Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.239.23.70 (talk) at 17:00, 23 November 2009 (→71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

    71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as 75.22.138.39 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo." As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami. Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But he is a Piccolo Jr. The characters from the "Dragon Ball" series have to call him that name. He should be called Piccolo Jr. forever. Piccolo Jr. is not his full name or nickname. The only nicknames he has are Ma Junior and the Namekian. He doesn't have a last name. He never had a last name. He's just Piccolo Jr. the fifth and final nephew of Kami, the fifth and final son of King Piccolo, and the fourth and final brother of Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine. He's not King Piccolo reincarnated, because first, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. Kami is his uncle. King Piccolo is his father. And Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine are his brothers. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr. are two different characters. So please, I want his biography changed back to way it was I had written it. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now you see the type of rants we've had to put up with. He/she just keeps going on and on repeating the same points over and over and over again, despite multiple editors points out that the points are completely wrong. Its as if that by restating the points, he thinks that they will somehow become the truth. —Farix (t | c) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    72.22: Could you provide reliable, independent sources of information which can be verified backing your contention? If so, then discuss them on the article's talk page, reach a concensus, and then have the article changed. If not, then the information in the article should clearly stand as it is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any sources. I just know the truth about Piccolo Jr. and his family. And I'm a boy by the way. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No sources, no Wikipedia. "I just know" = original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. For example, I just know that my wife is the sexiest woman on the planet - still, no entry on Wikipedia for her. I just know that the kid who works at my local variety store is stealing beef jerky, but no article about it. I just know that Dirt 2 is the most awesome game like, anywhere, but it's not anywhere in the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want him to called Piccolo Jr. forever and have those stuff about him and his family be true. It's not that hard. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been goin' on for almost, if not more than a week. Those of us who were on the article page have been trying to explain it to him. But I guess in his deluded world, his word is more important than the original author. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm just throwing it out there but he also vandilised the page. However, he reverted his own edits. but reverted his own edits. Click here for the history. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's a Piccolo Jr. That's his correct name. Stop calling him that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a deluded world. I don't hate Akira Toriyama. I like him. I'm not saying his series "Dragon Ball" sucks. I still like the series and that's it. Me editing articles is not vandilising it, just fixing it up. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding false information is vandilism. If you like and respect Akira Toriyama, then you would respect his story. Facial structure and voice actors have nothing to do with it. If you continue to act this way, you will be block. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But he's a Piccolo Jr. for crying out loud. He's not a reincarnation. I didn't add false information. Eh, Eh. Weighted Namekian shoes he wears. Not brown light-weight footwear or shoes. Weighted Namekian shoes. They're weighted. Weighted Namekian shoes that he never wants to take off. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are you gettin' this information? Do you have proof? I highly doubt it. Which Dragon Ball series are you watching? Because you're obviously not watching the same one I've been. Piccolo's King Piccolo's reincarnation. He doesn't have weighted shoes. The only thing weighted are his cape and turban, as shown in episode 3 of DBZ. You have no proof. All you're doing is spouting out nonsense, and I'm seriously annoyed of it. We've been trying to explain to you all of this for over a week. And we've made no progress. You keep making these statements as if you've never seen the series, but you claim you have. I honestly don't believe you. I just think you're nothing but a fanboy who believes their fanfic ideas are canon. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's not King Piccolo reincarnated. First, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's fucking stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that forever. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. King Piccolo even says this line before he dies. "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." Stop calling him that fucking fake and stop saying weighted shoes. They're called weighted Namekian shoes. His weighted Namekian shoes are weighted. He just never wants to take off forever. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. His name's FUCKING PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

    A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

    The deletion log entries are as follows:

    The editors involved include:

    One of the variations is already protected from creation:

    Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
    Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

    I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had nuked another variant (same regex):

    Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
    I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're back...
    User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    ...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration of Twinkle

    Hello there, about a month and a half ago, I was blacklisted from Twinkle for making a few bad reversions. Since then, I have been granted rollback rights and have been fighting vandalism through use of Huggle. I would like to continue using huggle, however there are situations where Twinkle is more useful, such as when I am using university computers (which do not allow most executables to be executed.) I would like to be removed from the blacklist. Feel free to look at my actions as a rollbacker. I believe that I have demonstrated better judgment since losing Twinkle. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 06:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The admin that blacklisted me has been alerted of the thread here. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently Nezzadar is going to keep coming back here every fortnight until I surrender. Fine, I give up. He defeated the point of blacklisting him anyhow, when he went and got Huggle instead, and then some silly administrator decided to grant him rollback too.

        But before you agree to lift the ban, I suggest you go look at why he was blacklisted in the first place, and then check out the results of all the other times where Nezzadar has asked for Twinkle back, been declined, and gone off in a huff shouting stuff like "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't."[4]

        That's the only diff you're getting this time; I've already been through this three times. Hesperian 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested:
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Reinstatement of TWINKLE
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Testing the waters
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Restoration of Twinkle
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#New Account - Sinneed 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Nezzadar should really have been granted rollback until the underlying issue were resolved. It's really all the same issue, and one shouldn't have been granted if there were still reason to block the other. Seeking out one while being banned from the other is essentially just circumventing the ban, unless Nezzadar saw fit to make sure the granting admin was aware of the Twinkle ban (and something tells me he did not, but correct me if I'm wrong). FYI, rollback is required in order to use Huggle. Equazcion (talk) 08:05, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Request I don't see.
    Granting note here
    And a thank-you here
    Notifying user:Pedro of this thread. - - Sinneed 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Request is here, at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. A user who was banned from Twinkle for the reasons Nezzadar was should never have been granted rollback, and I doubt Pedro would have granted it had he known. Equazcion (talk) 08:28, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    That looks like wp:canvassing#Forum shopping to me.- Sinneed 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasons given for removal of TW are here: (admin only). If there is the slightest hint he hasn't changed his behaviour I will removal rollback. Does Huggle need rollback to work? ViridaeTalk 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. @Kate (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, Nezzadar has the tools now. It's up to him to ensure that he retains the community's trust in their use. Let's give him a chance to show that he can use them properly, but I propose that if any of them are misused, then access is denied to all of them. If he can show that he can use them properly now that he has them, then he should be allowed to do so. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a quick flick few the last few days worth of edits and came up with three problems:

    • [5] Apparently good faith edit rolled back as vandalism without explanation. The IP was warned.
    • [6] Same as above.
    • [7] Same again.

    And this is just randomly checking about about 40 reversions over the past few days. ON the basis of this I am removing Rollback and his TW access should not be restored. ViridaeTalk 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Nezzadar

    I had a feeling this would happen, and therefore am not angry about this. One thing I would like to say however is that from my time with rollback, I noticed a surprisingly high level of vandalism, and chased after as much of it as I could. Let me address the three edits, as well as the overarching problem of bad reverts.

    The first of the I reverted it because it was factually inaccurate and was not cited. Quasi denotes something is "sort of." There is nothing quasi about licence agreements, breaking them can land people in serious trouble, and legally, they are contracts. This was reverted because it is, quite frankly, harmful.

    The second I reverted because another editor had already reverted the change before, with a valid edit summary. In a choice between someone putting back removed information without an edit summary, and a person removing information with a valid edit summary, I am going to choose the second.

    As for the thrid, this one was likely a mistake. My thinking was that this was unneeded, low EV, adverty information, which was not cited, and was on a high traffic article.

    As for making mistakes, a few editors have come to me and told me that I made mistakes. Some I agreed with, apologized, and helped them do it over correctly so it wouldn't look suspicious. Some I rejected, as there was no merit to the requests. That is how reverts are supposed to work, everyone makes mistakes. Because I was already under observation, mine were noticed, but I am sure all of you have bad edits too. It's sad that only one person gave me the benefit of the doubt, but that seems on par with how admins operate. My one regret is that no one ever offered to help me, people just rushed to criticize. So much for community. At least there are some areas of Wikipedia where people still talk to each other about issues.

    Nezzadar [SPEAK]

    • Regarding the accusation on me forum shopping, perhaps I am, however since no one actually talks to me, even when I reach out on a limb and apologize, I have no other way of trying to improve. Asking the parent over and over gets tiring, however it is the parent's responsibility to guide, not just punish, and I think that WP admins make for rather poor parents in that regard. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to help in the past, and can say from experience that if no one's offered you "help" on this particular occasion, you might want to consider that it's because they've learned their lesson. You have a habit of jumping down people's throats when they give you advice. Your demeanor has improved on that front; recently you seem to be making a conscious effort (or taking pills), but only very recently, and I'm not convinced that it's carried over yet into your judgment of making reverts. I would try to be patient in terms of requesting that your rights be restored. Showing that you "really really want it" only makes people nervous abut your motivations, and your end-run around the Twinkle ban for rollback/Huggle doesn't put anyone's mind at ease. I'd focus on areas other than vandalism prevention for a while if I were you, before making another request, and by a while I mean a month or two. Again I'm not trying to berate you, but you asked for help and I'm telling you what I would do. Equazcion (talk) 21:47, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    • Nezzadar - wp:NOTTHEM - "...I have no other way of trying to improve..." - Just no. You improve by improving.
    You continue to focus outside yourself in order to fix a problem inside yourself. In very general, this does not have a great history of working.
    Read what was written here in response to your request: Each is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Read the responses to your (too many, too fast) requests to have twinkle restored. Each response is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Not all of what is said is useful: humans are speaking.- Sinneed 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the WP:BITE guideline, Wikipedia is widely perceived to be hostile to new editors. I believe it would be more accurate to say that some (more than a few) experienced editors are hostile to new editors. I hate vandalism, and I see lots of vandalism by IPs and some by brand new accounts. I see test edits that IPs revert themselves (if someone with a tool doesn't beat them to it). But I also see a lot of bad reverts of good IP and newbie edits, based solely on suspicion that an IP edit is a bad edit. I see a lot of rude edit summaries reverting good faith, but erroneous, edits. I saw one experienced editor accuse a newbie of vandalism for "correcting" a correct British spelling to American; most people don't even realize that there are different spellings in different national varieties of English. Occasionally, I've researched a newbie's unexplained, unsourced fact change or addition, and the edit turns out to be correct. It is not reasonable to expect an IP or other newbie to know about doing edit summaries, citing sources, or other Wikipedia basics. I hope that Nezzadar, and others, will bear this in mind as they crusade against vandalism. —Finell 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first reversion was made with an auto edit summary, you then gave the IP a warning. I won't get into the content dispute here, apart from to say that many people may feel that "quasi contract" is correct. (Do you have a reliable source to show that they're not quasi-contracts? Did you look for any sources?) The fact remains: you reverted a good faith edit (even if you think it's incorrect do you really think it was a bad faith edit?); you warned the editor (and that was the first contact anyone from WP had with them) and then when people told you it was a problematic edit you demonstrate why those tools were removed. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and welcome that IP editor? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that some people go around welcoming every new user they find does not make it necessary for me to do so. The last time I welcomed someone, it turned into a huge mess (anyone remember this idiot?) I don't make small talk to random people anymore. I've been burned too many times by vandals, over-zealous admins, and random IPs to go out of my way to be nice to people. People just aren't nice. If that means that I can't be a soldier in the war on vandalism, fine. I'm proud of being a misanthrope, and I won't change my beheavior. As Hersperian wonderfully quoted me out of context, AGF isn't perfect. Neither am I, neither are you. Enjoy cleaning up the mess when things slip through the cracks. You chased away someone who genuinely wanted to help protect Wikipedia, and it has made WP just a little bit worse. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your method of trying to make everyone feel bad by saying they're getting rid of a tough and honest vandal fighter who tells it like it is and takes no guff from no-one will prove fruitless. Protecting Wikipedia isn't as much of a problem as it once was, because the tools are getting better and more automated, making it easy, and anyone can easily do it. Plus vandal fighter numbers are high anyway, probably due to that very ease. Right now the asset is considered to be the editors who are willing to do the more painstaking effort- and patience-ridden job of welcoming new users. Communication isn't an automated process. If we ever have a shortage of people willing to revert, inform people that they are idiots, and move on, we will surely seek you out -- however we presently have no such shortage. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 22 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Nezzadar. In October when you were here, I recall stating "Re-read the purpose of the tool. Hell, we remove rollback for only a couple of minor transgressions - why would Twinkle be any different - and it's usually only temporary? Because you generally do good work does not ever give you carte blanche to bite, and otherwise use it wrongly". Nobody on Wikipedia is willing to accept the regular wrong use of a powerful tool, just because a lot of the time it gets used well; we don't take "the good with the bad" in this case. I was really hoping to see improvement - as was the admin who gave you rollback back. How you move forward with this is key: you will need to show a more-than-brilliant understanding of the vandalism policy and how/when to use powerful automated tools. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nezzadar: as an editor who is totally involved, I would just like to remind you that Twinkle should only be used to revert obvious vandalism. Looking at the three examples above: the first edit may or may not have been a correct statement of fact - but I can see no reason to believe that this was anything other than a good faith edit. The second edit: again, whether it was factually correct or not, I would have assumed that this was a good faith edit. I'm glad that you admitted the third one was a mistake - again, this would appear to be a good faith edit.
    The problem isn't that you are making the odd mistake - the problem is that you are making quite a few mistakes: reverting good faith edits happens on occasions to all users of automated tools like Huggle and Twinkle - but if there are too many mistakes, it is correct that access to such tools be withdrawn, until the editor can show (with their manual edits) that they can follow the procedure for vandalism-fighting. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nezzadar - your over zealous attitude (War, soldier, fight) *has* driven away editors from Wikipedia, and has made WP just a little bit worse. Do you care about that? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, The fact that some people go around welcoming every new user they find does not make it necessary for me to do so - you're not being asked to welcome every new user you find. You're being asked to check that edits fit the strict criteria for vandalism before you give those editors vandal warnings, and you're being given an opportunity to show that you're learning from all the people trying to help you. The fact that you see those people as enemies, as people who 'have it in for you', is a shame. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Mcjakeqcool - socking

    User:86.136.78.170 and User:Mcjakeqcool2 are both editing User talk:Mcjakeqcool claiming that McJ has been unblocked [8][9] . Obvious sock is obvious, could someone do the honours please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk will need some protection ASAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    is that the same IP as before? I wonder if it would be worth sending an email to the institution.--Crossmr (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Username indef blocked, IP blocked for a day. TNXMan 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This blocked user is blocked but still editing??? Check contributions - he's just edited McJ's userpage AGAIN! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can that. He's editing his own userpage with McJakeqcool spam. Anyone want to protect it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- llywrch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wdford and colloidal silver, again

    Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:

    • Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.
    • I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

    That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.
    I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.
    I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.
    The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.
    There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.
    Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about trying mediation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Wdford, you can not honestly attempt to deny that Lansdown (2006) is talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances.", whereas Fung & Bowden (1996), are talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". You can also not honestly attempt to deny that you wrote this:

    Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However , per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route.

    With the word "however", you are creating a juxtaposition, where in fact none exists. Honestly, you are unable to even read and understand two short article abstracts in medical journals. What makes you think that you could meaningfully contribute to an article, when we already have a medical expert (MastCell) working on it? The only reason MastCell stopped working on the article was that he was driven off by at least one fringe advocate (DHawker), who was finally banned from the article after several months. This is the end of the line, Wdford. If you can't admit that your capabilities aren't up to the task of writing an article based on reliable sources (which, in this case, are articles in medical journals) you need to be banned from working on the topic, so that other editors might create an acceptable article. Zara1709 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended. Lansdown agrees with F&B that it requires large-scale use of silver to cause argyria, and my quote shows that - you have simply left out the second sentence of that quote, which I included and which makes it all quite clear. The Lansdown quote however goes further than F&B, to speak about the toxicity of silver generally, whereas that particular F&B quote was only dealing with argyria. I am happy to remove the word "however", as it does not affect my argument or the intended sense of the paragraph.
    PS - the Lansdown quote clearly includes ALL silver exposures, exactly as I said. Similarly, that particular line of the F&B quote clearly refers to ALL silver products as potential causes of argyria if used excessively, which is consistent with all other sources on that topic. I understood the two sources perfectly well, and I included them in the article to mean exactly what the original authors meant. My capabilities are seemingly quite sound actually - my only flaw is that I don't agree with your POV.
    Wdford (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended." Wdford, do you want to push this into a discussion on the meang of the word "however"? Your comment on the article talk page is only correct in one respect: Your version of the article is rubbish. You are still failing to see that we have two sets of reliable sources. One set is about "colloidal silver", and its use as alternative medicine. The other set is about various acknowledged external medical applications of silver. Because we have two different sets of reliable source, Floydian and MastCell were discussing whether it is such a good idea to have one article on these two different types of use - which is an important and necessary discussion. I personally haven't made up my mind in that matter yet, because I know that, as long as Wdford - who isn't actually able to understand this difference as he has illustrated with his comments here - is making edits to the article, we're not going to get that distinction establish there at all. If we want to have an article based on the most reputable sources available (medical journals), Wdford has to be banned from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not failing to see anything. What Zara refuses to acknowledge is that the distinction between drinking colloidal silver and the other medical uses of silver is already made abundantly clear in the article as it stands - using her wording and her sources. We don't need a special article to pound on colloidal silver, as the unproven effectiveness and potential toxicity thereof are accurately stated here already, in dedicated sections. The only remaining problem is to agree on how much weight in the lead section to give the negative coverage of colloidal silver, vis a vis the weight to be given to the many other valuable and effective medical uses of silver. I think the lead is currently appropriate, by including a clear statement that silver is not toxic unless you overdose repeatedly over time (a view backed by reputable medical journals as well as government agencies, as my sources clearly show), but I am open to any other wording that gives the positive uses due weight. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of edit made by Wdford today [10] seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you feel this is unhelpful? The information is relevant, it's valid and it's factually accurate - and it helps to give the reader a more rounded picture. If it's genuinely problematic I'm happy to reword it, but I am interested to know why it might be considered to be "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the special sort of rounded so beloved of those who support crank theories. We know quite a bit about that on Wikipedia. But you're in luck, driving off the cranks usually takes many months and the burnout of one or two advocates of the mainstream view. Since the cranks never give up, you'll ave your preferred version in the end even if you get banned and another person writes it. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK NHS uses silver dressings and silver creams in hospitals very often, especially burns units, to reduce risk of infection. See, for example, Aquacell. This is evidence based, approved by NIChE, not quackery, etc. Just thought I'd mention it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The medical use of silver is not a crank theory - try actually reading the many reliable sources included in the article. It would help hugely if those who claim to "know quite a bit" about wikipedia would actually read the material before commenting on it. Colloidal silver is a minor portion of the greater medical silver debate, and while I fully agree that the claims made on behalf of colloidal silver are thusfar unproven (and my edits never tried to hide those facts), at the same time there are many reliable sources that praise the value that silver adds to medical practice in a range of other uses - please see the article for a large sample of such sources. The quality of the article depends on the subject being reported objectively from all sides, in terms of wikipolicy, and an objective review of medical silver clearly shows that silver adds far more good than harm. An objective review of the reliable sources also shows that even the much-maligned colloidal silver products are not harmful unless consumed in quantity over a sustained period. All I want is balance - expose the cranks, but don't over-state the position, and don't try to throw the good out with the bad. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Well, the diff I provided seems to have been some form of copy-paste, almost doubling the length of the article. In the diff I gave, there are TWO sets of references, external links, foreign language categories, etc and other content sections duplicated. Please look at the contents for your diff: 

       * 1 Biological effects of silver
   * 2 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 2.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 2.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 2.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 3 Other medical uses
         o 3.1 Historical applications
         o 3.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 3.3 Government regulation
   * 4 Literature
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links
   * 7 Biological effects of silver
   * 8 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 8.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 8.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 8.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 9 Other medical uses
         o 9.1 Historical applications
         o 9.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 9.3 Government regulation
   * 10 Literature
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

    There probably was some kind of inadvertent error involved as well. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I see now - I thought you were referring to the two lines of content I added. I don't know what happened here - the edit looked good on the preview before I saved it, but I only checked the section I was actually editing and I didn't notice it was duplicating the entire article. I can't explain how this went wrong. It certainly wasn't deliberate. Apologies for the inconvenience. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll go for a full revert of the lead

    In the discussion above, both NotAnIP83:149:66:11 and Guy are right. Medical products containing silver are used in the treatment of wounds to prevent infections - but there is also a product called "colloidal silver" which is currently marketed as an alternative medicine, and which has no proven benefits, but may, after prolonged intake, result in making you look like a zombie. And I am only exaggerating a little bit here. Colloidal silver was also used as a conventional medical treatment until sometime in the 1940s or 50s, and some physicians who had to deal with cases of argyria heavily criticized it then. One of them (BRYANT (1940)) writes:

    Despite the warnings that have appeared occasionally in the literature, many otolaryngologists still deny the danger of the production of generalized argyria from the use of silver-containing intranasal medication. [...] The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, must necessarily have been impressed with the importance of preventing such a condition."

    I just thought that I provide you with this quote - for an article in a medical journal this is quite well-written. In any case, if among the medical uses of silver, some are explicitly advised against the article must make a clear distinction between these uses. The question of the article is not: Is silver good or bad for your health? I know that probably many people approach health issues this way, but to me this attitude seems to be profoundly stupid. I mean: Is Vitamin A good for your health? Of course, some intake of Vitamin A is necessary to be healthy, but this doesn't mean that you can't overdose it. The question of the article is: What kinds of medical uses of silver are there?, that is, if we want to keep the current title. Some of these uses are acknowledged from the medical profession, but the use of "colloidal silver" is not approved at all and potentially dangerous. So I am trying to get this distinction into the article and make it "abundantly clear". While I was doing this, I was in an almost constant confrontation with Wdford, who obviously had difficulties with making this distinction (he was using a source that was only dealing with acknowledged medical uses of silver in the section on colloidal silver, e.g.) Currently we are (again) discussion this issue in the lead. I personally think, that this issue is quite simple.

    Generally, if you haven an article on a medical product which only has "minimal" side-effects, is there any reason, why would you want to mention that fact in the lead? I haven't done any work on medical articles otherwise, but let's check for example the article on Antibiotic. There is a section on "Side effects" in the article, but side-effects are not mentioned in the introductory paragraph. If, on the other hand, you have an article on alternative medicine product, which is advices against because of a complete lack of effectiveness and potential side-effects which are at least "cosmetically undesirable", you have to mention that in the lead paragraph. Not to mention it would be a violation of "wp:fringe". That said, currently the article Medical uses of silver is dealing with both kinds of medical products. So, unless we want to split the article and create a separate article "Colloidal silver" again, its lead paragraph should mention the acknowledge medical uses of silver and that there is also a 'medical' product called colloidal silver, which has dangerous side-effects. It should give a short explanation of these side-effects and possibly also mention when and why it was used as a medical product (which is a matter of interest, if it is not an acknowledged medical product.) I think that the preceding version of the lead paragraph achieved all this. If you take a look at Wdfords version, however, you will see that he moved the sentence on argyria away from its previos place between the two sentences on "colloidal silver", which doesn't make any sense, since only these colloidal silver preparations are known to cause argyria. He also added a quote: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure..." which is true for the various clinical applications, but likely not true for these "colloidal silver preparations". The abstract of the article quoted is certainly not talking about colloidal silver.

    That aside, Wdford didn't even bother with creating proper reference tags. His intermediate didn't address the concerns I have just raised at all. So I think another full revert would certainly be in order. Usually, of course, I wouldn't write such a long justification of a revert, but usually I wouldn't involve the ANI either. If you look at Talk:Medical uses of silver, you will see that this pattern has been going on for weeks now. Wdfords makes some edits to the article, which are highly problematic, I revert them and justify my revert on the talk page. But then, however, Wdford just makes a few more problematic edits at the article. From my previous encounters with him, I would come to the conclusion that he probably is going to keep this up indefinitely. Since I don't want to give up on the article, I need to attract some more attention into the issue, so, if that doesn't resolve it, I can start a RFC/U or an Arbitration Request. Zara1709 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't start an arbitration case. You'll just bring more bureaucrats into the picture who know nothing about the subject. The medical uses of silver is no longer a fringe theory article, and shouldn't be treated as such. A relatively small section of the article should concern colloidal silver, including mentioning its history, and its historical usage. Argyria should then have a proportionate amount of the proportionate amount on colloidal silver. It would also be very helpful if either of you could find an article with a dosage or time frame to come down with Argyria, as every source makes it quite clear that it is a condition that comes from lengthy, heavy, and repeated exposure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are so completely wrong, Zara. The abstract of the article quoted is most very certainly talking about colloidal silver. Lansdown actually mentions colloidal silver by name. In fact, to quote Lansdown exactly: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. " [1] Without a doubt Lansdown was including colloidal silver in that abstract. Your blatant misunderstanding of this abstract is thus clearly not a justification for yet another of your tedious full reverts.
    None of my edits ever obscured the fact that colloidal silver is “not approved at all and potentially dangerous.” To state that I have “difficulties with making this distinction” is a flat-out lie, and a contravention of WP:NPA. Repeating your lie is not going to change the reality.
    You claim it is necessary to warn about the risk of argyria, yet you consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight, and the wording you keep reverting to reads as though any contact with colloidal silver could cause argyria. Since Lansdown was clearly including colloidal silver in the general statement that silver has low toxicity, if you absolutely MUST mention argyria in the lead at all then you need to state that the risk is minimal and that the safe daily dose is substantial.
    Per the FDA in 2009: “However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a chronic oral Reference Dose (RfD) of 5 micrograms (µg) of silver per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (5 µg/kg/day) based on a review of 70 cases of argyria that were associated with oral and other uses of silver compounds. For a 70 kg person (or about 154 pounds body weight), this would be about 350 µg of silver per day.”[2] 1ppm is 1 milligram/litre, so colloidal silver at 10ppm would contain 10mg/l, or 10000µg /l. There are 5ml per teaspoon, so there are 200 teaspoons per litre. 10000 divided by 200 equals 50, so there would be 50µg per teaspoon.[3] This equates to a maximum safe dosage of 350/50 = 7 teaspoons per day of colloidal silver at 10ppm. This also includes a significant safety factor. Assuming 30 days per month, the safe dosage is over a litre per month for a 70kg person, FOR LIFE.
    Wdford (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm shocked that Wdford feels no shame in continuing his Wikistalking of Zara1709 - wait, no I'm not. I'm shocked that no one is going to step up and defend her and the encyclopedic qualitiy of the articles on medical subjects under assault by paid disinformation agents - wait, no I'm not. Carry on! Hipocrite (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This totally unsubstantiated allegation of being a "paid disinformation agent" is a blatant personal attack. It also demonstrates extreme bias, and a refusal to consider the validity of the edits in question. It is clear that Hipocrite is aptly named. Wdford (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wdford, I intentionally abstained from strong polemics in my last posting. I was trying to de-escalate this, but you apparently failed to notice. When I am saying that you "obviously had difficulties with making this distinction", I am only describing your behaviour as I am perceiving it. You shouldn't be accusing me of making personal attacks, but try to understand why I might describe your behaviour that way. But, as you illustrated often enough previously, you are unable to accept criticism. In the discussion here, you missed the subtle irony of Hipocrite's comment. And you are still not able to make a proper distinction between the different medical uses of silver, or at least you are unable to balance the weight that has to be given to each one. You write, that I would "consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight.." On the article talk page, MastCell explained the medical concept of toxicity quite well a few weeks ago:

    Perhaps a brief refresher on the concept of toxicity would be useful, at least as the word is generally applied to medical questions. The toxicity of a drug is generally considered together with its effectiveness; the two can't be easily divorced if one is trying to be - what's the phrase you used? - academically honest. For example, cisplatin is a highly toxic drug, but if you have testicular cancer, then it can save your life - so in that circumstance the toxicity would generally be considered acceptable. On the other hand, if a substance is completely lacking any evidence of effectiveness for any condition - as colloidal silver is - then any toxicity is excessive, because there is nothing to counterbalance it on the other side of the risk/benefit equation.

    If you look at the quote I have given above from an article from 1940, you would have to admit that the risk of argyria from using colloidal silver is, from a medical perspective, not "very slight". There are other medical uses, for which Lawnsdown 2006 states that the risk expected is minimal. You stated in your edit summaries, that you intended your edits to "balance" the lead paragraph. What kind of balance is that supposed to be? You have just admitted, that even Lawnsdown 2006 mentions colloidal silver and that it has undesirable side-effects, although Lawnsdown's article, as far as it can be concluded from the abstract, it aiming at discussing the acknowledged medical uses of silver. Likely the main reason Lawnsdown is discussing the side-effects of medical products containing silver in the abstract is that he is aware of the promotion of "colloidal silver" as alternative medicine miracle cure. So you have admitted that even the reliable sources that are not dealing with colloidal silver as such are discussing its dangerous side-effects. I mean, the article is from a compilation Biofunctional Textiles and the Skin, Lansdown can't possible have written an article about colloidal silver for such a compilation. We have to balance the different aspects in the article the same way that the reputable sources do it. There are articles in medical journals specifically about colloidal silver, and there are other articles about different medical uses of silver, which, as you yourself have pointed out, also discuss colloidal silver and its "undesirable" side-effects. What does this mean for our discussion of "balance"?

    I have previously explained why I don't think that we need to mention in the lead paragraph that "minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure [to silver] by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route." I mean, we are trying to have a concise lead paragraph, aren't we? Also: Pointing out so prominently that some medical products involve only "minimal" risks looks weird. Have your ever seen a packet of pills with a big warning sign: "Only minimal risks expected."? If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that Wdford explicitly added material on the antiseptic and disinfectant properties medical uses of silver, because he was "not allowed to reduce the paragraph on colloidal silver". The material on these uses needed to be expanded a little, but I personally didn't do that previously because I wanted to look for more reliable sources on that first. Wdfords version, as it stands now, is giving undue weight to these uses. I see no reason why we would need to mention that "minimal risk is expected due" to these uses, and Wdford hasn't attempted to give any reason, aside from his unexplained concept of "balance". So I have to remove some sentences again. And I am sorry for bothering the ANI with this issue, but I honestly think that Wdford has a problem with his conduct as an editor, and that someone needs to intervene here. Zara1709 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, despite MastCell's intermediate edits, I came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to fix the problems with Wdford's edits without a full revert. I don't know how long I can put up with this, but I am unwilling to accept that Wdford sabotages of my work at yet a 3rd article. Zara1709 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Zara can't "fix" my edits, because they aren't broken. If toxicity is important enough to appear in the lead at all, then its important enough to be dealt with fairly and objectively. I will supply even better references to support the EPA safe dosage, and I have no problems with MastCell's various improvements to the wording. Zara has no valid basis to repeatedly revert a lot of valid and referenced material. Wdford (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wdford, I wrote a 6000 byte statement trying to explain the problem with your edits. If you are of the opinion that my concerns are unjustified, you at least have to attempt to make an argument. I'll revert again. If we can't get an administrator over here to deal with the issue, could at least someone lock down the article for a month or so? Zara1709 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My argument is utterly straightforward, and I have made it many times already since I started working on this article, but you choose to pretend otherwise. Here it is yet again:
    • This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects.
    • Silver has many different valuable medical uses, while colloidal silver is only one aspect. This should be reflected by due weight.
    • When it comes to mentioning the toxicity of silver, be it re colloidal silver and other forms, per policy the lead must summarise all aspects objectively and with due weight. To mention argyria three times in the lead, without actually putting argyria in context or clarifying the actual risk, does not constitute due weight.
    • Your arguments for suppressing the fact that silver is minimally toxic do not hold water - a couple of extra lines to clarify the very important safety aspect is well justified in an article of this nature, which some people continue to believe is a "controversial" subject.
    Instead of repeated mass reverts, why don't you accept that the valid and reliably referenced material is valid and reliably referenced, and work constructively with others to finish it off?
    If you agree to mention argyria only once in the lead, with a wikilink, and leave the rest of it to the body of the article, then I am happy to streamline the rest of the lead likewise. However, if you insist on padding up the lead of this article with repeated mentions of argyria, then proper context is necessary and appropriate.
    If you persuade other editors to split off a separate article dedicated to colloidal silver, the EPA safe dosage would still need to be included.
    As we appear to have reached consensus on everything else, I will request some admins specifically to mediate on these remaining issues.
    Wdford (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Colloidal silver deserves the main weight

    Wdford, your statement: "This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects." is wrong on a fundamental layer. If you look at the reliable sources that we have present at the article, you would have to admit that they devote quite some weight to the discussion of "colloidal silver". Your attempt to shift the focus of the article away from "colloidal silver" can therefore only be explained as 1) a lack of editorial skill at your part, or as 2) a deliberate attempt of promoting a fringe POV by selectively quoting the sources, or, and that would be even worse, as 3) part of a strategy to harass me. In any case, you need to be banned from the article. Zara1709 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zara is very wrong in suggesting that colloidal silver "deserves" most of the weight. Those sources that specifically discuss colloidal silver obviously focus on their chosen topic, but even those sources admit that the risk of argyria is small, and that argyria is not actually harmful. There are also a great many sources that focus on the various other aspects of silver in medical usage, and a number of those sources have been included also - as any objective person could easily check. I am not attempting to shift the focus away from colloidal silver, but I am attempting to give due weight to the many positive uses of silver as well - as I have said repeatedly from the beginning. The accusation of lack of editorial skill is a contravention of WP:NPA. The accusation of selectively quoting sources is not only WP:NPA but its also hypocritical, as Zara has been cherry-picking sentences since inception, while my sources are all reliable, valid and consistent. Finally, the accusation of harrassment remains as baseless as it ever was, and I'm sure any objective admin would agree that my edits have contributed significantly to broadening this article in line with the agreed expansion of scope - in the face of fierce resistence throughout. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature issue

    Resolved
     – Policy amended per consensus; user in question has anyway promised to "no longer respond to talk pages" anyway, so this issue is now moot. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I get some eyes on editor RogerZoel (talk · contribs · logs)? There's an issue regarding his signature that I almost dismissed as petty, but his responses and reverting point towards an issue that probably won't go away soon. In a nutshell, he refuses to have a signature that has a link to his userpage or talk, in violation of guideline WP:SIG: "Signatures must include at least one internal link". Now, he is just signing posts to my talk page with five tildes, claiming that there is conflict in the document and that Wikipedia is "not a police state". Sigh. If anyone has the patience to explain the issue to him, I'd really appreciate it. Check his latest contribs for more details; no point posting diffs here. Tan | 39 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, you are quick on the fly. Calm down and give me time to understand the situation. No ned to rush people through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't be calmer; you refused to acknowledge any understanding of the issue at all in three or four exchanges. Thus, I brought it here, for other people to comment on. Tan | 39 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, slow down, will ya? It takes time to read the wiki resources through. I'm not an "expert" wiki person like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) RogerZoel, the internal link in your signature is an important courtesy which makes it easy to keep track of participants in multi-editor discussions; it also makes it much easier for other Wikipedians to get in touch with you. (This being a collaborative project, that type of easy interaction is very important.) Just put a link in your signature – or just use the default signature, which contains a suitable link – and you'll be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a little matter of Wikipedia:Assume good faith; when an editor comes along and says, "Hi! I think I should tell you that signing your name on talkpages is expected." the usual response is, "Okay". "Point me to where it says I should!" is probably inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, I can't wait for LiquidThreads. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RogerZoel, there's nothing you need to understand. You have to sign your posts with four tildes, so it leaves your username behind. End of. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, edits like this and this are just plain disruptive, and I suggest a block if he doesn't start behaving himself sharp-ish. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole thing smacks of being rather WP:POINTy to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well actually, WP:SIG indicates signing with 5 tildes is an acceptable option, if not a preferred one. The wording about requiring a link to your user page, talk or contribs appears to be directed toward people who do custom signatures but omit links. I guess it might apply here but it still makes the document contradictory, since earlier it indicates it's okay to sign using just the 5 tilde option. In this case the guy seems to be being disruptive, but still, the guideline seems to be an issue. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that you have to be working hard to parse every possible meaning out of WP:SIG, in order to find a reading that supports such an interpretation. More to the point, you would need to have set out to find some such interpretation, by hook or by crook. However, I have in the meantime made the following change to the policy: [11]. Since policy is a record of what the community expects of itself, and the community expects readable signatures, I don't think there will be any issue with this. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it lists it as one of the "other options" and devotes an entire section to it. You don't have to work hard to squeeze in my interpretation... you basically have to spend 5 seconds and read the table of contents. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Sancho Mandoval - This IS exactly how the document is perceived by me. I knew I am not the only one who sees it in this way. I'm still reading through the discussion page which is so long and confusing. 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    I endorse Gavia Immer's change as a reflection of what is expected here. When discussing things on talk pages, people need to be able to see who said what, and should not have to dig through the history to figure it out. Roger, please sign your comments with four tildes from now on to facilitate communication and good will in the community. LadyofShalott 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I will no longer respond to talk pages as anyone can arbitrate anything they want to suit their wishes. Wikipedia is becoming a police state and that is such a failing for Wikipedia! Roger Zoel (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    you people should be ashamed of yourselves! someone who clearly wants to learn wikipedia on his own pace is bullied and condemed because he wants to be left alone from those who want to strike up a casual conversation. calling him disruptive is uncalled for. this is a smart person who sees this site that can benefit from him. i've seen him examine every rules and regulations relating to whatever he is trying to do and even ask me how I see them to be. but because those who want to be his "friend" are offended when declines the offer attacks him as being unconformative to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.136.64 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24.60.136.64, you are misrepresenting the situation here. A link is required in a signature to enable easy communication between editors. Having a fancy signatue without a link is not allowed. Signing with four tildes is the norm on Wikipedia, and has been for a long time, for the reasons set out above. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And now a noble IP rises up to defend poor, maligned Roger! This train wreck (or, depending on your perspective, tilting at windmills) gets better and better. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Every edit is marked as minor, too. It's the third (fourth?) coming of mcjakeqcool. Tan | 39 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is from Massachusetts, while mcjakeqcool's IPs come from England. MuZemike 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't being serious. I was just pointing out the similarities. Tan | 39 23:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Other disruption by User:RogerZoel

    I request a short block of RogerZoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can take time to learn about the community's policies, guidelines, and practices. This editor's disruption is not confined to the signature issue. As his contribution history shows, this editor disregards collaboration toward consensus (he edits as a lone ranger), edit wars, appears to be pushing a particular religious POV, and is uncivil. We really don't need more editors running around behaving this way.

    My contact with this editor was when he complained at WT:Manual of Style that an administrator was edit warring over whether to have spaces in the wiki markup for headings (which seemed improbable to me) and was biting a newbie (I thought he was referring to himself as the victimized newbie]].[12] (Today, looking at his contribs, I discovered that he was edit warring over spaces in the heading markup and other layout issues.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] His trip to the MOS talk page was an unsuccessful effort to recruit support for his side of the edit war.) I replied there about the heading markup (the spaces make no difference in the rendered page), and took the time to to reach out to help this editor. I left a Welcome on his talk page (the long version), and asked for information about the specific incident he referred to so I could look into it.[23] He left a brief, polite response on my talk page saying that he didn't need help, and he signed it with a standard signature.[24] Later, without explanation he delinked his signature;[25] I restored his linked signature for future reference.[26] He reverted my edit of my talk page, saying that delinking his signature was supported by WP:SIG.

    In fact, the the Wikipedia:SIG behavioral guideline was crystal clear even before Gavia Immer's clarification:

    Internal links

    Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive.

    That's the community's guideline. Showing the wikicode for generating a timestamp (as part of a more "artistic" signature or for any other reason) later on the page is not an alternative to the requirement of a linking signature.

    More importantly, this editor utterly rejects that idea of editing by consensus. He disdains discussion with other editors[27] and has vowed to master Wikipedia:wikilawyering to get his own way.[28] In fact, his only purpose in delinking his signatures on talk pages is to make it more difficult for other editors to communicate with him. His typical response to comment on this talk page, often about his disruptive behavior or failure to follow Wikipedia's conventions, is to blank his talk page: Revision history of User talk:RogerZoel. When he does reply, on another editor's talk page, he is uncivil.[29][30][31][32][33] And he regards administrators' efforts to enforce this community's norms as imposition of a police state. This it the type of attitude that is poison here. I respectfully request action by an administrator to curb this editor's disruptive behavior.

    By the way, he is not a newbie trying to learn the ropes. He made that point loud and clear on my talk page.[34]

    Thank you. —Finell 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but I had to leave a post. I'm not pushing any religious POV. I haven't added or changed any religious content on any religious page or provided any views on religion. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent edits show that he appears to have acceded to community expectations regarding the .sig issue ([35], [36]). However since there are no rules against being acerbic or brusque, I do not feel that any additional administrator intervention is required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Is it really necessary for user like, Toddst1(talk) to harass me on an issue that has already been resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's so easy to forget that 4 tildes, unless you resolve to make a habit of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was trying to add it and it wuoldn't at that time Roger Zoel (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All you have to do is add 4 tildes before you hit "save page". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I did that, but somehow for this instance it was freaky. Roger Zoel (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully endorse describing RogerZoel as disruptive. While the signature issue is resolved (sort of. Nothing Sinebot can't handle), his incivility and failure to get the point are very disruptive behaviors indeed.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 04:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been following the sig rule and I have not been uncivil to anyone since it was pointed out to me from this. Roger Zoel (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but you have been otherwise disruptive, making false accusations [37] in response to good faith edits. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    She Wolf / Shakira / Digital vs Album Charts

    Ok so here's the deal. User:Thestreamer keeps adding the French Digital Chart despite She Wolf (album) having already charted on the main French Albums Chart. WP:GOODCHARTS does not specify the digital chart as being appropriate. I tried to bring this up with the user on his discussion page User talk:Thestreamer#She Wolf / Shakira. Despite this the user continued to revert. See page history.

    When i questioned the user's lack of willingness to discuss the issue he/she replied "I'm french, I know what I say about french albums chart". Now im sorry and correct me if im wrong but is this not just a complete disregard for wikipedia rules and concensus? I've never come accross an album page that lists the two charts seperately. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    That's not true, french digital albums chart is not a component of the main french chart, albums chart = just physical, that stupid but tell it to the SNEP (this is the same thing for french singles chart)

    Example : French Digital albums chart, week 41, Renan Luce was number one (2 050 copies sold) but when you watch the Top 200 french albums chart he's not in the chart. I can not be clearer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If a chart can indicate a No.1 position for the sale of 2,050 copies then that chart is inappropriate for WP - anyone buying 100 copies of a track can materially alter chart positions - as being insufficiently authoritative or independent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my point exactly. The digital chart is not approved for use on wikipedia but said user above will not conform to consensus. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm sorry but this is not a valid argument, for example in the french singles chart it is also possible by selling 100 copies to be in the top 100, yet it is an official chart! (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GOODCHARTS does not say that any chart not placed there shouldn't be used. In this case, since the album charted at #1 on the digital albums chart, why not mention it in the chart positions section, along with the main chart. Dt128 let's talk 14:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the discussion has been moved to the content notice board: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#She Wolf / Shakira / Digital vs Top 200 Singles Chart. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Kevinharte History review.

    User talk:Kevinharte shows a clear history of a lack of compliance with Wiki policy. The editor doesn't appear to want to work within the community. Is there a possibility a experienced editor/admin can review and help out. Either we figure out they want to learn or they don't Either way it looks like it's taking up peoples time that could be used elsewhere. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer(Kevin Harte) - I don't agree,I believe I've learned how to use the site relatively well.What facts are you basing this on all of a sudden? The issues you raised were about a year ago and I've had no problems until now.I was trying to save an article from deletion as it was too biased.The user I had a editing debate with seems to think he owns the article (Ireland vs france)--Kevinharte (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits Kevin Harte made, consisting of removing pieces of the article, should have been discussed on the talk page, no question about it. I hope the user has learned that. Having said that, the article is strongly biased and I agree with the user that MickMacKnee acts as if he owns the article and he actively bites those disagreeing with him, as other users have also remarked upon in the last days. Kevin, please use talk pages in the future to discuss removing material, especially if it's sourced.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so, it's WP:BRD. An editor makes a bold edit, which gets reverted, and then is discussed on the talk page. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in making a good faith removal of material from an article, even if it is eventually overturned by collective consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a bigger issue with this Jeppiz than I do with Kevin, who was just basically blanking whole sections of an article, for which I warned him here Jeppiz however has continully made assumptions about me and my motives, and is making snide little comments here there and everywhere, presumably as a replacement for providing a single shred of proof for his many personal opinions on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer(Kevin Harte) thanks Jeppiz. I'll learn how to do that next time I'm going to edit an article.--Kevinharte (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can take a look at Mick's long history of blocks for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, and his repeated personal abuse of editors disagreeing with him in the last few days. I'm not making "snide" comments about Mick, I'm openly pointing out that he is a disruptive user who appears to be unable to comment on content rather than other editors. Several other users have made the same observations in the last 2-3 days.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can look at Jeppiz long history of evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness on the Afd, to make his appeal now for people to comment on content appear utterly ridiculous, and only designed to provoke. If anybody thinks that he keeps his comments on content, I seem to recall in about his fifth edit on the Afd he accused me of being a bitter Irishman, and he has continuously positioned this Afd as being about the British Isles in some way or another. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm starting to get upset now by all the personal attacks and the lies now. First, I welcome anyone looking into my history, I don't have a single block in contrast to Mick. What he calls "evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness" is his way of saying that I don't agree with him, and I consider it to be a personal attack. I have not called him "a bitter Irishman", so unless Mick provides a diff backing that up, I take it as a lie and another personal attack. His third comment is also I lie, I've merely pointed out in the debate about the France-Ireland soccer game that it's not the first team there's a controvery when British teams exit a tournament. Could some administrator please look into Mick's behaviour, both he and Wikipedia would benefit from him taking a few days to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Mick's comments were meant in a horrid way, he may well be a bit upset about the footie and just needs treating gently. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite what Jeppiz has claimed numerous times, I am not upset about the football, and I'm not even an Irish fan, which is why none of his supposed conclusions about other things, like who's been doing what in that Afd, should be taken as read. It's a long read, but the evidence is all there in the Afd, and because of it, I have absolutely no problem calling Jeppiz an editor who consistently and purposely evades and ignores others, and is now pretty much intent on provoking me into an easy civility block. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that was just a waste of everyone's time.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behaviour and personal attacks by MickMacNee

    MickMacNee, an editor with a long history of block for disruptive behaviour [38], seems to have gone out of line in the last days. I don't mind him being defensive of an article he has written the major part about, and several users in the AfD discussion have been very much engaged in it, including myself. However, I object to the repated personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by the editor. His history is rather long, so I provide just a few selected diffs of uncivil comment and direct personal attacks during the last days [[39]], [40], [41], [42]. In the discussion on this page about a third user, he calls my arguments for not agreeing with him ""evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness". That is rather typical of his attitude in the AfD discussion where he agressively drives that everybody disagreeing with him are wrong. I've tried to point it out to him, [43] but with hindsight (given our infected history) it might have been better not to as I should have predicted how he would respond.[44] However, I'm far from alone in having that opinion. In the last days, several other editors have also commented on his behaviour [45], [46], [47], [48].Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That block log looks like something out of a Wiki-horror story...why has he not been given long blocks in the past? I would go for a longer-term block. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A users block log is not (generally) an excuse to throw the book at him, this looks a bit silly if you ask me, a bit of a tit for tat heated discussion over a article for deletion discussion that is split down the middle, and nothing will come of it, I can't find a really uncivil comment, perhaps if you guys just edit different articles for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It goes without saying that everybody has different opinions, but I do think that "one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors", "Either your comment was simply ignorant of the facts (like you characterisation of my POV), or you are simply trolling, either way, you are all out of credit here tbh", "I've got no idea what crappy papers you read", "It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't." are not particularly civil. Neither is "I have had it with your crap.". In any case, I won't interact with the user again, I rather leave Wikipedia. As I pointed out, I'm far from alone in having made these observations.Jeppiz (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob, I tried your suggestion, in fact I didn't think I'd need to try, I didn't think I'd cross paths with Mick after this bout of abuse. But sure enough I did, and when I reported him for violation of a 1R measure in place on the Northern Ireland article, half of his defence was an assumption of bad faith against me. I guess if someone keeps an eye on him, he can't get too far out of hand. Alastairward (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bit of a rant, he is clearly very upset about the footie, and I am sorry you have been upset Jeppiz, he has gone now, probably off to bed, I'm sure one of the admins will have a strong word in his ear when he shows his face again. I myself have had a run in with him but he has grown on me, what can I say. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing the diffs Alastairward provided, I cannot agree, even though I see that you stood up for him that time as well. This is a user who seems unable to deal with conflicting views and routinely resorts to personal abuse.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing routine about it. Your behaviour and Alistair's are pretty similar, which is why they provoked similar responses eventually. If either of you wish me to lay out the full package of evidence for either of your extraordinarily sustained campaigns of tendentious behaviours, I am only too willing to oblige. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, Alistair and I are not the only editors you've attacked and insulted, there are at least Grsz [49] and Kevin McE [50] just in the last few days.
    • While I have definitely argued with you, I have not called you one of "the most repugnant editors" [51], called your contributions "crap",[52] called you a "lying hypocritical cunt" [53] or told you to "fuck off" [54], [55].
    • Every time someone brings your behaviour to the attention of administrators, you come up with these vague and unsupported accusations that ones you've argued with have behaved in the same way. It is not a defense (then both should be blocked), and it's not true either, just a dishonest way for you to try to talk you out of it. I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else.Jeppiz (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved editor, I think with the many many examples of MM's long-term incivility including this, this, and especially this, MM needs to take a break from Wikipedia. Are there any admins on the Admins' noticeboard? Reywas92Talk 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved? MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I have not made any previous comments about any of the other participating users. Reywas92Talk 03:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are involved in the current Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. That was simply listing an opinion and I don't care how it ends, likely no consensus. The point is it is obvious you are very disruptive with your incessant personal attacks and cursing. Reywas92Talk 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but have come across MickMacNee before. It seem to me that MickMacNee's constant challenging of editors who are in favour of deletion, collectively amounts to hounding and/or harassment, and is therefore disruptive. He would do well to allow the AfD process to run its course. If an editor asks a direct question then by all means respond, but keep it WP:CIVIL. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can sympathise somewhat with MickMacNee's defence of the article at all costs in the AfD debate, but it is not the right way to go about it. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but Wikipedia:Harassment has a very defined meaning, and it does not apply to replying to too many people in an Afd. Do not even suggest I have done anything so bad as harass others. If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me, or how many times Jeppiz has mentioned my name in various forums and people's talk pages. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MickMacNee, please do not twist my words. I was not talking about Wikipedia Harassment, but harassment in the general sense of the word. Please let the AfD debate run its course. Should it be deleted you are free to take the issue to WP:DRV. Cease your disruptive behaviour or an admin with less GF and patience that I have will block you. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat my question in case you missed it "I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else."Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no probs with Mick at the Afd-in-question, as he hasn't been causing vandalism there (deleting or changing 'delete' votes). GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's definitely not a vandal, that is why I reported him for disruptive behaviour and not for vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me". I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest. Perhaps Mick you might provide some diffs. If I am genuinely harrassing you, why not report me for it? Alastairward (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very relevant question, and I asked the same question. Then he went very quiet. It seems as if he just throws all accusations back as a routine to defend himself. The difference is that we have a very long list of highly insulting diffs from him ("fuck off", "cunt", "crap" etc.) while he has not provided a single diff of me using anything remotely like that. He said I did, and I certainly never have, and he still has not provided a single diff after 24 hours. In other words, these accusations of his are just yet another examples of his disruptive behaviour. Given his long history of very uncivil behaviour and repeated personal attacks, I'm surprised no action has been taken.Jeppiz (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "He said I did". Where exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few rows up, [56].Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No excuse for that sort of language. Significant response would be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise none of these diffs are current, or have anything to do with Jeppiz's current complaint of my supposed disruption (a.k.a asking him to prove his various claims in an Afd). MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true either, the diff with you telling me that you've had it with my "crap" is very recent, as is the diff with you commenting on how another editor reads "crappy papers" as well as the diff where you call a third editor one of "the most repugnant editors". All of them are from the last few days.Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside: Without passing any judgment on whether your arguments are right or wrong (you could be right), when I see your user ID, this logo comes to mind: [57] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. We've had an absolute bout of administrators leaving because of people like MMN, it's quite obvious that whilst his intentions may be good he has no intentions to improve upon his frankly appalling behaviour and insults. Just block the guy already and stop sitting around on your damn hands. 78.148.72.124 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual scripted? random garbage posts to talk pages from 75.248.*.* space

    See 75.248.243.136 & 75.248.85.194 or a typical example

    Looks like maybe a script warming up? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those do look like the output from some sort of text-generation program. I won't pretend to know what is being tried out here, but it doesn't seem related to building an encyclopedia and might be an attempt to test a future spambot. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks just like the output of Racter. Chillum 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it's this individual, a long term problem at Satan IIRC. Block on sight, I'd say. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. He's been a long-term intermittent pain at Talk:Iron Maiden, generally hitting only once or twice a month but occasionally much more often. He posts things that contain sentence fragments and words related to the article (in that case, Iron Maiden band member names, or album titles, etc) but make no greater sense. His IP is very dynamic from a huge range so I'm not sure how much can really be done. ~ mazca talk 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anime/MGM vandal persistently returns...

    The vandal from Indonesia who has vandalized several movie studio, anime (especially Digimon-related), video game (specifically Street Fighter ones), and now, even ABS-CBN-related articles (some archived reports on the guy: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]) has persistently returned time and did his misinformation thing without any sources and repeatedly ignored all warnings. Here are the addresses he used for the past two months (bold ones are the ones he used in the past four days):

    Here is a partial list of the articles he had vandalized:

    While I'm more leaning toward rangeblocks against the guy (202.70.50.0/24 is currently blocked, while another range he frequently used, 118.137.0.0/16, is also blocked), Nja247 has also suggested an edit filter. But any more ideas against this vandal? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We could hardblock. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked (in the past) the 114.59 range on a few occasions for a maximum of 48 hours. Seems to stop the vandal for a while after a rangeblock. I suppose they realise they've been found out, but they are persistent and do eventually return. An edit filter is a good idea, but I too would like ideas from seasoned editors and/or admins who deal with persistent vandals more regularly than myself. Nja247 07:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    History of terrorism

    There has been a months long slow revert war at History of terrorism there has been an unsuccessful mediation attempt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism.

    One of the participants in the dispute, User:Sherzo has not been active on Wikipedia since November 6.

    The current problem on the article page is not so much the slow revert war, but the tone taken by the user using IP addresses to make reverts. See edit history of "History of terrorism". Here are a couple of comments from the last couple of days while revering edits made by a number of other editors:

    • 15:37, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (rv, moron)
    • 09:40, 21 November 2009 Domer48 (rv blanking)
    • 08:40, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (Shouldn't make assumptions, editors like you are the biggest problem on wikipedia why not try reading the talk or even examine the edit history!)
    • 18:52, 20 November 2009 RashersTierney (Reverted to revision 326821230 by Haberstr; no edit summary that would indicate content change - strongly suspect the intermediate eds. by disruptive anon IP.)

    The problem is that this anonymous editor (judging by the style of comments made and the type of edits made) has been editing this article for many months with a number of different IP addresses, So there is no point in blocking 86.25.181.202 as 24 hours earlier the editor was using 86.25.180.153. AFAICT the same editor has also edited with User:LSG280709 which they claim (using yet another IP address) that they can no longer use because they have forgotten the password (see edit by User talk:92.239.38.135).

    So my solution to the uncivil disruption that this anonymous editor is causing is to block the article History of terrorism for new accounts and IP editors for a period of three months. This will still allow other editors to edit the article who hold differing views (such as User:Haberstr and User:Sherzo) and the anonymous editor providing that they create an account and build up an edit history. But it will also bring editing back into line with the usual levels of civility and levels of behaviour we expect from all editors editing this article.

    I have posted this my intention here to inform other administrators that I am about to take this action, and to say that if they disagree with my action, just as an administrator can unblock a blocked user, so they can revert my block on this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried WP:RFPP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It never ceases to amaze me how terribly obvious people can be while attempting to tell others how brainless they say they are. Namely, when a new IP has 3 edits, 1 of which is to an article[65] complaining about what makes bad Wikipedia editors, then this incredibly uncivil comment to the talk page of another contributor here[66], combined with that "rv, moron" and anger at the suggestion of puppetry when comparing 2... very very very limited IPs? Perhaps they were unaware it had changed for whatever reason or forgot about the likes or meaty puppets? The first of them only has 4 edits and is quite in the know, so I'd really have to think they're related to a prior disgruntled account... and the one username above does kind of stick out from habits. Questionable civility aside of several contributors, picking out who's being "meaner" by amount blanked/edited, edit summaries, lack of use on the talk page, etc., leans against the IPs. I respect the hounded editor in this case since it looks like more of a baiting attempt to start something bitter than it was actual works of insult, and was spotted as this.
    The semiprotect should handle that or at least expose how much someone really wants to push an agenda. If even that gets frustrating this would probably be an easy CU or puppet case to settle it all (high likelihood), though they always seem so overworked :( Perhaps the threat of one if incivility continues would by itself be enough? If someone knows they're beat they usually won't bother with the most painful part. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    131.215.168.240 and soapboxing

    Resolved
     – solid block, unblock declined Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed a series of what is clearly anit-American soapboxing by 131.215.168.240 (talk) on several talk pages. Most of it focused on the portrayal of Asians in film and how Americans are racists.[67][68][69][70][71][72][73] It also appears that the IP has engaged in a couple of WP:BLP violations as well,[74][75] as well as other non-constructive comments.[76][77] —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. In the future, you may want to report them to AIV. TNXMan 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he is going off about how I'm racist for reverting his anit-American soapboxing and POV pushing. I must say, I'm somewhat amused. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has requested to be unblocked. The talk page is here, if there is anyone who would care to take a look. TNXMan 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is a long history of disruption from that obviously static IP. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of ongoing childish name-calling, I've reblocked the IP, adjusting the block settings so the editor can no longer edit the talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone should contact an administrator from CalTech about these series of edits. I'm sure that these edits are in violation of CalTech's internet usage policies. —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if his classmates found out what he's been writing, he would become the laughingstock of his school. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block required

    Resolved
     – 16:02, 22 November 2009 Juliancolton blocked IslandersZweiSieben (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

    Please see these. Thanks! Majorly talk 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked, see above. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request speedy closure of this AfD.

    Mishk'vei ishah is turning into a religious trainwreck and I request that we either close this AfD or get someone to watch over it. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when do we close contentious Afd's? Simply stating "it's a religious trainwreck" (which I don't see) is not reason enough.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some watching might be useful. I see e.g. that one involved user has added a batch of comments together with a reislt premature relist at todays log.[78][79]. The AfD is from November 18 only. That should be reverted. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I've undone (together with some signature fixing) as not warranted in substance and way too early anyways. Still some new editors will have joined the discussion because of today's relist. I'll inform Newman Luke accordingly. As per above there is no reason to close this now. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping a spoken article that is clearly a joke

    There is a number of related discussions on Who is a Jew? about the satirical nature of the spoken version of the article (see here, here, and here). Several users, including myself, believe the reader did a piss take using a Mockney accent. Many of the people who object are themselves British and can tell the reader is faking the accent. It is a terrible blight on the article. However, user:ThuranX constantly reverts the deletion of the file. Their stance is that the audio, joke or not, is better than having nothing at all. I beg to differ. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm British. The file page claims that his accent is a northern accent. I'm also northern, and that is definitely not a northern accent. It does seem like a bit of a joke, really. --Deskana (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also British, and also northern, and the accent is definitely put on. I have a feeling that it is a (rather poor) attempt to do a British-Yiddish accent; if so, it is almost certainly meant in an offensive way. Oh, and I have also made ThuranX aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take a native speaker to notice that this accent is fake. Not at all. In case anyone really has doubts about whether this is a joke or not, just listen to the last 30 seconds. It's suspicious that the sockpuppet of a banned user who uploaded this has chosen this particular articles. I didn't have the patience to listen to the entire recording, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some more or less subtle manipulations of the text as well. Hans Adler 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the accent is evidently fake, and gets progressively sillier as the thing goes on. At best it's someone having a joke. We'd be better off without it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jayjg beat me to it by a few seconds, and his edit summary was better than mine was going to be. Black Kite 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the giveaways that the accent is fake is that the speaker uses a long 'A' in "circumstances" - anyone from north of the Watford Gap would use a short 'A'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's either Dick van Dyke attempting to surpass his Mary Poppins accent range, or someone doing a homage to the Four Yorkshiremen sketch. I'm British, and cannot place the accent to any place in the United Kingdom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Should the file on Commons (w:Commons:File:WhoIsAJew2.ogg) be deleted? Just curious. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was on enwiki, then I'd delete it. It depends how Commons does stuff, though. --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally I thought it wouldn't hurt to keep it, linked from some page of Wikipedia humour perhaps. However, because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and the potential for this mickey-taking to cause real offence, I now believe that the source audio file should be permanently deleted. 86.133.245.40 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree, but the file isn't hosted here but on Commons, so this must be discussed there. They have a slightly different culture, and I believe they are generally a bit more reluctant to delete things than we are.
    Perhaps an editor with more experience with Commons than I have can start whatever is the appropriate process there? Hans Adler 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I don't think this file does us any credit, even as a parody for ostensible humorous purposes (the evidence of which is persuasive). My opinion might have been different had it been some other articles, but even so, that was the least of my concerns. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the file repeatedly because no one who has objected so far is a linguist or otherwise specifically qualified to determine the origins of the speaker. I find it dubious that someone would instead create a 20 minute long audio file in a consistent faux accent without laughing or joking at all. However, the audio was a perfect read-through of the article as it was when read and created. As such, it's better than no audio at all. Given that the only reason ever given for removal was blatant IDONTLIKEIT, and that no complaining editor ever offered to actually take the time to do it better, I restored it. That I'm being attacked here for preserving a greater quality, not a lesser, is a travesty of good sense. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You were not attacked. Infact, your name was only mentioned twice in this thread; once saying that you were "[constantly] reverting the deletion of the file", and another saying that they've informed you about the thread. We just disagree with you, that's all. --Deskana (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You once commented that you had only listened to the first few minutes, but perhaps that has changed? If you haven't done it yet I really suggest that you listen to the last 30 seconds now. It doesn't take a Brit, it doesn't take a native speaker of English, and very likely it doesn't take any familiarity with the English language at all to realise that the pronunciation of the copyright notice isn't meant seriously. The article itself is just a little more subtle. Hans Adler 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, it reminds me of the fake English accent that Ross did in Friends to keep his students entertained. --Deskana (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am American, but I think I notice a few inconsistencies in the speaker's accent ... sometimes he says CON-tro-ver-sy and sometimes con-TRO-ver-sy; at one point he says "pee'ul" for people and "exam'l" for example, omitting the /p/, whereas other places he only leaves out /t/ sounds... and in some parts of the recording it is hard not to think he's deliberately exaggerating his accent (see around 5:00, 9:30, 14:45, 16:20, and 20:00-21:13). In any case, for people unfamiliar with British accents it could be hard to understand this even if it is "real" ... so it could be replaced. I've gone ahead and !voted Delete in the discussion, though Id be willing to change my !vote if I can become convinced that I'm wrong about the accent. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A new version, fine, but the old one doesn't belong on Commons in any case. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FREEDOM94

    Resolved
     – Already blocked as a sock of Produde94--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaks for itself. Dlohcierekim 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it? Maybe I don't speak its language :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind old news. Already blocked, reverted etc. Dlohcierekim 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    HA. Might say he's been nuked. Dlohcierekim 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Lapsed Pacifist

    Requesting a closer look at actions of user Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    This user is the subject to 2 separate RfARs:-

    These RfARs found that Lapsed Pacifist had engaged in habitual POV editing, edit warring and other negative behaviour.

    LP is currently the subject of a RfE.

    Since their last RfAR, LPs behaviour has carried on barely modified.

    • They have failed to make correct use of edit summaries eg.here. and have continued to make reversions without discussion.
    • They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [80], [81]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR.
    • The Irish section of this diff contains edits which push the bounds of what is acceptable under the 1st RfAR as does this edit.
    • During recent WP processes, LP has failed to engage in any meaningful way, not making a statement at the RfAR or RfE or responding to communication attempts by admins.
    • LP returned from their first block this week to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.
    • The block log shows they have been sanctioned from violation of terms of remedies multiple times and twice in the last week. inc. an unambiguous violation of their topic ban here. Despite this they have failed to recognise it as a problem.


    Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system. The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies from RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunctions and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour. They continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability.

    In the interests of conciseness, I have kept this here as short as possible but a closer look at Lapsed Pacifists activity will show a long history of troublesome behaviour. Examples here do not even scratch the surface. Just their talk page alone shows poor interaction with the community.

    I realise that LP and I have a bad history but this is aside to their problematic behaviour. I'm requesting a review of the user as suggested by another admin here. GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made Lapsed Pacifist aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the correct place for this? The user is still blocked, so will be unable to comment here, block expires in a couple of hours, wouldn't a RFC User be a better place? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    probably the ideal place is to continue the discussion at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, where it seems to have been essentially ignored. Since the discussion seems to be here instead, I note Arb Com originally said: "If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. " The current short block is for the sixth violation. Given the information there, and here, I suggest we follow their advice & extend the block to one year ard log in at AE. . If this is regarded as too much of a jump from the previous ones, then 6 months. I would agree to pausing this, though, until LP can comment--which will be tomorrow.. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally speaking, I think that RFC/U is the correct place for this manner of discussion. Basket of Puppies 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? If this is a violation of the topic ban, then WP:AE and either a block (a long one as DGG recommends) or not. RFC/U sounds like a step backwards for someone twice banned by arbitration. Wknight94 talk 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the topic bans must certainly be dealt with by the appropriate board of the ArbCom. However, a more broad community review should be filed at RFC/U. That's what I meant. Sorry for being so vague! Basket of Puppies 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I KNOW I have heard this guy's name before. Idk where. I do know that wp:banned users doesn't have him listed, but I could have sworn that is where I learned is name. Anyway, yeah, if he is violating his restrictions he ought to be banned. --Rockstone (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user page appears to violate copyright by reproducing the lyrics of a 1929 song. I have tried asking the editor to remove the violation, but have been told in response that I had "an aggressive tone" and that the owner of the page would not change it, and get the impression that he or she will only listen to an administrator. Could someone please have a word with this editor and sort this out? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you could provide evidence that the song is under copyright, that would make it easier to follow up on this. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the burden is on the contributor who wants to include the material, but according to [82], copyright was renewed in 1956. Accordingly, it is under copyright until 2023. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the lyrics and explained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IrgoraJew

    Resolved
     – Indef'd by MuZemike Singularity42 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IrgoraJew seems to be a vandalism only account. It also looks to me that it's an anti-semite who initially posed as a Jew in hopes of getting under the radar but who actually has the agenda of making anti-Semitic or pro-racist edits to articles such as Zionist Occupation Government and Stormfront (website). 141.117.225.1 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IrgoraJew has been notified of this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    not quite a vandal-only account--at least his first edit was a useful reversion of vandalism. I do not quite see that he is clearly an anti-Semite, but his edits are remarkably unhelpful--so much so, that I wouldn't realistically say he could have any hope of getting in under the radar. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The blanking of Stormfront (website) ([83]) is convincing enough for me, amongst all the other edits. Indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 00:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, Chimes in SF

    As I am no longer completely uninvolved, I'd like to invite review of the contributions of User:Chimes in SF, who is persisting in repeatedly restoring edits to Susan Hutchison without responding to any efforts to address the problems by myself or others. Changes include removing sourced information, adding unsourced (including a WP:BLP vio) & bringing controversies to greater prominence in the article--a problem, I believe, under WP:Undue. This particular article has been embattled since shortly before a very contentious election. More information is visible at BLPN (this has also been listed at COIN). Most notably, it was a recent sock target (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hello4321/Archive). I myself became involved after a previous listing of the article at ANI. I personally believe that a block may be warranted in this situation, as this editor shows no interest whatsoever in engaging other contributors, but only in trying to force through his or her preferred version, regardless of policies and guidelines. Can somebody uninvolved please decide what further steps may be needed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have checked the article edit history, and I fully endorse Mooriddengirl's work on it. Given that there was similar POV edits by at least one other editor, I am not sure whether it would be better to protect the page in the version MRG reverted to, as well as deal with the editor. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it has happened again. I think some kind of tool use is required here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I probably count as "involved", I agree completely with Moonriddengirl. I saw a request for eyes on this article on the BLP noticeboard, so placed it on watch. The edits to change the lead are unusual to say the least (I wonder what the subject really gains from it? I digress..), but the addition of unsourced content as well as the removal of solid references is of course worrying. A couple of changes which appeared to be constructive were made by the user, but the intention of these was probably to act as "decoys", deflecting attention from the obvious POV restructuring of the article. Quite a clear-cut case really, but still fascinating to watch over the course of the past.. two weeks? (I think?) SMC (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I recommend that the Susan Hutchison article be semi-protected for a good long period. This pattern of blanket reversions, sockpuppetry and refusal to discuss has persisted since August. User:Chimes in SF is probably the newest sock after User:OMG oh my gosh was blocked for the same editing problems as the many other socks. This is the third time for this article at ANI here and here. It appears a lengthy semi-protection will be the only method to draw collaborative editors into discussion on the talk page. (I am the first admin who became involved in editing the article, so naturally,I am will not protect it myself.) — CactusWriter | needles 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed on wp:wqa

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    no one wants to drop this. Now I am dropping it. This has no hope of having any satisfactory outcome, so I am closing it. --Jayron32 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked for back up of my attempt to avoid an edit war on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jayjg, only to have its instigator turn to me with sarcastic and off-topic remarks. Somebody please back me up there. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see where Jayjg has been sarcastic. What I do see is you doing a bit of forum shopping. Crafty (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no choice, since there have been no uninvolved reactions on WP:WQA. And I have stated this very clearly here in this post. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this post uses sarcasm a few times. Feel free to disagree, though. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You always have a choice. There is no reason why (with a bit of good will) you couldn't return to the original site of dispute and try to resolve this like a grownup. Crafty (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you did not notify Jayjg that you had brought this matter to ANI. I have done so. Crafty (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to resolve here personally. On the contrary, I was trying to resolve a conflict between two other editors, when one of them turned against me with unrelated remark etc., as I explained on WP:WQA where I am asking you to help. Which is also the reason I didn't inform User:Jayjg of this post, because I am only asking for help on WP:WQA. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no acceptable reason for you not to inform an involved party that you have brought a matter to this noticeboard. You are required to do so. Awfully poor form on your part for not doing so. Crafty (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained to you why I didn't do so in good faith, and I still see no reason. As you may notice, this discussion did not involve any names of editors. I just posted to draw attention. It is not my fault that WP:WQA is not as much visited as WP:ANI. Saying that I am forum-shopping is pointing away from the real problem. If admins would be as active on WP:WQA as here, I wouldn't have had to put a link here. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Judaism

    Since another editor is ignoring my revert to the pre-conflict version and my request to stop the edit-war,

    1. I will refrain from trying to stop this myself, since I am not an admin to be able to enforce this;
    2. I'd like to request somebody to protect the Judaism article, and recommend to use this version, which was the last to precede the confict. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like forum shopping to me. Yes, I'm sure you would like someone to protect it at the right version but that's not generally how it works.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You get me wrong. I have no issue with the content dispute whatsoever. I just tried to prevent an edit-war, unsuccessfuly. Thank you for your good faith in me. Debresser (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Faith has nothing to do with it. Took a look at the history. You've been, at least recently, a very active editor on that page, well before whatever the flare up is today (which you appear to have been a participant in, not a neutral arbiter). You're asking for protection at your prefered version. That's quite clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't have to believe me. Although that might say more about your preconcieved notions of me, than about the objective truth. At least you could have kept it to yourself. This does not do you credit. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying you're not an involved editor? I'm not too bright and all, but all of that editing you do on that page sure looks like editing. As for forum shopping: You went to WQA, the editor you were in dispute with took issue with your take on the matter (shocking I know. That hardly ever happens) and you immediately came here, before hardly any of the watchers over there had responded, and asked for page protection at your prefered version. So how are you not an involved editor, and how is this not forum shopping, exactly? Remember, if you post here seeking input, you might not get the input you hoped for.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case, knowing that nothing I say will be able to overcome so much undeserved bad faith. It is enough that I know my own motivations. Debresser (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What case? Again, faith has nothing to do with this. The facts are you've edited the page 29 times this month (i just checked). If there's an edit war, you appear to be one of the edit warriors (though this is debatable). What isn't debatable is that you're a party to a content dispute. "Good faith" is not an enjoinder to ignore the evidence of one's own eyes. And when someone claims they're an uninvolved editor with all that editing being done prepare for skepticism.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had nothing to do with this specific conflict. I never said I didn't edit this article, but in this case, I was and am uninvolved. And I am not prepared for people questioning my word, and will never be. You insulted me. I do not expect you to care about that, though. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected that article and encouraged the editors to resolve their differences constructively. Crum375 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you point the insult out? I'm really stupid. The moment you started reverting, coming here and going to WQA you became involved. That's all fine. But unbiased guardian of wikipedia when it comes to this article, you are not. As it stands, the wrong version has prevailed for the moment. Article is protected, so no edit war. You're happy with this outcome, right? If you're not involved, tootle along while the people who are involved sort this out during protection on the talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You insulted me by not believing me when I said I was not involved in this conflict. I do not care which version has been protected, nor will I participate in the discussion. I just am not involved. I made my recommendation which version to protect, and have no problem with the fact that the protecting admin choose to ignore my advise. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you insult my intelligence (and perhaps that of others) when you say you're not involved. I have eyes that see. All those edits, many in the specific area of dispute, make you involved. No crime there. But neutral you aint.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Being truly uninvolved, never having interacted with any of you and never having edited the article, may I offer a friendly piece of advice to both of you? Stop this pointless argument, it's not going to change anything and, quite frankly, nobody else is interested. Having a nice evening!Jeppiz (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You (Bali ultimate) just called me a liar, in other words. I kindly ask you to appologize. Debresser (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've called many people liars in my time. You? I don't recall ever doing so. A diff would be handy for jogging my memory. However, I don't deny that i dispute your characterization of yourself as uninvolved when you're in fact a party to a content dispute. No shame in that. Quite common on this page.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You both agree to disagree. Done. Drop it and move on. Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody please tell me where in Wikipedia I should post to force an appology from Bali ultimate, or alternatively get an independent confirmation of the fact that I have been falsely accused? I understand from two reactions above that WP:ANI is not the right place. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as a "forced apology". And Wikipedia, while it does have dispute-resolving procedures, does not hand out "justice". Singularity42 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked into the matter so I don't know who is right. What I do know is that WP:ANI is the place to post such a complaint. However, I would strongly recommend you to drop it. I have not read the article Judaism but none of the comments on this page in this discussion is of the kind that anyone could be "forced" to apologize. I suggest you leave the subject for now, as this is not going anyway.Jeppiz (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your reply and advise. Alas. So be it, that a man of honor and a man of God (after all I am a Rabbi in real life), can be called a liar (diretly or indirectly), and the insolent person doing so shall not be called to justice. Wikipedia is almost like real life. :) Debresser (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, insolence. They used to lash people like me for that, understanding that all self-proclaimed men of god are beyond reproach, always. Tis a pity indeed, m'lord. Peccavi.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one wins the argument by making the WP:LASTWORD. (This is not directed at anyone specifically.) Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Scibaby back in action?

    Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks very much like a Scibaby sleeper sockpuppet which has recently been reactivated to disrupt climate change-related articles and BLPs. There is an (as yet unresolved) SPI outstanding on this and three other user accounts which appear to be sockpuppets either of Scibaby or another recently blocked sockpuppeteer, Tinpac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Could someone with more familiarity of Scibaby's MO take a look at Flegelpuss's history to see if my suspicions hold water? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made Flegelpuss aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies in advance if my comments may seem rude, but Shulz on the flimsiest of evidence is trying to ban innocent and productive editors, so our bluntness in our own defense is warranted. These accusations have made me waste my time to go read up on "scibaby" to see what all that hubub is about. Apparently scibaby has been a big problem, but there are over a billion global warming skeptics in the world, and indeed in the U.S. there are more skeptics than believers. Over the last two days it shouldn't be surprising that many people with this widely shared skeptical POV, which is quite different from the dominant editors' believer POV, have started editing articles related to the CRU scandal. I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for many months, as a perusal of my contributions log will show, and I got interested in editing about the CRU scandal because I've seen a great deal of highly biased editing going on to try to prevent the facts about the CRU scandal from being documented for posterity by Wikipedia. Since I want to put very well sourced and highly notable facts on Wikipedia that contradict the dominant editors' preconceived opinions, I guess that means I get banned too, because this apparently makes me "quack like a duck"? Please, let's stop the paranoia -- there are over a hundred million global warming skeptics in the U.S. alone who are not scibaby sockpuppets, and neither am I.Flegelpuss (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly publicized and politicized episodes like this tend to attract both a large influx of new editors and a handful of abusive sockpuppets. Perhaps you could help by educating these new editors about Wikipedia's policies and standards, so that they don't run afoul of them. As an aside, if your goal is to "document this episode for posterity", then surely the rational approach is to wait for the dust to settle and for a coherent picture to emerge, rather than fighting about minute-to-minute swings in our coverage while the topic is hot off the presses? MastCell Talk 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Flegelpuss should be banned just for his outright lies about what the majority of Americans believe. As a poli sci grad student- they are FAR past "exagerations" about global warming. Read Fiorina's Culture War? They myth of a polarized America; standard reading for even freshman and encouraged to be read by just about any poli sci professor you'll meet. This isnt Kansas, this is an encyclopedia. Fringe theories are treated as that. Sorry, Flegelpuss, you are in the minority and this is a fringe theory. Even if the fringe theory was held by a majority of people it would still be a fringe because science considers it to be. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq didnt have anything to do with al-Qaeda or 9-11, and evolution really happens (but not in Kansas, inbreding stops it I guess); those are just three more things you can learn from Wikipedia if you have an open mind. Which is why Wikipedia bases itself on published sources that are reliable not what the majority thinks.Camelbinky (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Camelbinky reveals the real motivation behind this witch hunt.Flegelpuss (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the real motivation is for Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia based on reliable published sources... you caught the conspiracy. Good work. Or were you saying I'm part of the liberal bias inherent in the US university system? I'm a grad student at MU (University of Missouri-Columbia) the dean of the poli sci department (whom technically I "work" for) is a good friend of Karl Rove and a big shot in the Republican Party; so I wouldnt go with that whole "colleges are a liberal bastion" argument against me. Read Fiorina's book and learn what the majority of Americans TRULY think before you talk about "hundreds of millions" of Americans believing things. College textbooks trump Fox News.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of Americans are moderates, in the center, neither left nor right. The polarization process is directed by special interest groups to win votes for one side representing their viewpoint. It occurs, because both the American educational system and the media is unable to do their job. As Higgins & Sussman write, "The business of news distorts its public and community character and the institutional responsibility of news organizations to inform and educate, free of commercial or government imperatives, and improve the quality of a democratic civil society." Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Camelbinky, you are painfully unfamiliar with my edits, which were (A) about the CRU e-mail leak, not about the science, and (B) were based on reliable sources such as the BBC and the New York Times. The contents of some of these e-mails have become quite (in)famous and that makes true believers like you uncomfortable, and your natural reaction is to strike back at the bearers of bad news with a witch hunt. Those who value science, OTOH, should be happy to see how the most important science currently being conducted on our planet is being done, albeit obviously it would have been far preferable to get the information as a matter of course, or at least as a FOI request, instead of having to wait until it was leaked. Flegelpuss (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we avoid discussing what we think about Americans believe, think, and so on, on WP:ANI please?--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I was making, which Camelbinky completely missed and took on a wild tangent, was that climate skeptics are not rare, they are extremely common. They look the same to a true believer, because they have very different PsOV. When a big event like the CRU e-mail leak happens a large number of skeptics can be expected to show up and start editing, apparently with a similar POV to "scibaby". To suspect that they are scibaby is an understandable psychological bias, but unfortunately it has turned into a paranoid witch-hunt that threatens to have me banned. Excuse me for defending myself, and the rights of all innocent and productive Wikipedia editors to be free from this kind of attack.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a strong consensus that your edits are problematic, Flegelpuss. Have you bothered to take a look at your own contribution history and talk page? Do you acknowledge that you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia? BTW, WikiProject Physics accused you of using sockpuppets in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, since the fate of entire companies can depend on whether politicians take draconian measures against the projected climate change sooner or later, I guess it's not too absurd to expect Wikipedia to be hit by a certain degree of astroturfing; e.g. editing paid for by oil companies or more likely by front organisations of such. I am not surprised that people are suspicious in that area and think it's a good thing in principle. Hans Adler 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser is in [84]. We now have 2-3 unconnected (or not yet connected) sock farms. Flegelpuss is the sockmaster of User:EggheadNoir, and has abusively used the sock on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident until the sock was blocked (independently of the sock issue) by User:Tom harrison. I'll update the sock block to indef. What do we do with the sock master? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the two suspected puppets of this been checked? DVdm (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were not part of the SPI request. I suggest you add them at the article linked above - before the case is archived. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated(?) attacks at User talk:194.144.74.14

    A number of IPs, plus new account User:Lrn2troll, have put the same offensive message on User talk:194.144.74.14. The subject line is "Hello, you degenerate imbecile." Is this a known vandal or pattern? The targeted IP has not been active editing in a while, so this feels like somebody's playing with a bot/botnet/proxy/IP abuse and picked what they thought was an off-the-beaten-path target. I'm tempted to protect the page but afraid that will drive them to a new target. Opinions? —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another account, Ukronian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is now participating in the attacks, which have evolved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected it. This smells of either one user using a rash of open proxies, or a 4chan distributed attack. If it is the former, then they are wiley enough to jump anyways; actually, they are probably checking this noticeboard and will jump anyways. If it is the latter, then protection will likely stop it for a while. Either way, lets keep an eye on recent change and see what happens. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Indef'd for vandalism by Kuru. Singularity42 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ilovemassachusetts84 posted a legal threat at [edit]. Eeekster (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly not serious, there is no need to take any action. I would prefer it not be reverted from the talk page, since admins are supposed to review any comments the page creator (or other editors) may have left on the talk page before deciding to speedy delete a page. Prodego talk 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter how serious. Legal threats are always treated the same: indef'd until they retract. In any event, user has been indef'd for vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no no no no, no two situations are ever treated exactly the same way, every situation is different. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules, only guidelines by which community consensus is carried out. Therefore, to say that all legal threats are dealt with the same way misses the point of WP:NLT, which is intended to both discourage legal action, and ensure any legal situations are resolved without any further entanglement of Wikipedia. Spurious 'legal threats' such as this one are not to be dealt with as a true legal threat would be. Prodego talk 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, then he's a troll who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia, but is instead only interested in stirring up trouble. Either way, the block seems fine to me. --Jayron32 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That comment, and all the rest should be evaluated in determining whether to block him. I would not call that a legal threat, as it clearly is not serious. However, it as well as other edits the user made, such as this one, and the long history of warnings, mean that a block for disruption and/or vandalism looks justified to me. However, that comment alone would not justify anything. Prodego talk 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As the editor (or second editor, maybe) who Prodego was originally replying to, I don't mind pointing out that Prodego makes a fair point. Singularity42 (talk)
    I know this is closed out as resolved, but I'd like to also point out that Prodego is absolutely correct about policies and "enforcement".

    Possible school security threat

    Resolved
     – Someguy1221 is going to contact authorities - thanks, all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See diff on Godinez Fundamental High School. In my humble opinion this is childish vandalism rather than a credible threat of violence, but am noting it just the same. FlyingToaster 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed on what it probably is, although this is something that police might actually investigate if reported, as opposed to the majority of childish threats posted to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Someguy - I'm guessing you say so because the tone is neutral rather than silly? I'm happy to report to local authorities if that's roughly the consensus. FlyingToaster 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much that the tone is neutral, but rather that there's a clearly identified target. In such a case, especially when that target is a school, the local police are usually very interested in knowing who made the threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized I'm not all that far from the school at the moment. I would be happy to contact the local authorities myself, if a checkuser could provide the IP beforehand. Acutally, it might be worth it for a checkuser to see if the user is proximal to the school (it may not be as worth a report if the user was editing from Singapore, or something). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - requesting checkuser via SPI here, feel free to comment. FlyingToaster 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed that most schools themselves are very interested in such postings even if it is not serious, ESPECIALLY if it is from one of their own school computers. Some schools even take disciplinary action even over little things like what we call "vandalism" if done on Wikipedia from their own school computers. Making even a "silly" or "not serious" threat would definitely be dealt with, I'm sure the school would like to be contacted right after the police.Camelbinky (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed Someguy1221 with the user's IP address, which he can give to local authorities for help in dealing with this. For anyone concerned, such releases are permitted under the privacy policy: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected [...] through records in the database via the CheckUser feature [...] may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations [...] Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." As a specific target was identified here, and for the reasons pointed out above by Someguy and Camelbinky, a call to authorities is not unreasonable, especially if there's someone in the area. Someguy, any updates you can provide would be appreciated. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted the local police, as well as the school, and provided the necessary information. They asked me to contact the local FBI field office with the same information, as apparently that's where jurisdiction lies in this case. I'll be doing that when the field office opens tomorrow morning. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this FBI page might be useful for alerting them of the situation. Basket of Puppies 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user #2

    Resolved
     – harassment/sock block Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In a manner spookily similar to that discussed in this thread, Q333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – in his first three edits – made this absurd edit to my talkpage, with a false header and a body copied from my previous edit-summary. Can he be blocked, please? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 06:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably a block evading sock. Any idea who, to save me trawling through contributions? GedUK  11:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the editor chose not to respond to Dædαlus polite question, I've blocked as a harassment-only obvious sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must question these actions guys - in the first place no-one has made the user aware of this discussion (which I now have), and Dædαlus' less that civil question, which was a classic example of WP:BITE, came 12 hours after his last edit...can we not allow him/her to explain his/her actions before blocking him? GiantSnowman 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Can we not allow him/her to explain his/her actions before blocking him?" – could you suggest a hypothetical legitimate explanation for that stupid trolling edit he made to my talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I can't, it was certainly a very odd edit - but not allowing a new user to explain their actions is extremely unfair. GiantSnowman 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I beg to differ. AGF doesn't extend to blindly insisting that every action, no matter how blatantly troll-like, was done with a pure heart. If we can't come up with a plausible reasonable explanation for it, it's likely that there isn't one. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think he is a sock then why not do a CheckUser? GiantSnowman 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a) I don't have the Checkuser permission, b) I didn't say he was a sock, only he was a troll. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but you could quite easily ask someone to do a CheckUser on your behalf...and if you don't think he is a sock, then why did you link to WP:SOCK in your primary post? Don't get me wrong, I am 99% certain he is not a bona fide editor, and the block should therefore stand, but he not allowing him the chance to defend himself if he is a genuine newbie who made a stupid edit, and not notifying him about this thread, is extremely poor form in my eyes. GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support an unblock to allow the editor to comment, without prejudice to any future action. 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland football league system

    Resolved
     – Closed as keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This AfD has been open since 6th November, and remains open - yet hasn't been relisted or anything. It also appears to have been removed from the AfD categories...can admin take a quick look please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as keep, since there was discussion even after the templates got messed up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Flagrant BLP violation by user:KimDabelsteinPetersen

    KDP is currently engaged in an edit war over inclusion of material in the Mojib Latif article that clearly violated WP:BLP. KDP, as WMC before are inserting material sourced to weblogs in a biographical articles. This is not the first time KDP and associated editors have been found to be in violation of WP:BLP on climate related articles [85] . WVBluefield (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified KimDabelsteinPetersen of this discussion; however, I think the best place to disucss this would probably be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs of blocked sockpuppet adding material against consensus on the Joker (comics) article

    User who has had multiple socks blocked already, now using multiple IPs in the 69.79.46.x range to attempt inserting material against consensus (see Talk:Joker (comics), as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krlzh/Archive).

    A request to semi-protect the page was auto-archived, with a comment by J Greb suggesting that due to other articles also being affected, that perhaps a small range block may be a better solution. Is this the right page to request consideration of a range block, or is there another page for those types of requests? 67.183.232.99 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And now the most recent sock IP involved has again restored the material - despite clear consensus on the talk page, and the talk page archives, and the talk pages of the blocked user that it's original research being sourced with fan-forums. The user is unable to provide reliable sources for the content, which is the reason for overwhelming consensus against the material. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nagara373

    This user has been persistently adding unsourced and incorrect information to automotive articles. I felt this was probably deliberate, since a few of the edits were very blatant, and reported it to AIV. However, they decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and pointed me here. Here are a few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. swaq 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Maya civilization vandalism

    There's an odd case of vandalism at Maya civilization, which is only visible when not logged in (see Talk:Maya civilization#Vandalism (Nov, 2009)). I checked article source, some of article history, and the unprotected templates used in the article, and found nothing. I've never seen this kind of vandalism before, and wasn't able to find any appropriate instructions at WP:V or elsewhere. Can't report any users, since it's not clear who to report. So I'm posting about it here, hopefully this is the right place. --Jashiin (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the article from a different browser (not logged in) and everything seemed normal. Have you purged your cache? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about this, is it worth flagging up at WP:VPT? Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded at the article's talk page; I used a different browser with clean cache. At the moment, it looks like the vandalism's gone. Must've been some template (or..?) vandalism I overlooked, that was fixed before I posted here. --Jashiin (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also reported it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_on_article_Maya_civilization I checked history. It is weird that I am not seeing it now even though no one has corrected it. This is really weird. Thanks! 117.98.81.127 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000093928
    2. ^ http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm
    3. ^ http://www.bestfish.com/convert.html
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=327498372"