blocked for saying what I really think about him. --WebHamster 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? I can't file a case for you, you must do it on your own. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want mediation I just want this fucker off my back! --WebHamster 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be on User:WebHamster's back when editing the article The Hamsters unless he has either a WP:OWN issue or a (blatantly obvious) WP:COI issue. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So report it at WP:COIN, you can't though can you? You have no proof do you? Whereas you are just an editor with a grudge trying to game the system and throw around accusations. You seem to have more conflict of interest (it can be negative interest as well!) than me as your edit history can attest. Out of 13,000 edits I have done maybe 90+ on The Hamsters. I wonder what percentage of your contribution history can be shown to be Hamsters related? Now put up or shut up. Meanwhile can some admin either block him or me, either way this guy needs a wake up call. --WebHamster 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See this diff and another piece of the puzzle seems to fall into place, given that the band's drummer's real name is Alan Parish. --WebHamster 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama probation issue

Twice this evening, a drive by editor Neophytesoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted a "POV" tag on the article, with an obvious conspiracy-theory angle as indicated in the edit summary, but without bothering to post anything to the talk page. Someone with more authority than I (i.e. more than "none") needs to say something to that character about the probation on the article and about frivolous tags. This article has been under scrutiny for months now, and the supposed "bias", having to do with Rev. Wright, birth certificate, etc., are already covered at length in other articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BLP attack in edit summary. Although edit summaries are not specifically mentioned in WP:BLP, I think we can all assume that it is inappropriate. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a stern warning from an administrative figure - that article is under probation for a reason, and 'terrorist ties' is definitely a WP:BLP vio. — neuro^(talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has now had a polite probation notice posted on his page. Also, the user has been inactive for nearly 2 years [40] and suddenly turns up with this drive-by "shooting". There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WND did an article on the WP entry and the Drudge Report linked to it, so expect a spike in activity over there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say, admins here might find this relvant: [41] Kangasaurus (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that would explain the sudden surge in drive-by activity. They're abusing wikipedia in order to generate a "news" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That makes sense. — neuro^(talk) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are separate articles that talk all about the stuff that is alleged by that WND rag to have been "scrubbed". They conveniently left that fact out. But considering their advocacy, it's pretty obvious they're on the looney fringe themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So disagreeing with YOUR point of view puts you on the 'looney fringe'?!? Perhaps following Wiki rules "According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." There have been many including court cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.115.111 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Bugs is a sign of being a crank. And we have something called WP:WEIGHT to consider. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention every single one of them has failed. Obama has never even had to address this in any form. It has very little, if any impact on him. --70.24.182.79 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on AN Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Point of View junk edits" mentioned at the end of the WND article was my revert. This is actually the 2nd time that WND has commented on an edit of mine. Awesome. We're probably going to need a full protect shortly, this is a rabid and vocal minority that has just been given today's marching orders. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the page to request article protection, or I would have done so already. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I say let more sleeper socks come out of the woodwork - maybe we can catch them all and see where their IP address is coming from. There's a strong suggestion that the folks at World Net Daily are behind some of this. I can forgive a partisan organization's ignorance of Wikipedia reliable sources and neutrality rules. WorldNetDaily and its editors do not practice neutrality themselves, or much of a truth test at all - they say whatever scores a point for their cause. But this piece seems deliberately misleading. If it's true that they have been "monitoring" Wikipedia, it would be obvious (and should have been disclosed) that Jerusalem21, the Wikipedia editor Klein leads off with and who was supposedly pounced on by the whitewashing Obama-lovers, is an SPA and suspected sockpuppet, whose entire sparse but long career on Wikipedia until causing disruption at Barack Obama, was to edit the Aaron Klein article. Even before the incident the editors commenting on Jerusalem21's talk page were placing COI tags and assuming Jerusalem21 is connected in some way to Klein. "Monitoring" indeed. Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to post at WP:RFPP, but if you want to let these idiots expose themselves (pun intended), then I'll defer to your judgment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was anything but a coincidence, but a couple days ago, after Ann Coulter posted a story about Keith Olbermann, several accounts came out of the woodwork that hadn't edited in years. Same thing here. Are they sleeper socks, or are we at the stage where everyone has a Wikipedia account, and when their favourite columnist calls forth his minions, they pick up their old account that they haven't used in years? Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The next time one pops up, maybe we could ask the account if they could get us Ann Coulter's autograph or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's obviously more than one person. They could be novice or infrequent editors coming out of the woodwork because something got their goat, they could a coordinated meat / sock attack, and/or it could be a deliberate manipulation by someone connected with the author of the article. The past year's experience on the Obama article was that the majority of disruptive POV editors crying whitewash/censorship/terrorist/scandal turned out to be socks of a handful of puppetmasters, some of whom had been blocked/banned before. Jerusalem21 was quacking from inside the encyclopedia. The World Net Daily article about Jerusalem21 quacks from the outside. Plus there are new accounts, SPAs, and accounts that haven't edited in months or years all showing up on the exact same bogus claims raised in the article. If shenanigans are going on it's helpful to let it play out for a bit so we can connect the dots. But if it continues we may have to protect the article. But we can't reasonably full protect the talk page, and much of the weirdness is going on there. Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could fix the article so it includes mention of notable controversies that have been covered extensively by independent sources and improve the article so it provides links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbingly impossible for someone to claim to be unbiased when referring to those with whom they disagree as the "looney fringe" "idiots" or "socks" (sock puppets). Do you really think these terms convey the idea of "neutrality"? Tlwitness ^{Live to Learn and Then Learn to Question} 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, try again. I guess this is another account to add to the list... seicer | talk | contribs 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another matching sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think this fellow intends to contribute productively and civily once his block expires: [42]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, and he'll have to wait 17 hours longer for that. Since you nobly overlooked his personal attack on you, I dealt with it by extending the block from 31 to 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation here... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Make a tub of popcorn and head over to the article's talk page. But pay careful attention to the rv's on the talk page, or you might miss some of the best comments. Did you know that unless you've seen someone's original birth certificate, you don't know where they were born? What does that remind me of? Of yeah - that good old creationist retort to evolutionary claims: Where you there? Did you see it happen? Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of the Baron Münchhausen retort - "Vas you dere, Charlie?" And the flip side of Criswell narrating Plan 9 from Outer Space: "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary 3RR exception for article patrol?

Wondering if that is a good idea. At least, please consider giving warnings and only blocking if an editor persists after being asked to stop, if what they are doing is good faith attempts to keep the article and talk page stable.Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing one here prescriptively... hold on for just a moment.Wikidemon (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An aggressively misguided editor, Expertfp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just filed a 3RR report on me[43] which I've deleted per WP:IAR[44] so as to avoid wikidrama. Technically I think the editor's 5 diffs only show 1 reversion on my part. The rest is nonsense, and another editor has already called it "crazy", but I would like to get a ruling and some guidance on this. Not whether the 3RR report has any merit, but whether it's okay to be doing talk page patrol. I've been on article / talk page control for many hours, holding down the fort, organizing various talk page comments, etc. If you want me to go away and keep the peace without me, fine. I won't do this if the opinion among administrators is that I should not be aggressively patrolling the Obama talk page. Thx. Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh. When the Mark Foley scandal broke I went well over 3RR trying to keep crap out. No one seemed to complain. Not sure the situation is that different here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU filed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Axmann8

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For some reason, he chose this night to start violating established reliable sources and consensus and much discussion, to push the idea that Obama is not the first African-American President. He has violated 3RR as well as probation, and refuses to retract. Another blockhammer, someone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was coming here to report same user for obviosu trolling, wiki-lawyering, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Mfield (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He was once indef-blocked (briefly) and was given a second chance. Has he used up his second chance yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And his unblock request makes it perfectly clear that he intends to continue pushing the conspiracy theory stuff in defiance of consensus, and presumably in defiance of article probation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that but the last block was a standard indefinite for legal threats which were retracted and he had nothing else. Had this been another legal threat then I would have thought no second chances but this is different in nature and . If he continues once his block lifts though which seems likely (hardly a good argument for being unblocked) then he is going to find good faith harder to come by I suspect, I for one will certainly be watching him closely. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, the legal threat was against me[45] after I warned Axmann8 about edit warring on Obama's discussion page.[46] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, I don't feel happy about changing the block to an indef at this point, having given him the benefit of the doubt. But I think he has a fair amount of attention now and he is certainly burning bridges faster than he should with that in mind. Mfield (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, and he has reverted it. —kurykh 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. Appears to be fishing for an admin who will unblock him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting that rant slamming everyone he can think of is not likely to get him an early unblock. After the first one was refused he wrote a second one that was basically the same as the first one. If he keeps this up, he might be among the few tagged for 3RR on his own talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "I have the right to do whatsoever I wish" is hardly clueful either, or telling the declining admin they have "corrupt leftist liberal trash fogging up their mind". Man he sure can dig fast. Mfield (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He really shouldn't be blocked indefinately. He's a newcomer, and has made many constructive edits previously. As I'm his adopter, I'll be sure to look over more of his edits. -download | sign! 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He will be blocked indefinitely (not by me) if he continues on his crusade for truth, justice, and the American way. </snark> —kurykh 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Kfedup

Kfedup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Four, three, two, one, liftoff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

done Mfield (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

The stuff is spreading. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I am leaning towards full protection of the article until this dies down. A look at the history shows a lot of editing warring. Unless opposition is voiced here I am going to protect it in one hour. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One potential issue with full protection is that it might push edits to the daughter articles all the more, and there are likely to be fewer eyes watching them. Not saying I'm opposed to protection, just that it may cause additional problems. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching several daughter articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support this. In the last 15 hours, there have been 50 revisions to that page, including 26 reversions explicitly stated as such in their edit summary (not counting the reversion of the grammar fix at 1502). There has been exactly zero blatant vandalism in this time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see protection for the article's Talk/FAQ page. This isn't a place for random comment; it should be subject to the same consensus constraints as the man page. It's attracted at least one soapboxer so far. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Protecting a high-traffic protected articles talk page should not be done except in response to actual vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is blatant vandalism, the article should not be protected. These are content disputes and possible policy violation corrections, not vandalism. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060 is referring to the talk page, not the article itself. Protection policy specifically authorizes protection for content disputes resulting in editing warring. However, I am not going to protect the article right now as things seem to have quieted down. I will check back every hour or so to see if this changes. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put full protection on Barack Obama? They are edit warring over an NPOV tag now.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am watching it. There have only been 4 edits in the last hour and a half. KnightLago (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Excellent point. I was more looking at the count of the edits rather than the timing. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things picked back up quickly and I have fully protected the article until things die down. I am going to notify the communications committee. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the protection (overlooked this subsection). I've doled out enough blocks, filed enough RFCU's, and given notices about the probation that I should have recognized something more should have been done earlier. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went with the full protection template over the small so the "this is not an endorsement..." language was there. It has since been changed. Is there a preference for high traffic articles? KnightLago (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the communications committee and also changed the template back to full in order to have the explanation. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note this Foxnews.com story which riffs on the WND business, mentions the current full protection, and also links directly to the Obama talkpage. --guyzero | talk 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, everything dealing with Obama either has or is degenerating into a massive clusterfuck and, frankly, outside sources really aren't helping us out here, unless by 'helping' you mean 'making our job multiple times harder by attarcting drive-bys'. HalfShadow 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And cracked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Glad to see the Wingnut→Drudge→Fox News cycle is still working. Now, question is, will the "→Everyone else" portion of the cycle kick in. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the "→Olbermann/Maddow" part before the "→Everyone else". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not missing the Olbermann/Maddow part, I'm just lumping them in with the everyone else. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• From my transatlantic impression of Olbermann, that's not entirely wise. When the most powerful right-wing lobby in the US launches a stinger at Wikipedia, it's not prudent to side with the closest left-wing equivalent. Common sense and reliable sourcing is plenty sufficient justification for the status quo that is being attacked. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News has picked up the "story" now and plastered it on their front page: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is following it, but the supposed story is not exactly what it seems.[47] I'm going to do an SSP on Jerusalem21 and cohorts shortly. I'll post back here when that is set up.Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

I went ahead and filed a sockpupet investigation on Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who was according to the Aaron Klein article that started this mess blocked by Wikipedia administrators for submitting sourced info. As you can tell if you poke around people have long suspected that this editor is in fact Aaron Klein, and has been sockpuppeting. A couple issues there.

• First, other than Jerusalem21 none of these editors have been active for a year or more - Jerusalem21 may or may not be subject to banning / long-term blocking as a disruptive hoax account. But as for sockpuppetry that may be stale. Does anyone have any advice there? I haven't notified the accounts yet. If the report is unlikely to go anywhere I'll just withdraw the report instead of making a go of it.
• Second, the earlier report on multiple editors was declined as premature.[48] That may be, but it's almost certain that there is some serious sockpuppetry going on now in the Obama article. Mostly a hunch and there are some alternate explanations, but the editing patterns, insults, tactics are familiar and last time it did turn out to be a sock farm. If this issue brings a new flood of problem editors to the encyclopedia and we can't tell who is real and who is not, we are in for some long-term trouble. The other regular editors and I are unlikely to be in a mood to rehash what happened last fall there. Okay, thanks.

- Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Likwidshoe

Likwidshoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This individual made a personal attack (and WP:SOAP) here and was reverted by an anon here. He then proceeded to attack the anon in this edit summary. He has thrice reverted the anon and me ([49], [50], [51]) by readding the WP:PA and WP:SOAP violation. Once more and, of course, he'll have violated 3RR as well, but the invicility (particularly in relation to an article on article probabtion) should probably be noted beforehand. Note that he has been blocked for incivility before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New version of the PA/SOAP added here with a snarky edit summary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nastiness and disruption continues. I've left a second civility warning, left a notice of this AN/I report, and also an article probation notice.[52] The editor appears incorrigible but we'll see. Can we please get a block if they continue disrupting the Obama talk page? We can't afford to go soft on that page. They've been blocked before for incivility and they know the drill. Wikidemon (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the claim of a "a second civility 'warning'", I never got the first.

I won't touch your precious Obama "talk" page anymore. I am apparently not of the correct opinion to have opinions and any disagreements will be crushed with a "second civility warning" that followed a phantom one. Add in the promises of blocks for some kind of continued disruption (two comments total there) and we find that the claim of "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" to be a bit of a sad joke. All of this stemming from a "talk" page of all pages.

BTW, whatever happened to the Wikipedian who invented AN/I? He left, didn't he? Said that he created a "monster" or something to that effect and along those lines? Looks like he was right.

Closing note: thanks for proving Wikipedia's detractors right. It didn't take much before you guys fell right into that partisan censoring line. You guys are pretty shameless about it. Likwidshoe (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at/by [redacted]

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted in response to an OTRS ticket. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Freep?

I've been warned that I might get "Freeped", as indicated at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202207/posts - Post 50. They apparently think I'm an admin or something. Woo-hoo! I would ask that my friends, enemies, and who-careses would NOT REVERT whatever they might post on my talk page (if anything), so that it will hopefully all be in one place and maybe make it easier to round up these mosquitoes. Thank's, y'all. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you change your mind, semi-protection is yours if you ask for it. And actually, I figured you were an admin... Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's the same person or not, but you were also been mentioned in a Newbusters comment. Switzpaw (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Freep crew.. I always wondered why they took a name that was so stylistically similar to creep.... SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Celebrity status! "I wrote this, and it was delted by an Admin named 'Baseball Bugs'." Not only I'm an Admin now, but I "delted" something. I don't know what that means, but it sounds dangerous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the best part of that post isn't "delted", it's the sig quote by "Ronald Reaga". Don't piss them off, they'll misspell things. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the reference to "Reaga". Right much pathetic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neophyte wants to e-mail Jimbo and have me "de-sysopped". [53] Well, that shouldn't take much effort. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So far just one blanker; and one attacker (and that was a repeater). It's nice to know the level of fear and respect we command among the drive-bys. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, "Free Republic" is one of the first things I thought of when this tedious troll showed up on my talk page (see User_talk:Antandrus#Why_is_Wikipedia_afraid_of_opposing_viewpoints.3F). It's the style -- the let's argue politics even though it's completely irrelevant to the issue, the constant harangue, the will-not-let-go manner. I finally just had to walk away from my computer. Good grief. Come to think of it, I wrote number 16 just for this. There is still an angry thread in their 2005 archives about my deletion of a page they tried to create called "Wikipedia liberal bias" (or some variation on that name, I forget). Antandrus (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, your mistake was to write "Pretend I'm a robot..." at which point the Anon IP pretended that he was a robot & began to repeat his point over & over, caught in an infinite loop. Or a race condition. Only thing one can do in that situation is reboot. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point. Drop the shields, let them have their way for a day, and let their self-righteous thunder dissipate. I'll keep that in mind next time one of these assaults comes along. I wonder if anyone has told these mushrooms that the election campaign is over, and they lost? Or would that fact be labeled as "liberal bias" also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully more blogs pick up on this information in that day. Won't matter to the Freepers, but some of the chan boards might want to name a new master troller... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying work avoidance reading your observations, Antandrus, and it seems like #37 (which made me spew my tea, thank-you-very-much) is particularly applicable here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Howcum nobody ever mistakes me for an admin? Dammit, I want my fifteen minutes of fame! HalfShadow 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I mistook you for an admiral the other day, if that helps. I was probably thinking of a half nelson for some reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark day (night?) for Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Use WP:DR on Talk:Barack Obama for content disputes; report WP:CIVIL violations to WP:WQA

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

---

I find the hostility to new users and those who express concerns about the omission of any mention of notable controversies in the Barack Obama article troubling. The story that spawned the outside interest is certainly amateurishly written, but the response here is even more troubling. I think it's a good question why Rev. Wright isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, for example. The article certainly seems scrubbed to me and far from NPOV. Perhaps I'm a radical fringey wacko nut-job for thinking that at the very least links to articles containing information on the controversial aspects of Obama's career, fundraising and associations should be provided. I think the hostile response to this outside scrutiny shows a bunker mentality and a lack of accountability (which ironically was a big criticism of the Bush administration). I hope some of the more responsible and objective editors here will step up to the plate and take people's concerns seriously and respond appropriately, instead of attacking every new user who seeks to remedy a quite reasonable, based on the evidence, perception of bias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article is fine. Nobody scrubbed it, and characterizations like that are unhelpful. The article represents careful editing, sourcing, and Wikipedia consensus. It is not true that there is no mention of controversies or negative claims about Obama. Reverend Wright is mentioned in a footnote because that is the consensus of the moment. There has been a concerted assault on various Obama subjects in the past few hours with many dozens and possibly hundreds of inappropriate edits and comments. A misleading off-wiki article was just written by an anti-Obama partisan, and emails and ignorant blog posts are flying comparing Wikipedia to Orwell, Stalin, and such, recommending people flock to fix Wikipedia's liberal bias. The comments that are starting to appear on our pages, when they aren't outright vandalism, mirror the partisan editing that arose during the election cycle and turned out to be the result of several editors with many different fake accounts. We gave them far too much patience last time, and thank goodness a no nonsense policy towards the disruption now. It is true that a few editors have taken a little too much glee in putting down the vexatious editors. However, that hardly makes this a dark day for Wikipedia. I am impressed that we withstand the assault as well as we have. For us to cave in the face of a frontal assault from a source that is, with good reason, not considered a WP:RS, would be the sad day. We need to hold the line, let this blow over, and if any serious editors from legitimate accounts have anything to propose, consider it like we always do, under Wikipedia policies and good sensible editing, not under taunts from detractors. Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Freepers and kossacks both can go back to their hidey-holes. I don't want them here. I don't see any reason to treat repeated paranoid claims about birth certificates as anything other than disruptive. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem to have come under a time-wasting deluge of silly edits by people with bizarre obsessions. That said, something about the response smells off. I see edits such as this one, in which somebody removes an unblock appeal because of "BLP violations and personal attacks": the only imaginable BLP violation is what's said about Obama, but it's very feeble stuff for somebody who as "potus" is routinely subjected to far worse, and the only other ingredients interpretable as personal attacks are the description of one user as a "liberal" (which I believe is an insult in far-right circles) and that of the blocking admin as "unfit for the job", a very humdrum (if counterproductive) response from somebody who's blocked. At least let these people rant on their user talk pages; the more of their own time they waste on these the less they have left over for other stuff. And the patterns of spelling mistakes, etc., make it easier to see which sets of IDs are the same people. -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness to BB, the real problem there was a non-admin removing an unblock request. I also agree w/ your comments that the things said in the unbock request were weak tea as far as the subject is concerned. Protonk (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because I saw a stupid BLP-violating rant, and failed to notice it was an unblock request. When he re-posted it, I left it alone and let an admin take care of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that. I guess I'm wonky about unblock requests. didnt' mean to imply that you meant wrong. Protonk (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should seriously consider locking down the article - in a state without drive-by NPOV tags, recent disputed additions, etc. We've done a commendable job avoiding with mayhem so far. That's involved constant article patrol attention from a number of editors, five (or more?) blocks, a sockpuppet report, several AN/I reports. Yet there is still some edit warring on the article and some heat on the talk page at what is normally the quietest time of the entire week. When North America wakes up for the morning and people read their blogs and email, things could be more out of control. Wikidemon (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, another whiny complainer who frets that there isn't enough criticism of Obama. Get over it. We have entire articles devoted to the controversy surrounding Obama (conveniently linked at AN, but you must have overlooked that). We don't do "Criticisms of ..." for obvious reasons. If you want your crackshoot racial- or general conspiracy theories, Conservapedia is where you need to be. seicer | talk | contribs 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are you calling "whiny", Seicer, and on what grounds? I see plenty of whining around that article but I see no whining here. Neither do I see any interest here in crackpot conspiracy theories as publicized in far-right websites. Anyway, even if somebody were a "whiny complainer who frets", please address the substance brought up by the complainer, or say directly that there is no substance; let's cut the ad hominem stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Let me find some fringe publication... oh wait, it's a non-respected right-winging [i]blog[/i], try to source it in Barack Obama, and let's see what happens. There is a reason we don't link out or cite garbage such as that, and if individuals have trouble seeing it that it is not a reliable source, then I question the validity or the constructiveness of their edits. Surely we can find editors who can determine what is reliable and what is fringe or just downright laughable -- and if the tagline at WND makes it anymore clear... seicer | talk | contribs 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was anyone "whiny" here, yes or no? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-citizen business really is Truther territory. But honestly, no mention of Ayers or Wright either in the main article or in the campaign article?

“ McCain barred using the Jeremiah Wright controversy in ads against Obama,[248] but the campaign did frequently criticize Obama regarding his purported relationship with Bill Ayers.[249] ”

Please to explain how this sentence appears in the main article on John McCain, but the only link in the Obama article to Jeremiah Wright controversy is in a footnote and the only link to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy is in a collapsed template. Thatcher 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It just looks to me like assuming good faith doesn't fly with the Obama articles. I don't remember putting this level of control on the Bush article, ever. Semi-protection, full protection, wheel-warring yeah, but I don't know the whole history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we must expose the truth because it is out there and people must know. In all seriousness, there are already articles that cover this, but what all these arguments boil down to is that these people want to add the controversies to the main article to give them more weight then they really have. Let's close this before it continues to digress. Brothejr (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, how about mentioning the controversy in the main article and linking to the fork, so that interested readers can follow it and disinterested readers can pass it by? Seems to work for John McCain. Thatcher 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher on this one. The incident was notable enough that it deserves a sentence IN THE TEXT with a wikilink or a {{main}} tag. To have the only reference in a footnote smells of hagiographic editing, which is just as a gross violation of POV as is intentional negative misrepresentation. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What these editors, who keep on bringing it up, are trying to do is point to other articles to prove their point. This is like trying to say that a Ferrari and a Mack Dump Truck are exactly the same thing. In this article, if you weight each controversy independently, you see that they do not carry that much if any weight. Most of them were election stunts by the conservatives and have no real substance. The main article is written in summary style, which means only the major points are covered in the main article with the rest in the daughter articles. Now the majority of these controversies are covered in the sub articles in depth. Yet, none of them raise to the level of the main article. What the main issue is that all the editors who are bringing it up want to give more weight to the controversies. Finally, to have a controversy section on the main article will only become a honeypot for everyone who has some crazy conspiracy related to Barack Obama. Again, lets close this thread. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Following your argument we should remove all negative entries from all articles, because we can never give weight to controversies. Controversies, or some of them, help define the person. Controversies that had enough merit to cause Obama to change places of worship and have to make public statement about someone with whom he was associated for decades, IIRC, and had other candidates have to make decisions as to how to address this in their campaigns (McCain's not using it) are worth at least ONE sentence in the main text and a wikilink to the full article. Anything else smells like post-event whitewashing and hero worship, which are just as bad POV violations as would be throwing in unsupported conspiracy theories. I agree this should not be its own section or paragraph, but it cannot be ignored either (specifically Wright). -- Avi (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the article and the sub articles, you will notice that the controversies that actually do have some merit and weight are both in the article and appropriate sections related to the controversy. Yet, what these editors want is not only these controversies but also many other smaller ones highlighted and expanded upon for everyone to see so that they can show how "dirty, evil, etc" the man truly is. Brothejr (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We've specifically decided to treat the Rezko and Wright affairs in one sentence each, the latter of which slipped into a footnote somehow. And we've decided the Ayers matter is too trivial to include in the main article. That's a content decision. The "dark days" for Wikipedia, and accusing other editors of hypocrisy, whitewashing, hagiographic editing, hero worship, and whatever else various people are saying about not being negative enough about Obama., are all not going to help much. We can deal with behavioral or administrative issues here. Wikidemon (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Determining how much weight to give a fact and whether it should be covered in the main article or a subarticle is obviously an editing dispute and does not require admin action, unless you decide to go on a vandalism spree about it (at which time you would presumably regret bringing it to our attention beforehand). It's important to keep in mind that these facts are covered, just not in the main article; talk page consensus is responsible for deciding whether facts are notable enough to cover at the top level. Dcoetzee 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"slipped into a footnote somehow"? Do expect me to take this seriously? Please address my original point, and stop using straw man arguments. The John McCain article, written in "summary style", manages to mention both controversies, with links to the main articles. There is no "Controversy" section, not even use of a {{main}} template to set it off. Now, is it your "content decision" that because the Wright and Ayers controversies were "election stunts" that they should be mentioned in the McCain article and not the Obama article? NPOV much? Or shall we remove the mentions from the McCain article since they were "election stunts" that he did not endorse or participate in, and are "trivial"? Thatcher 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent; editors of different pages may make different editorial decisions. Moreover, because McCain was not actually elected president, there is a greater focus for him on his presidential campaign, as opposed to his presidency. Dcoetzee 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've inadvertently hit upon the real issue - that the Weapons of Nut Destruction types apparently think the campaign is still going on. And by the way, it seems like the defenders have backed off and the wingnuts are taking over the Obama talk page - especially since the request for protection was denied. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like the complaining (and johnny-come-lately) user to define a different way to handle an orchestrated assault on wikipedia. Maybe we should just back off and let them go crazy for a day or so? That would certainly help wikipedia's credibility, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although Antandrus is suggesting we do just that. Maybe he's on to something. It's pretty hard for them to complain about censorship if we let their every change and comment go unreverted (for a day or so, anyway). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the man given the "Citizen of the Year Award" for 1997 by the People's Democratic Republic of, uh, Chicago important in Obama's life? I don't think that anyone who writes prose without foaming at the mouth has demonstrated this. But if we put aside mere facts and instead go after the truthiness, was this Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar important to Obama? In the view of the McCain election campaign, yes he certainly was. What do you do with baseless innuendo that has achieved truthiness? PDFTT: you revert, you semi-protect, or you protect. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased and POV warriors like Wikidemon, who are no different than Kossack and others except that they haven't been blocked, shouldn't be allowed to get away with their censorship. We're not talking about fringey unsourced speculation, we're talking about notable controversies and criticisms. At least a mention of Rev. Wright who Obama dedicated his book to and made two notable speeches addressing. The idea that this isn't notable enough or didn't receive enough mainstream news coverage is laughable. People keep mentioning articles on these subjects, but how are people supposed to find them? The number of personal attacks made by Baseball Bugs is also troubling. He should be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarily calling for blocks or other sanctions only serves to exacerbate issues, CoM. If you feel that there are editors here whose PoV's do not allow them to edit certain articles in the spirit of neutrality (be it a leaning to denigration or veneration) the proper steps to take are those of dispute resolutiion. If you have sufficient evidence, I would suggest filing a request for comment, keeping in mind the caveat that opening one allows others to peruse the filers edits as well. Good luck. -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, read all the personal attacks from Scjevessey and Baseball Bugs. And this on an ANI board. I don't make the suggestion to block this type of editor lightly, but clearly it's warranted based on their posts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright is mentioned in the Obama article, and a link is provided to another article where the controversy is discussed in detail, i.e. Jeremiah Wright controversy. Tagging articles is meant for legitimate concerns and valid, thoughtful rationales brought to the talk page. They are not for the sort of drive-by hysterics that people like you have been bringing to the article over the last day or so. Your edits to the Obama page are being made solely to push a minority POV, and are not being made in good faith, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright is not mentioned in the article. I also can't find any mention of his opposition to the surge, which was controversial. There's no mention of the type of high school he attended. There's no mention of anything that's controversial or that Wikidemon and his cronies think might cast a negative light on Obama. This is unfortunate and needs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will indulge in some slight WP:AGF and assume that you are simply unaware of this line in the article ("Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.") rather then willfully lying here in AN/I. As for the rest, the old "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is quite applicable. The ticky-tacky list about surges and high schools and such really only has "controversy" within the far right of the ideological spectrum. i.e. a fringe point of view, which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rev. Wright bit was just added a few hours ago here [54]. So I would thank you for not accusing me of lying. A better question is why mention of Wright was removed from the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his opposition to the surge is fringey. I think it was a key issue in the campaign and that the Iraq war was a critical issue he ran on. Punahou is one of the top private schools in the country and it's certainly worth noting in that context. I corrected this statement "Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image.[210] Not only did several polls show strong support for him in other countries,[211]" which is inconsistent to the sources provided. It should read: "Polls in other countries showed strong support for Obama over McCain during the 2008 campaign,[210]" which is what the source says. Also this statement "Obama established relationships with prominent foreign figures before his presidential candidacy, including with then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair,[212] with Italy's Democratic Party leader and then Mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni,[213] and with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.[214]" Is inaccurate. There is nothing in the source that says he establishe da relationship with Sarkozy. But any change to these innacurate and non-notable tidbits is immediately reverted. I think POV warriors of all stripes should be blocked. And those who make personal attacks should also be blocked. I thought that was our policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not discussing the changes you propose on the article talkpage? Your response to requests to do so [55] per WP:BRD has been instead to edit war for your version [56] and to edit war an unbalanced tag [57] [58]. It's unreal the complaining at ANI of poor response to concerns when you aren't using the article talkpage to propose edits and get consensus. Don't claim that the process is broken if you aren't bothering to participate in it. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I had commented on the talk page. And also commented here where the issue was being discussed giving example of good faith edits and corrections that are reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your article talkpage contributions at the time that I wrote my comment above were these two: [59][60], both ruminating that an NPOV tag was required due to "censorship." Nowhere on the talkpage had you discussed the material content edits that I linked above. ANI is not the place to discuss content edits, the article talkpage is. It is really disruptive to create ANI threads over content issues, claim censorship, and call for blocks when you yourself have not participated in the process. --guyzero | talk 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the need to respond to this comment by ChildofMidnight "The article is clearly biased and POV warriors like Wikidemon, who are no different than Kossack and others except that they haven't been blocked..." If he is comparing Wikidemon and other users working for NPOV (perhaps failing sometimes given natural human bias, but striving for it in good faith) to blocked user Kossack4Truth found to be one of the 23 socks of banned user BryanFromPalatine, who used his socks to edit war in tandem for years (and in all likelihood is still doing so with yet undiscovered socks) to introduce unsourced, pejorative and frequently demonstrably false information to articles, I recommend ChildOfMidnight retract his/her comment.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was comparing Wikidemon to other POV warriors who have been blocked. I have not made any suggestion that he uses sock puppets. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM, the problem is that K4T and other POV pushers that have made extended appearances on the article have all tended to be socks of editors that were blocked from editting on Wikipedia. Of the ones that were not socks, they tended to run afoul of WP:3RR because they preferred to edit war over getting their information included in the article, rather than actually discuss it on the talk page. For good or bad, the article is on the watchlist of more people that are opposed to extended voyages into the "controversial" aspects of Obama and the random appearances of a single editor that is trying to force in the "controversial" aspects is generally opposed by multiple editors. This means the single editor tends to get hit by WP:3RR, while the multiple editors that are opposing the inclusion end up dodging any reprecussions because they've only made one or two reverts. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The conduct issues going on with that article are being discussed above. May I close this section and suggest to all concerned that a discussion over how heavily the good reverend and the former radical should be featured in Obama's bio be remanded to that talk page? It doesn't really serve us to discuss those specifics here. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion of whether a group of editors can censor any mention of material they disagree with and prevent a neutrality tag from being added when there is a dispute. As you can see from the Obama talk page, numerous editors have tried to fix the article or to at least mark that it is unbalanced and have been reverted. At this point it is a matter of administrative concern. This discussion should not be closed until it is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but please note that what constitutes "censorship" will vary depending upon how significant a particular editor judges some content in regards to an article as a whole. So in order to persuade an admin that some ownership is going on (barring some obvious sign), we would first have to convince that admin that the content change was an agreed upon and beneficial one. That walks like a content dispute and quacks like a content dispute. But if you like, I won't call it a content dispute. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article is unbalanced and POV. It omits any mention of notable controversies and criticisms. The article doesn't provide any links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. Even the correction of poorly sourced and misleading content is immediately reverted. Hence the need for a fix or an unbalanced tag until the situation is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. There are apparently a number of editors that disagree with your assessment. The proper place to convince them that your opinion is correct is on Talk:Barack Obama not here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the article didn't mention Rev. Wright. It's not my opinion that there is no criticism or controversy section and that the notable ones aren't mentioned or linked to anywhere in or from the article. I'm certainly not the only editor who has raised these issues, yet any unbalanced or pov tag is treated as vandalism and the editors putting them in the article harassed. This is a problem that requires community attention until it is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And the proper place to discuss this is on Talk:Barack Obama not here. There are a multitude of ways to get community attention on a content dispute that does not involve long content discussions on WP:AN/I. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, this is digressing into a tit-for-tat argument. Please take it to the relevant talk page and maybe could we close this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothejr (talk • contribs)

Protection

Why wasn't ChildofMidnight blocked for edit warring like the rest of them rather than the article protected? Grsz¹¹ 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure I didn't edit war. I did try to correct some improperly sourced information and improve the article's balance. When that was reverted I tried to add an "unbalanced" tag to the article. On the other hand, I think the personal attacks made by Baseball Bugs and other editors shouldn't be allowed to stand on an Admin board. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I started a thread on data and citation manipulation to which this admin referred to as "stirring the shit", and asked me why I wouldn't "stop stirring the shit". [61] no comment.--Bizso (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have no comment on it, why do you start another thread on it? I maintain that "stirring the shit" fits your behaviour rather well, and I think I'll soon formally impose that editing restriction on you that was discussed the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"? --Bizso (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, given this is about a thread on WP:AN cross posting isn't helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also not a PA. WP:WQA is that a way. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...and as one of the regulars at WQA, I have to say this: being accused of "stirring the shit" is certainly not a public attack, nor uncivil. It's a description of an action (unless, of course, we're talking an actual physical/homosexual-based derogatory usage - which it clearly is not in this situation). Indeed, you could have been accused of "stirring up a hornet's nest" - also, not uncivil. But please, do open this at WQA so I can say the same thing :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't condoning the view that FutPer's statement was actionable, merely pointing out the appropiate venue. I'm hardly FutPer's greatest fan but I wouldn't even glare at him over this alleged incident. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not generally the appropriate venue ... but once it's here, it generally gets dealt with here (especially with related potentially threads above). This would be why I commented as if it was in WQA above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in this case, I say that Fut Pref is clearly protecting his certain users, by blurring and wiping the shit around them so that it becomes really hard to make a clear consistent and unbiased judgment on these cases. I made no personal attacks. Halleluja--Bizso (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna change my mind about that ANI ban proposal a few days earlier... Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Smanu

This user is continuously resorting to vandalism by deleting huge portions of the article The Fame Ball Tour under the pretext that this is a WP:NOTDIR. While NOTDIR doesnot state tour dates under it, this user is using this excuse to revert changes to the above article. Continuous explanations and warnings by myself and user:Sparks Fly have not resulted in any good. Please help. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just left this note on Legolas's talk page and will leave a similar one on Smanu's soon. I also made this dummy edit warning everyone that any further reverting will lead to protection and/or blocks. If anyone feels blocks et al. are already in order, feel free to do so. The only reason I didn't is because it doesn't seem they've been properly warned. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nina333/ Battlestar Galactica vandalism

Nina333 is continuously resorting to vandalism by deleting huge portions of the article Battlestar Galactica, as well other ridiculous and disruptive edits. Despite warnings, the user persists in vandalizing the article. magnius (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see much point in having an AfD for someone who is mentioned in the media virtually every day. Better to wait until media attention to her dies down before trying to nominate the article about her for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What you've got there basically is one editor who absolutely can't stand the fact that this baby factory has an article here. He objects on the grounds that there's already an article about the octuplets. I would argue the octuplets article is the "not notable" one, because they haven't done anything except to be born. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally think the woman in question is an messed-up idiot, and the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life, the sad fact is that this issue overally does merit some encyclopedic entry because of the same reasons I just gave. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, it may not be right but you can't say that only one editor questions this bio, several voted delete. Non admins shouldn't really close early or close contentious AfDs, I think per WP:NAC, which I know is just a guideline but makes sense. It should be reopened as the close was not in accordance with standard practice, the snowball clause or guidelines. Having said that, it would eventually have been an obvious keep, but why not wait till the end so no-one can say it's not been handled in the standard fashion. Sticky Parkin 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At the AfD, some editors want two articles, some editors want them to be merged, some editors want no articles at all. A contentious AfD with 30+ contributors should be closed with more explanation than 'keep'. Non-admins shouldn't be anywhere near the closure (IMHO). One problem with these AfDs is the appearance of trying to stifle debate: firstly by closing AfD/1 after less than twelve hours here, then trying to get AfD/2 closed in equally quick time here, then appealing to this page to get AfD/2 closed early (see above), finally getting another non-admin closure. If there is consensus for anything, then fair enough. But let's discuss it, find consensus, and close the debate properly. (MHO is no consensus, but whatever.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I initiated the first AFD on BLP policy, albeit a section of policy which has been poorly enforced and may very well not be policy at all. I don't believe that a NAC was inappropriate in that case, since at that point it was not particularly contentious (i.e. WP:SNOW) and I as nominator had withdrawn it. I was not involved in the second AFD and have no opinion there. SDY (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first AfD's close complies with WP:Speedy keep, clause 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking of BLP, we should probably be more careful about slinging around phrases like "baby factory", "messed-up idiot" and the ethics board comment. Exxolon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was careful to state that it was my personal opinion. If it was anywhere near an article, there would be an issue, as it would be WP:OR. I'll never be called to provide testimony at said ethics board, so it's not an issue. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear it's a personal opinion helps, but BLP does apply outside non-article space. It applies on ALL pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what admin action is really required here. If you don't like the article being kept WP:DRV if always availablt to contest that. Disclaimer: I opined that the article is a keeper given the significant coverage of her. It would be interesting if WP:DRV came out differently (don't hold your breath), as we'd have a much higher bar to get rid of some articles on marginally notable (under the current regime) subjects....but I digress. Should this be marked "resolved"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would an admin simply endorse/overturn/reopen the AfD? DRV shouldn't be necessary, as this NAC is clearly outside the limits suggested by the relevant guideline and its supporting essay. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —striking per information provided by MBisanz Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seddon (talk · contribs) is an admin, see WP:FORMER, he just currently does not have the sysop flag by his own choice. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we have problems with BLPs

I am gravely concerned when a thread supposedly started to discuss concerns about article deletion promptly turned into an opportunity to bash the subject of the article: "baby factory", "messed-up idiot", "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life". This is unacceptable. The editors who have made such comments should consider themselves warned, and I hope they will give thought to striking such commentary. Very disappointing. Risker (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your possible concern, fromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Ladies and gentlemen, an ARBcom has spoken. The phrase "lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. Fear not, I'll be dutifully reporting that phrase to the BLP noticeboard ASAP. Badger Drink (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh!?! Shot info (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Suicide Threat?

Resolved

 – Exactly what I thought.

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

---

Call it as you please I'm only here to see what you guys think of this edit. Rgoodermote  13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a jerk, but look like simple vandalism, WP:RBI would apply here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but, I figured I'd see what others think before just ignoring. Rgoodermote  13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:THF

• This is being discussed above. No need to duplicate this. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The above discussion has closed as the main editor involved has left the building; situation concerning other editors may still be developing and in need of outside attention. Skomorokh 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this It's relevant to note THF self-declared here that he is a "Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute" see the bottom of this article he saiys he wrote. "When not compiling movie statistics, xxxxxx is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He directs the AEI Liability Project."

• Point #1: Within the top edit he offers: "I'll avoid all main-page edits to avoid unnecessary contention." in regards to an appearance of a conflict of interest.
• Point #2: many "insiders" here at Wikipedia know of THF's connection with a powerful organization (apparently it was acknowledged on his User page at one time) which might influence some editors,like myself, to stay away from him.

Re: point #1, perhaps his offer should be considered.

Re: point #2, perhaps in the context of fair and equal disclosure, at least the history of THF's User page should be undeleted. Abbarocks (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With regards to point 2, for good or ill Wikimedia allows contributors to be anonymous, and further allows them to take such measures as are feasible to regain anonymity once breached (by their own actions or others'). Undeleting portions of THF's user page specifically to breach his anonymity would be unprecedented and entirely contrary to current privacy policies. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? I'm the resident fellow for the lollipop guild. So long as I'm behaving in an ethical manner, it shouldn't be a problem. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How many different sections involving THF and Abbarocks do we have to have around here? //roux   16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Abbarocks, I thought you'd resigned? I don't think it's very nice of you to post links from 2007 to try and "out" an editor who has made it clear he would prefer some privacy. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you're just trying to stir up drama. Over the top comments such as

"I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way ... I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner"

make it hard for us to take this seriously. You've been posting all over this page and at WQA, trying to present the fact that THF has/had a job in a think tank as if it was evidence of a vast conspiracy against you. I know you disagree with this editor, but you can't just keep throwing shit at him in the hope that some of it will stick. yandman 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Preserving a reputation

We really don't need seventeen bazillion threads on this. Talk:Barack Obama is thataway. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. --John (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For a long time I have held Wikipedia in great respect (even with it's occasional quirks and editing wars) due to the idea behind it: unbiased dissemination of information to the public of the world. Of all organizations out to change the world in their own way, I supported Wikipedia the most because I could believe in it.

So, now I have to ask the question of... what's going on with the bias? Your rules state that you consider information to be valid if it's corroborated by at least one major news source, or many reputable smaller news venues. And what of documented history? Is that now subject to 'peer review' on select bits of content? I thought the goal was to let people grow and learn on their own, not to indoctrinate them on select views that you deem to be acceptable.

Put Ayers back in Obama's page, and allow posting of the eligibility concerns. Regardless of your own personal views on these subjects, they ARE valid news, and they ARE history - and you haven't the right to censor them for any reason. These things are documented facts of valid concerns, and people have the right to read them and believe or disbelieve as they choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.153.123 (talk • contribs)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Undue weight to explain this issue. There are way too many crackpot conspiracy theories in the world to include all of them at every opportunity. In the meantime, I don't see where any admin intervention is required here. Specific article concerns should be discussed on the article talk pages. Friday (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was written by 74.192.153.123 (talk · contribs). Don't things here get autosigned? Hmm. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Preserving a reputation" - LOL What reputation? Its reputation for politburo-like political purges? I think that's pretty safe - even though it's taken on an unusually big "purge" now. See ya. No Time Toulouse (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus there are entire articles devoted to these controversies. Can people really not read all the material before complaining. A biographical article is not like a biographical book, it has be more concise. The article focuses on the person and sub articles deal with the rest. It is all well linked together. Furthermore, it is the product of months of consensus by a lot more editors than are currently complaining or have ever been bothered to be involved until they read some shock horror story on a blog. People need to have some respect for the community and process that got the articles to this point and realize that coming along this late on and expecting to have things changed instantly without reading and understanding all the discussions, arguments and processes that have got it to this point is unfair and does not allow for clear representation of the facts of the situation. This little destructive incident is dwarfed by the constructive collaboration that got us to this point. Mfield (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People can't read those articles, because there is no link to them from the Obama article. Once this is fixed I think a lot of the concerns would be alleviated, although the article itself is clearly not balanced and also needs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Rabbit bites

Could somebody check, whether this merits an article and, if yes, whether this article meets :en standards. - (coming over from Commons to where a related image was uploaded)Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It could use some formatting/wikifying help, but it appears to meet notability standards. --Masamage ♫ 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Secthayrabe & User:Secthaycaan: continued page creation vandalism.

Continued from this previous AN/I post:

User:Secthayrabe repeatedly recreated Nabil Rastini until it was salted, at which point he started doing variants such as Nabil' Rastini & Nabil A Rastini. I gave him an only warning for inappropriate pages. The extremely similarly named account, User:Secthaycaan, has recreated Nabil' Rastani. (I initially considered this a vandalism issue, but AIV told me to come here.) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Secthayrabe's talk page says he has retired; but he still has User:Secthayrabe/Nabil Rastani in his user space. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, both users' pages say retired, yet they continue to edit. Their recent contribs are almost entirely related to Nabil Rastini. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Secthaycaan has been continuing Secthayrabe's pattern of page-creation vandalism. See his talk page for all the CSD notices. I suggest blocking both accounts and account creation to prevent further disruption. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 76.24.114.232

After attacking an editor at Talk:Barack Obama, this IP then reacted to the usual talk page warning with further unpleasantness. The IP has now continued his inappropriate behavior here. I would like to request admin intervention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I missed that one. Awesome. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching Talk:Barack Obama, and looked out for that IP after their first edit. Blocked for 24 hours by me while you reported this here: this could have gone to WP:AIV but no harm was done reporting it here. Acalamari 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Relatively huge spike in random-IP vandalism

In a couple of cases it's random IP bombing, but most of it seems to be coming from specific IPs. Also, each IP seems to be targeting a specific article. Has someone left a gate open or something? HalfShadow 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

is it spring break already? --Ludwigs2 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs using Wikipedia as a storage location.

This diff shows an IP tucking away a character file into an article, no doubt for later recovery. This is not the first time, either see this as well. I'd like to request that both be oversighted out, as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace; this is not the purpose of WP. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's already fairly commonplace. HalfShadow 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, Oversight will not deal with such edits, Thuran. Sorry. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn shame. Such edits ought to be deleted to discourage them entirely. On the other hand, good to know we can all abuse the site ad nauseum from now on. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins can, with some effort, nuke the revision out of the publicly visible history (deleted revisions of page, etc). However, is that even justified? Is just deleting it out of the active page good enough here? Yeah, it's not completely gone, but it's fairly gone, someone has to know about histories to go find it now.

I'm open to the answer being "It needs to go away harder" but that should be explained and justified if you think it is... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

stray question....what is that sort of thing used for? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a HeroMachine save "file". I just happen to have the software and I've loaded his character onto my computer. Looks like some sort of Asian Sith Lord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the other one is some assassiny knife wielder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for filling my head with yet one more piece of irrelevent garbage. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest I can't see the point of considering oversight for this specific form of vandalism. Add together "Wikipedia is on the Internet", "Wikipedia is freely editable" and "I am a complete numpty who will happily use freely editable resources on the Internet for my own purposes" and this sort of thing will happen, as will people using talkpages as a message board, people thinking an article on their dog/band/girlfriend/cake recipe must appear on here. It's no different to people seeing "L1z suz c0k" on a page and saying to themselves "aha! i could create a page like that too", and nobody (surely) is considering oversight for all vandalism "as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace". WP:RBI, applies, doesn't it, just as for any persistent vandalism? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC, servers were acting up, ryulong said a lot of what I'd tried to say) For those unclear about this, this string represents the save data for a character for an internet game of some sort. The difference between this an 'joo allz zuk kawk' is that this editor is seeking to squirrel away actual usable data in our edit histories, which he can recover and use later. This is far more a WP:NOTMYSPACE violation, or WP:NOTYOURHARDDRIVE, perhaps. Wikipedia shouldn't be abused as an off-site storage site. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. See Numbers station. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is doubting the fact that what the text is used for, I can provide an image of the output. :P And, yeah, this is a vio of notmyspace or notharddrive because this can be saved in a freaking .txt—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the sticky nature of oversight (interaction with WMF policy, real world copyright issues, local policy, and dramaz) its highly unlikley a drastic measure will be taken. I would support however, a single revision deletion of that edit - although we need to actually get that featured installed for us non-OS admins.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Popo le Chien

reposted from WP:AIV Hello,

Could someone please block Arammozuob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Auclairde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and semi-protect Wikipedia:Notability_(numbers) for a little while?
Both accounts are likely sockpuppets of Boubaker et al.: a couple of regular edits and then going straight into editing notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination) for a better understanding of the whole story. Thx, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Auclairde and semiprotected Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Arammozuob's immediate interest in Notability (numbers) is surprising but he has yet to make any Boubaker-type edits. For previous background, in addition to the AfD discussion that was mentioned, see:

EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the other one as well.  Confirmed as the Boubaker polynomials vandal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Popo le Chien is an old WP:FR vandal who is declaring expressively (in his blog page [62] that he came to WP:EN to delete a page just per Hatered, Vengence anfd Racism...

He is declaring to his band (Users Jean_Clémént_Martin, jean-Roger_Tixier_Toutain, Nicolas_GUILMAIN Gilles_ and the others) that he WON on WIKEPEDIA:EN !!!

Please be aware, the user Arammozuob is not an Arab Country issued IP, so how can it be a sockpuppets of Boubaker?? Please, WP:EN will notice taht this user has been blocked instatously at the demand of POPO le chien?????, with no mention of valuable reason ...

further

Please unblock these users and let Racism away from WP:EN.Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof of racism, please, or go away. All I see is a checkuser confirming that there's skulduggery going on. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Shari Lewis called. She wants her sock puppets back. MuZemike 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bradbeker quacks and is unblocked. Even sounds like Boubaker. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism or not?? (to Jeremy , Looie496 and honest Administrators

A contributing user with no unusual act was blocked (undininitely) with the UNIQUE reason :Issued from an ARAB country IP !!!! by a FRENCH WP user acting in EN:WP and expressing in the reference above his real intentions of forcing decision in WP:EN!!!!!!, this Racism or not??? So please, end these miserables acts, (even ordinary in FR:WP) never encountred in WP:EN, unless you agree with the mentioned reason ??!!!

Anyone know why I am mentioned in the edit summary? Apparently his disputed edit was "approved by Mazca" among others. I have no recollection of ever being involved in this article or dispute in any way. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SonicScrew

Apologies if this in the wrong place...was going to post this on WP:AIV, but this user has not yet received any warnings.

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

This account has been used almost exclusively to quietly vandalize articles by making subtle changes, frequently changing numbers and dates that are not likely to be noticed. They have gone as far as to revert reversions of their edits, but they have yet to receive any warnings for their behavior. I was going to revert their vandalism and leave a warning, but many of the vandalized pages have had numerous intervening edits, making it difficult to a) discover which ones have not yet been reverted, and b) undo these changes. Do admins have tools to assist with repairing this damage? Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest a block, seeing that this is essentially a vandalism-only account. I'm sure the blocking admins would find it useful if you could post some diffs of his/her behaviour. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked, nothing good over several days. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. These types of vandals are very hard to find. It's too bad that no one warned him, but vandalism-only accounts can be blocked without warning. Given that this has continued over several days, it's not likely that this leopard will change his spots; if anyone disagrees, feel free to comment here - and if other admins want to overturn feel free but please clean up after this user as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the remaining problems, most notably in Mikhail Gorbachev. I'm sort of surprised that nobody has that article watchlisted. Anyway, it's amusing that after vandalizing the article himself several times last week, his most recent edit to it actually looks valid. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipe Spam

Resolved

 – Hardblocked

Rklawton (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried reporting this at WikiProject Spam, but there has been no response. It seems a user is creating new accounts and repeatedly spamming a recipe (usually with an edit summary like "added recipe") to random pages. Warning is of no use, as only a small number of vandalism edits are made before each account is abandoned. Examples follow:

• LeftMorall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuideHeadss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Virtual Reactionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kitchener753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheirSmilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiveGrayy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voluptuosity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raspberryshandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AboveLoann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoingAreass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangeyouglad830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ubersardonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WithHairr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimeExact3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimePanell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalestartt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EndedDailyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The tallest man in Togo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• How do Pigs eat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagatelle (talk • contribs) Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a very good recipe. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; it tastes like chicken. Which is sort of unusual, since it's a banana bread variant. HalfShadow 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Add *History Demon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Also, the recipe is the one from the Banana bread article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipes? Spam? Banana bread? I'm about to go into pun-overload. At least there's no article recreation requiring that the article be "salted". More seriously, could a sock puppet investigation or checkuser get the underlying IP blocked? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD canvassing?

I just noticed the following and am not sure if there's anything to it: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], etc. If that's okay, then okay, no big deal (hence, why I am not accusing the specific user in the title of this section), but wasn't sure if as that editor did, we're allowed to contact so many editors. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been contacted about AfD's before (some airport I don't remember) where a user contacted all people who had participated in a prior debate on a similar topic. It's not really a problem unless they are only recruiting people from one side of the debate, they may simply be ensuring that there is some consistency in the debates about similar deletions. SDY (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. My feeling is that all article writers should be contacted as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the flag is raised specifically because those who !voted keep in that previous AFD were not notified, no? MuZemike 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...never mind. Those notification were handed out to the keep !voters as shown [78] and [79]; they were not included above. MuZemike 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the etc. was to suggest that there were more than just those I listed as I figured I probably missed some as the edit summaries were unclear. Would it be appropriate to post a similar message on the talk page of anyone who worked on the articles in question? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block

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

Resolved

 – Administrator intervention not required. Appeal to ArbCom at WP:RFAR, but it is doubtful that they will endorse or look into the matter as the clarification specifically states that these sorts of edits are disallowed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:ScienceApologist was just blocked for making three spelling corrections and link fix: [80], [81], [82] and [83]. As no fringe science content was involved, this looks like needless drama. I hope someone with good sense puts a stop to it and cautions the Admins involved to use better judgement in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying he edited fringe articles while he is banned from editing fringe articles and got blocked for evading his ban? Brothejr (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. His topic ban is as states:

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

By editing the page in question he violated the above. Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The block was dubious and ridiculous. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or not. SA has made it clear he will not abide by the ArbCom sanctions imposed on him. Indeed, he announced that he would be making edits like this as a form of 'civil disobedience.' The thing about civil disobedience is that you tend to get arrested anyway. Context here. //roux   01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How does correcting spelling and a link have anything to do with quackery? This is absurd, and I say that as a fan of quackery. Now we have to have a long drawn out discussion because somebody got trigger happy over spelling corrections? This is absurd to the extreme. And Seicers personal attack below is a much more substantial violation of our guidelines, but will be let stand. This is a joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he has a newly installed meatpuppet, as indicated by the request. The case was decided upon at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and there was a clarification that was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist. As noted here, continued abuse by editing fringe articles, even if it is for spelling corrections, will lead to an outright permanent topic ban. These blocks cannot be overturned by administrators, and can only be appealed to ArbCom. As they just ruled on the clarification and agreed with the amendment noted above, it is highly unlikely they will even accept case or look further into it. No administrator intervention is required. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's personal attacks and disruptive edits today are disturbing [84]. I thought he was retired? Please try to keep in mind that we're here to improve the encyclopedia not make personal attacks and rants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, accusing people of being puppets merely because they side with someone you don't like is inappropriate behavior for an admin. You also appear to not understand what a meatpuppet is. I hope this isn't indicative of your normal behavior. kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an example of someone looking for an excuse. There was no change of content at all. Was the topic ban intended to prevent all improvement of the encyclopedia, or to prevent change of relevant content by SA? I believe it was the latter. If he is abiding by the spirit of the ban by not changing relevant content, and using his time to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia by fixing minor errors without changing content, what is the purpose of this block? Is it to prove that punishment is the name of the game? I totally support the concept behind the ban, and I have never defended SA's style, but this is ridiculous. This is the type of thing a child incapable of understanding the reasons behind complex matters would do. It's just focusing on the letter and forgetting the spirit. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This board and its respondents don't have the authority to overrule an ArbCom imposed topic ban. Its enforcement is plainly within the text of the remedy, and has essentially been ratified by the Committee in any case. Refer to WP:RFAR for further action. Avruch ^T 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Admins should set a good example and be expected to use common sense, not shoot blindly in the dark and close discussions when they can't provide well-reasoned responses. BTW, the admin who made the block can self-revert as an act of good faith. That might restore some measure of trust in this process. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious close of thread

An editor has quickly closed a new thread when there is strong disagreement and the issue remains unresolved. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, starting a new thread immediately below in an attempt to disrupt the administrators' noticeboard results in either closure or migration to a related topic. There is nothing that can be done, sans an appeal to ArbCom which is unlikely to even take place. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Hmmm...I followed the instructions -- Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. and you then improperly edited my comments by moving them into a closed section, thus essentially blocking the participation of the community in this matter. Are admins immune from community scrutiny, or do they have a right to ignore it? This is really embarrassing. I'd be embarrassed to be an admin at this moment. It would appear that you have more at stake in this matter than the blocking admin. Interesting. You have previously been called out for your protection of quackery and fringe topics and their editors here. Is this a continuation of your strategy? Let's face it, you closed the discussion too early, at a point when it was obviously not resolved. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically a good block. I'd make those edits by proxy if asked...so I'm not really sure what the block serves.... --Onorem♠Dil 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] "Technically", yes. But not in spirit. It stinks. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on Quackuru. The thread clearly states (and seicer even put it in the closing remarks) where the issue needs to be taken if you wish to pursue it further. If you aren't satisfied with how things stand, take it to WP:RFAR. This is not the place, as has been explained already. Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's remark can be ignored, since he doesn't make the rules. The blocking admin has the right to change their mind and save their honor. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Seicer can also save some semblance of honor by reopening the thread that obviously was not resolved. The tag he placed at the top of that thread is a bald faced lie. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that I must repeat myself? ARBCOM passed a motion that administrators cannot overturn or reverse action taken in pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, unless there is written authorization of ARBCOM or that there is clear community consensus to do so. This is specific to users, passed in a motion in January 2009. seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't refer to self-reverting, only to one admin reverting another, IOW to prevent wheelwarring. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And he has no inclination to overturn. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] I don't see much evidence that you are giving him a chance to talk. This is your battle, and you have taken over. That's a shame. And you have indeed misused and misquoted an ArbCom ruling to justify your actions here. Shameful. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no significant harm at this point from letting users continue to discuss on this board, especially in the interest of stopping the forest fire and centralizing the discussion. That having been said, there isn't any gain either. We are not interested in Wikipedia becoming a battleground over ScienceApologist, his edits, or his cause celebre.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear community consensus that typo fixing is OK? I don't agree with many of SAs edits, but this block is stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the basic issue here. Please get a decision on this. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree that blocking for spelling corrections is disruptive, unwarranted, and creates unnecessary drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'd agree too, if that was why ScienceApologist was blocked for. It was not. Any attempt to frame the debate this way is simply setting up a strawman to be knocked down— he was blocked for willfully and deliberately violating a topic ban that was even clarified a few days ago. He did so after having been warned in no equivocal terms that he would be blocked if he did. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Coren, this is about three spelling corrections and a link fix. If SA spends the next six months or even one month correcting spelling and making non-controversial edits that would be fabulous. There was no need for this block. THere was no dispute. This wasn't a grey area. This was spelling and a link fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Whether the block is proper or not, Seicer's early marking of "resolved" archiving the thread is inappropriate since a couple of editors began to point out on his "persona attacks" and absurd accusation. That act seems like he wants to wrap up or divert the "new" topic. However, that kind of his incivility is nothing new.--Caspian blue 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You should review the history. I didn't initially archive the thread, but only applied the resolved tag since no administrator action is required. seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I fix my comment accordingly. (the meaning is not that much changed though)--Caspian blue 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I marked it as resolved because it was inappropriate to post it in this board as no administrator action was required. The OP should have brought this up to the blocking administrator, who was not even informed of this thread until I notified him. seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • You know I did not comment on the merit of the block.--Caspian blue 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of SA in the sense that I believe almost all of his edits have been improvements, and overall he's been a great asset to Wikipedia, but he's clearly been fishing for a block and I can't see any reasonable way to avoid giving him one. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Rfar#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science--Tznkai (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, this isn't about spelling corrections. SA is quite clearly attempting to de-legitimize ArbCom, a democratically elected body charged with enforcing WP-wide policy. I see little reason to reward this behavior. Close this thread, please. Ronnotel (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Offer to SA

I disagree with most of your edits from a pov perspective, but feel free to leave me a note if you'd like simple things corrected like you edited today. I'll make clearly productive edits by proxy if you need to avoid silly sanctions that are unrelated to generic fixes. --Onorem♠Dil 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent offer, Onorem. As SA's mentor I've been waiting for a response from him about today's events. Normally I wouldn't advocate proxy editing, but for simple spelling corrections and things like that your proposal looks like a very good way to move forward. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, proxy editing is something explicitly contemplated by the arbitration ruling, which permits SA to participate on the talk page.

SA's behavior here is like the little kid who gets told don't step one foot outside of his room, and then does just that to test the parents. He's entitled to engage in civil disobedience, but WP:POINT is WP:POINT, and part of civil disobedience is accepting the resulting punishment. THF (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Adil your

I think this guy needs a block frankly. He was unblocked recently and carried on reverting against consensus again. His sources are ridiculous and in my opinion his edits aren't much more useful than vandalism, eg Khemkaran using defencejournal.com - the ref article is nonsense and non-RS written in a childish tone, laughing off conventional history etc. The same on the others, citing the pak govt as truth on wars involving pakistan. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing and edit warring. Tried to explain about consensus editing on his user talk page. I'm OK with another admin lessening the block if Adil your seems to understand and acknowledge that disruptive editing and edit warring aren't acceptable behavior, but if you do so please be prepared to reimpose if they revert to this behavior again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick block review requested

Resolved

 – No problem here; block deserved on username alone; actions are purely secondary.

I indef blocked Wikinìgger (talk · contribs) per the obviously profane username. A moment later I realized that the account vandalized my talk page here. Not a big deal, but it might be considered inappropriate of me to block a user who vandalized my userspace, so I'd like a quick confirmation from another admin. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Username alone deserves an indef. Endorsed. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

good block. You don't need to second guess yourself when it's this obvious. Ronnotel (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I just prefer to err on the side of caution. :) Thanks for the input. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's he going to do, start an ANI thread about it? Jtrainor (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised we do not have a username filter that disallows that as a username at the point of user creation. Mfield (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The third 'I' looks weird; he probably used that to sneak past the filters. HalfShadow 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, I assumed it was dirt on my screen, should have known better as I came across the same trick the other day, plus I was dealing with the request just below that is closely related. Maybe extending the filter to catch the accented Is would be smart, as there are a few of them. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And the dotless "i" (ı) as well, and the number "1" as either "i" or "l", like spam filters do to prevent ads for Ro1ex watches and Vıagra, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive and unnecessary talk page?

Is this talk page really necessary? The account is blocked and the userpage deleted. And if a speedy delete template or MfD would have been more appropriate than here please let me know. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted and salted. Mfield (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF posing as an Admin

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Horologium (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to mark "resolved" WP:COI issues as per here

I wouldn't have thought just anyone would be allowed to do this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to Wikipedia:COIN#User:WebHamster_and_article_Round_the_Horne.

Per WP:MULTI, "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." I don't see a requirement of adminship needed to do that. If anyone besides the disruptive editor who made 22 edits to COIN finds my shutting down that mess problematic, when it was entirely redundant of a pending mediation, and consisted of the two editors in that mediation squabbling, feel free to revert me. THF (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was right in the middle of posting diff's for evidence when it was closed. I asked THF to reopen it here, however he ignored this request and then promptly changed his closing "reasoning" making it impossible to revert. Can some random non-admin editor really come in and close a discussion while someone is in the middle of posting their evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it's a wiki. Their decision to close can also be overturned, by a consensus of editors who, too, need not be administrators. Skomorokh 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So..I can reopen it and continue to post my evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Given WP:MULTI and WP:HOUND and WP:TLDR and WP:COOL, I don't recommend reopening a COIN discussion dealing with the same subject as a pending mediation on the possibility that your 23rd edit to the section will be more persuasive than the first 22, but that would be up to an administrator whether that sort of disruption is worth a preventative block as the only means to get you to drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was more interested in a third party opinion. Considering you closed the WP:COI section while I was in the middle of posting diff's, I have noted your position quite clearly. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You state that you were in the middle of posting evidence. I have to ask why you did not post such evidence when you were creating the thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that the "evidence" of COI that BSOD made a dozen posts on my talk page and at ANI about before undoing the thread closure to make his 23rd post was File:Zcolne1.jpg--in other words, the editor with whom he has been squabbling with attended a concert. I feel like I've been trolled. THF (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey again

Please see User talk:Ultramegasuperstar. He blocked this user for sockpuppetry, with no further reasons. --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. Good block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And Bollywood-Turk (talk · contribs) isn't the new user his contributions suggest, so... dougweller (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially given YellowMonkey has CheckUser, I'm inclined to trust any sockpuppet blocks from him. Suggest this thread simply be closed. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 4.227.106.12

4.227.106.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repetitive nonsense vandalism to BabyFirstTV article such as changing the date of it being founded from 2003 (the correct date with a reference from the channel's official website) to 1982 (false). Same vandalism has twice been reverted. Why vandalize an article about a channel made for babies, I'll never know, but its ridiculous. Please block them. I already reported them on WP:AIV but they told me to come here. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is probably kind of pointless in this case. While the user has made, what, five, six acts of vandalism to the page, he edits in very short stints and then reappears later under a different IP. The issue of sufficient warning aside, blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and, well, a block probably wouldn't prevent anything in this case. If he returns, it will probably be in several hours or days under a different IP. So just stay vigilant, and revert/warn/ignore. If he does pass four warnings, feel free to return to AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• 4.227.109.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP vandalism, possible WP:sock puppet of 4.227.106.12, vandalism of BabyFirstTV. Both IP's are changing the year the network was founded from 2003 (clearly stated on the channel's official site and referenced with an inline citation) to 1982 (obviously untrue, no reference cited) without explanation. Please block both IP's.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought i'd like to point out that TomCat has had a history of edits that include edit-warring, personal attacks, jumping to conclusion before getting all the facts, and making claims that people are sockpuppets without proof. Plus merging and redirecting pages without starting discussion. And i may or may not be out of line, but i know a semi or fully disruptive user when i see one. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never done any of that and I ask you to WP:AGF before making accusations like that. I make constructive edits to dozens of articles a day and I'm a member of WP:CVU. I would appreciate it if you stopped this blatant WP:harrassment.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, and you have done all of that: merging Toon Disney into Disney XD without discussing and it wasn't untill after a few users reverted you started a discussion [85]. And i never said you vandalpzing pages, disruptive edits can be more than vandalism. And secondly i'm sorry if it seems i'm harrassing you but your edits are very suspicious. And the block for edit-warring and harrassment raises an eyebrow [86] and before you go check my block log i admit that i've been edit-warring too in Feburary but is stopped that after i gained rollback rights. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the one not getting all of the facts. I stopped the merge war 3 days ago and discussed it in on the board. You are clearlyhounding me which IS a form of harrassment. If you continue to do so I will request you get permanently blocked.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you got the facts all wrong. I wasn't really blocked. The tell tale sign was the "block" said "for an eternity". It was really a long term WP:sock puppet vandal pretending to be an administrator who was in turn REALLY permanently blocked for vandalizing my page by a REAL administrator. I HAVE NEVER BEEN BLOCKED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolding, caps, yelling and arguing are not helping here. The case is in full view of the admins - the links are available to all - and the immediate post above merely detracts from your case as a whole. I'd recommend a few deep breaths. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just took a close look ... how many times did you re-merge articles after the first reversion? You were bold, it was reverted, it became time to discuss immediately. I'm trying to find one good reason why your actions were not themselves actioned ... that said, this quite possibly has no relationship to the complaint filed (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the person is clearly hounding me and has been since Saturday because she's mad at me because of the TD / DXD debate. Well I haven't touched the article in 3 days, and I contributed to the discussion instead, which is still unresolved btw. and I don't appreciate this harrassment and all of these false accusations. Look at their contributions for proof.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Break it up, break it up, PLEASE!!!

Talk:Goguryeo controversies - these users have gotten out of control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The behaviour you're complaining about, while certainly problematic, appears to be about two weeks old. I've added the page to my watchlist, and will intervene if problems continue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism or not?? (to Jeremy , Looie496 and honest Administrators)

A contributing user with no unusual act was blocked (defeinitively) with the UNIQUE and expressed reason :Issued from an ARAB country IP !!!! by a FRENCH WP user acting in EN:WP and expressing in the reference above his real intentions of forcing decision in WP:EN!!!!!!, is this Racism or not??? So please, end these miserables acts, (even ordinary in FR:WP) never encountred in WP:EN, unless you agree with the mentioned reason ??!!!

Anyone know why I am mentioned in the edit summary? Apparently his disputed edit was "approved by Mazca" among others. I have no recollection of ever being involved in this article or dispute in any way. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:55, 10 March 2009Bradbeker (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)