Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Levine2112 yet again

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was previously warned by Elonka (who is on a wikibreak) and so he chose to stay away from chiropractic-related subjects for two weeks. That pause has run out, but he is back to his usual agenda, an openly declared one of protecting the reputation of chiropractic, IOW whitewashing the subject wherever it's mentioned. He is deleting well-documented and uncontroversial facts based on false arguments. Please take a look at his recent edits, most notably these:

• Applied Kinesiology (AK) -- Deletion of chiropractic mention in LEAD. (AK is a pseudoscience.)
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience -- Similar deletion of chiropractic mention in the AK section of the List

He is hiding the fact that Applied Kinesiology, a pseudoscientific method created by a chiropractor, widely used by chiropractors (and a very few other flakey professionals who are into alternative medicine), is indeed a popular chiropractic method. That's simply whitewashing and unwikipedian. There is a discussion thread here.

The only reason I bring this here is that this situation has occurred many times before over the last four years, sometimes with months-long disruption occupying a lot of editors' time on this matter. I hope we can avoid that. Please give him a warning to stop such whitewashing of very obvious and uncontroversial facts. The edits he deleted were very neutral. OTOH, a warning may be too soft, since his previous warning and pause didn't seem to work. Maybe a topic ban from the whole subject of chiropractic, no matter where it appears. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not assume without references how widely it is used by mainstream chiropractic. This is a content dispute that could use some sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. The documentation is provided in the AK article, and an actual diagram is provided here at the left. It is the tenth most used chiropractic technique, used by more than a third of chiropractors. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a content dispute. I don't see any evidence of behaviour problems. Please carry out the content dispute on the article talk pages, not here. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am doing so there. The behavioral problems are because this is yet another repetition of the same conflict on the same subject we have had with him many times before during the last four years. If we can settle this at the article level I'll be satisfied, and I see that other editors are already doing that. 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did the chiropractic advocate Levine2112 make this edit. Because he was intentionally trying to prevent AK from becoming a subsection of chiropractic. I made this edit to make it a subsection. It was obvious Levine2112 was trying to prevent improvements to the article. There was a new discussion started about moving AK to make it a subsection of chiropractic. But is became clear Levine2112 was against it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a chiropractic diagnostic method using manual muscle-strength testing for medical diagnosis and a subsequent determination of prescribed therapy. According to followers of the theory, it gives feedback on the functional status of the body. While it is primarily used by chiropractors, it is now also used by a number of other practitioners.

The above is the current lead of the AK article. Levine2112 made this edit because he was trying to prevent AK from being a subsection of chiropractic at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Levine2112's edit retained mention in the lead of who invented it (a chiropractor) and who uses it (chiropractors and others). I think it's quite reasonable to argue that it's not a "chiropractic technique" per se unless a good source unambiguously says so; other alt-med types do use it, but as Barrett says, "The prevalence among other types of practitioners is unknown." [1] Until that prevalence is known, Levine2112's version appears justified. Same logic applies for the other article, with substantially similar issues. Content dispute, conduct doesn't cross any lines in this instance. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note. According to the reference it is known that Most practitioners are chiropractors... QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please focus your attentions elsewhere, QuackGuru. An encyclopedia is a gathering place where people ("editors", in encyclopedic parlance) meet to feel welcomed. Matters of science or reality have utterly no place on an encyclopedia, and you should be ashamed at yourself for trying to cram fact into our happy gated community. Think of Levine2112's feelings here - for years he's labored here, keeping his watchful gaze on all articles related to chiropractic, chipping and chipping away at a wide swarth of articles through thick and thin, ignoring the mumbling unease of both AN/I and ArbCom alike, until each article stands tall and resolute in glowing, radiant praise to those benevolent gods of flimflam - a veritable forest of holistic Oneness. These tireless efforts render him not just an "editor", but a "contributor" as well - and contributors - and their gentle feelings - are an encyclopedia's most prized resource! Unapologetic tyrants of the scientific method who wish to sully these and other articles with their unwholesome and unnecessary point of view should, to put it bluntly, remove themselves from this encyclopedia before their rude mannerisms and disturbing tendacy to value factual content above all else drive valuable contributors such as Levine2112 from this meek and humble project. If they, those aforementioned tyrants of reality, wish to persist in their efforts to write from a "neutral", scientifically valid, academic perspective, they are free to do so on their own websites - but let's hope they don't have the unmigitated audacity to call those websites "encyclopedias". Badger Drink (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question re: userpages of blocked/banned users

Is it a common/acceptable practice for admins to allow a U1 (user-requested) deletion of the user and/or user talk pages when the user is de facto banned from WP? I ask because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayme08&action=edit&redlink=1 this edit. User:Mayme08 was blocked by me in February for IP socking through a ban, and general trollfulness. What I get from this log is, because the user blanked the page, the admin in question, rather than restoring the info that was there and blocking talkpage access, baseically gave the troll what she wanted by blanking the page FOR her, under U1. Is this an okay thing? GJC 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any kind of rule about this, it probably just comes down to an admins personal preference. I personally believe it should have been kept, I always decline those requests when I come across them--Jac16888^Talk 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)re

The purpose of blocked/banned templates is to assist the project. For example, if the banned user is actively socking and causing trouble, it may be important for administrators and other editors who have to deal with the disruption to know the status of the various accounts. On the other hand, when a banned or long-term blocked user accepts that he or she must leave the project, it sometimes happens that his or her doing so is impaired or held up by arguments about what his or her userpage should say. This is unhelpful to everyone, and is particularly unjustifiable where the user has edited under, or is readily associated with, his or her real name. Again, the goal is to assist with administration of Wikipedia, not to perpetuate embarrassment of the banned user, and administrators faced with these requests should keep this in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above, it's worth reiterating that there was no request to delete the user talk page. Deletion of user talk pages are normally only done if the user understands the right to vanish. The page should have remained blank instead of deleted on this occasion, though that doesn't mean it should be restored. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• "As a blocked user...You are not allowed to remove block notices while the block is in effect. As you are blocked indefinitely, this means the messages must stay until someone unblocks you." - This isn't true, see WP:BLANKING. Since the user is simply blocked, not banned, I see nothing controversial about the deletion, in fact, had the proper block template been used it would've been put into CAT:TEMP to be deleted eventually anyway. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo/Obama topic ban

Requesting a topic ban on Stevertigo on Barack Obama, sub-articles, and discussion pages, broadly construed, for disruption and failing to assume good faith. After warning him several hours ago, he has continued to be disruptive on DRV regarding an Obama article, even to the point of admission:

This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.

— 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is blockable behaviour, but I think he'll continue to act up if he isn't put on probation. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I do realise the irony of me requesting an Obama topic ban when one has recently been requested on myself. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And you did that with a template. That's like a slap in the face. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, I templated someone! That makes their disruption forgiveable! Not. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, whilst I do have limited sympathy, this report is at best a COI, and at worst pure trolling on your part. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Try to sanction someone for maybe trying to fix BLP problems, while allowing someone who is trying to violate BLP a carte blanche. Makes sense. Wait, it doesn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're being much more disruptive on that DRV. Why make fourteen comments, many of which are repetitive? Your claim is that all criticism articles should be deleted, and the place to promote that claim is not on a DRV about a speedy deletion that should have been userfied. Stevertigo is arguably being a bit inappropriately sarcastic in the DRV, but that's a minor violation of WP:CIVIL that can be handled with a gentle reminder on the talk page. THF (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV. And I'm not having trouble talking to JoshuaZ; he's actually being reasonable. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The place to raise NPOV policy is WT:NPOV, not a DRV; if you want to have a conversation with JoshuaZ, use e-mail or his talk-page, not the DRV. Your complaint is with the general understanding of NPOV (and you may well be right), not with the individual article. Make a proposal to rename all Criticism articles at WT:NPOV, point to it at VPP, and get consensus there. THF (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable). Sceptre ^(talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But put a CSD on Criticism of George W. Bush and see what happens. Again, your problem is with the policy, not with the individual article. CUTKD has good advice below. WP:COOL. THF (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Spending so long at AFD and DRV, you'd think most people around there know about WP:OSE. Guess not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't WP:OSE. The issue is that you are discussing an encyclopedia-wide problem that affects hundreds of articles, and it won't be solved on a case-by-case basis, and it's disruptive to make fifteen comments pushing your policy interpretation on a single article instead of asking for a policy change. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, please calm down. Why don't you back off for a bit then return once you've cooled down. With any luck, others will listen to you then :) C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there's a discussion on the "crit of GW" page to merge it to a different title. Anyway, the editors on the Obama articles can't even choose a picture without an edit war, so there's a fair amount of need for a nice cup of tea. Or some valium. SDY (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Or thorazine, the babysitter's little helper. arimareiji (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse for the collective social good of the project in these corners of it; certain individuals have been disruptively vocal and partisan of late. It's disruptive; it's unhelpful; it's inappropriate; it's importation in some cases of real-life politics by people with noted COI; it's time to shove it out the door with a foot up the proverbial arse; it's time for us to stop playing games and acting like it's not happening. rootology (C)(T) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no diffs suggesting that Stevertigo has been acting in a manner befitting a topic ban; the NPOV problems Wikipedia has will become far worse when these sanctions are being unevenly handed out simply because pro-Obama editors outnumber neutral editors. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The population of users by volume of perceived affiliation is irrevelant in anything we do, and is a reflection of where the bar for NPOV on any topic is at most. Republicans by literal volume are the population minority in the United States, so it's unsurprising that Wikipedia mirrors this. Christians outnumber Satanists, too. In the end it has nothing to do with whether one person should be banned or not from a topic and is an appeal to the minority. rootology (C)(T) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that liberal editors who POV-push are treated better than conservative editors that edit neutrally. That's why we have Barack Obama articles that have completely different BLP standards than the George W. Bush articles. The proposed topic ban here--made without a single diff--is pure harassment. THF (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've forgotten the liberals and rumor-mongers who besieged the Sarah Palin article back in September, and were fairly successfully held back. Bush was in office for 8 years, so criticisms of his policies are abundant. As Obama's length of time in office grows, so will the criticisms. Keep in mind he's been there less than 2 months so far. What was the size of the Bush criticism page in March of 2001, or what would it have been if wikipedia existed? Not very large, I bet. The biggest problem then would have been to try to fend off the complaints that he "stole the election". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've both forgotten that the point of Wikipedia is to shove our own POVs up our own behinds when we work here. Did you forget I was one of the major defenders of BLP on Sarah Palin? I can hardly be called a fan of the lady in ANY sense. rootology (C)(T) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a little busy to pay any attention to Wikipedia then, but for what it's worth, the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article remains wildly unbalanced; you wouldn't know that Palin had been cleared of wrongdoing from reading the lead, and it violates BLP by falsely stating that Todd Palin did not honor a subpoena. The Sarah Palin article incorrectly implies that Sarah Palin was subpoenaed, and violates BLP by falsely stating that the subpoenaed witnesses did not honor their subpoenas. That's just from a quick eyeballing, but it's a consistent Wikipedia problem that if there's a mistake in shading on a well-trafficked article, it goes to the left. There's always going to be a blind spot when dealing with NPOV; that's why we need editors from both the left and right to look at articles, because they're going to notice things that their political opposites will not. THF (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, THF is getting a little off topic here, but I appreciate his ability to deal with the problem logically. Scpetre filed this ANI because I was sarcastic, not because I violated CIVIL - a policy I'm intimately familiar with btw. Sceptre likewise likes to cite NPOV as the binding policy with regard to criticism sections and articles altogether, and at the same time says that this is a holistic wiki-wide policy issue that he will deal with only on the Obama article and on no other. He's just a kid, and only one particular partisan in the dispute, so it would be unfair to single him out too much, but he was in the fourth grade when I first started editing here, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't quite have a grasp of our basic concept yet, let alone our policies. That said. He may find certain support in trying to deal with crit pages, though, and I encourage him to explore that. One, it will get him involved in meta/policy/process issues, and two, it will get him more familiar with our concepts. If anyone were to simply say that our policy pages need some work, I would not hesitate to agree with them. Its unfortuntate that his misusage of policy concepts is somewhat of an emulation of other such misusage. It's all too common, even among advanced editors, to claim certain issues are under the domain of certain policies and not others. This issue probably deserves an RFAR, as its highly controversial, deals with policy conflicts, POV issues, has been disruptive, has elements of cabal, and a few others probably. -Stevertigo 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sceptre says:

1. "NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable)."
2. "It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV."

The first point is his strongest argument, and needs to be dealt with. But the problems with citing an "uncontestable" policy are numerous; 1) the article's designation as being in violation is in fact a judgment call, influenced by POV 2) the empowerment of POV editors with tools like speedy only serves to circumvent actual discussion and maybe the consensus that might follow. That's what happened here. The second point, that "its not [his] fault people just don't get NPOV," coming from someone who just discovered Wikipedia a couple weeks ago, is not his strongest argument. -Stevertigo 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more admin eyes at Barack Obama

Without comment on the dispute above, it would be a very good idea to have more neutral admin attention at Barack Obama. Yesterday I went there for the first time to perform what would normally be a thoroughly uncontroversial edit: adding an existing featured picture to the page. Started with a suggestion at the talk page, just to be on the safe side. Surprisingly, that sparked a long debate and a small edit war.[2] The atmosphere at that page is unusually tense. I'll be heading off to start an FPC for John McCain now; suggesting more administrative attention (preferably by people who don't care a whit about politics) would help to normalize the Obama article. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts towards creating a Barack Obama noticeboard? It's up on here a lot, despite the FAQ... Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. More helpful might be the usage of WP:OBT on the Obama talk page. -Stevertigo 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article probation page at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation - maybe some kind of community probation notice page somewhere around there? Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's easier for the community to at least be made aware of any issues here at ANI, so I'm not sure what a noticeboard would attempt to accomplish. In any event, I echo Durova's request - there's a remarkable number of threads here today which relate in some way to the Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ

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

---

The issue of "criticism of" sections and articles is an ongoing site-wide debate on Wikipedia. The editors of the Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (history) presented the issue as one sided, claiming that consensus was against such a section there on that particular article, and against consensus on Wikipedia altogether. The basic fact is that "criticism of" articles are conventionally used, not deleted, on Wikipedia. The previous and current version reads:

Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT.ZZ

I changed the text to reflect the fact that there is actual debate:

Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section/article? A6: There may yet be one, and that section may in fact simply link to criticism/controversy article. Note that such sections are both conventional (common on Wikipedia) and controversial (often flagged for deletion). The debate, both site-wide and here, is ongoing. The arguments against and for such a section here are as follows: Against: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT. For: It is Wikipedian convention to create such sections on controversial articles, to serve as a portal into criticism of the topic. The argument against such "criticism of" sections (and articles) is a site-wide one, which defies the site-wide convention, and is in fact a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument that has yet to find the support of site-wide consensus. Creating a "criticism of" article likewise helps the other Obama articles, by sandboxing POV editors seeking to disparage the President, yet allowing the dimension of "criticism" to be handled at all; some nominal work is required to keep such articles NPOV.

1. User:Bobblehead reverted the change claiming "FAQ is intended to be a reflection of the opinions of the editors of this article, not the campaign of a single editor."
2. I reverted, stating: "There is a debate going on, if you hadn't noticed: The FAQ your proposing is only a POV-pushing concept for your side of the issue. The one I wrote is more in accord with NPOV, and the actual facts, because it actually represents both sides."
3. User:PhGustaf reverted, saying: "The FAQ is not a soapbox. It's a product of consensus. Please discuss any changes in talk."

I believe my edit was explanatory, in keeping with the FAQ concept, accurate, fair, and succinct, and I believe both the other editors to be reverting based on a lack of AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, and a false concept that a FAQ can be POV and one-sided, rather than accurate and helpful. The debate is not just "the campaign of a single editor", nor did my edit constitute turning the FAQ into a soapbox, nor is "consensus" the relevant and overriding concept when in fact the FAQ was entirely one-sided. -Stevertigo 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not discuss it there, rather than forum-shopping with every issue that comes up? It looks like you made zero attempt to discuss it before running here. The topic-ban looks better as the time passes. Grsz¹¹ 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): *sigh* Because it seemed like a reasonable edit. When reasonable edits are reverted, that indicates that the reverter is less than reasonable for one reason or another. They stated their reasons clearly in the comment line, and characterized my edit as being something other than reasonable. I took that as indication that they intended to stand by their decision regardless of what I said. By your reference to other topical related issues, to a topic-ban (on me, personally) that has zero consensus, and by characterizing my reasonable and plainly laid out issue of an edit war as "forum-shopping" I take it that reason, NPOV, AGF, and writing an encyclopedia are not your operating concerns at the moment. Not to personalize this; that was just an observation, based on your undue and innaccurate characterizations. -Stevertigo 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The point of an FAQ is to hopefully answer people's questions prior to them getting the same answer on the talk page. As such it will necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors on that talk page and not those of drive-by editors that really, really want a Criticism of Barack Obama article created because it is so totally unfair for there to be a Criticism of George W. Bush (or Criticism of John McCain when the campaign was happening and prior to that article being dismantled or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because Wikipedia has a liberal bias) and not one for Obama. The opinion expressed in the FAQ has been the opinion of the "majority" of editors on Talk:Barack Obama since the FAQ was created and has been relatively stable in the current version since then.[3] It is certainly not expressing anything about Wikipedia wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article. If that consensus should happen to change, then the FAQ can be updated to reflect that new consensus. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also be missing the concept that a FAQ might "hopefully" be somewhat accurate, NPOV, and truthful. Thanks, though, Bobble.

PS: Bobble wrote: "It is certainly not expressing anything about Wikipedia wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article." Now read the FAQ answer text he defends: "Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT" Seems like their concept is not-local to the Obama article, and referencing of a rather ambiguous policy in a somewhat misleading way. The issue is "criticisms" the issue is "a criticism of section andor article" -Stevertigo 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not bother to discuss any of this at Talk:Barack Obama, the location of this FAQ? Also, you forgot to notice the folks you've mentioned in this report. --guyzero | talk 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is not "accurate, NPOV, and truthful" is decidedly in the minority though. That is the point that you do not appear to be getting. Fringe POVs do not get equal footing with reliable POVs. That's the way it goes. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for this. You should have brought it up at the talk page in the first place. I recommend this be closed before Stevertigo can cause even more disruption. Grsz¹¹ 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone regards this particularly suspect idea by Grsz, please read the ANI on his unilateral mis-relocation of this thread: #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11. -Stevertigo 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find this very curious. Steve, you're making and reverting to substantial POV out-of-consensus edits on a semi-protected subpage of an article on probation, and posting to AN/I about it. Exactly what sort of administrative response do you expect? PhGustaf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that you are commenting here, calling my simple explanatory edit as "substantial POV" as if you weren't an involved POV partisan who themselves reverting my good-faith edit. Exactly what sort of response do you expect from the person whom you decided to override; failing both there and here to even attempt to make any substantive argument for your reversal. I gave several logical and accurate reasons for making the change. I have yet to see you or anyone else try to debate this on the merits. -13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) :Yes, shut it down. Stevertigo is on thin ice as it is. In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal. We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble. I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should. He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature. But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics. Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Template:Cut Wikidemon wrote: "Yes, shut it down." This is highly improper. Are you under the impression that you can just "shut down" discussion threads on particular items, expressing only your POV that the person you disagree with "is on thin ice as it is."

Demon wrote: "In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal." I'm not particularly interested in editing the Obama article; merely the editorial and policy issues that deal with a bunch of people who 1) mischaracterise the debate as being decided 2) claim that "criticism of" articles are against BLP, NPOV, NOT, UNDUE, etc., when in fact there are 157 of them; a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument 3) employ sabotage, speedy deletes, admin abuse, policy misuse, and general talk page disorganization to nullify any discussion of the matter. In short I don't really care about the Obama article, aside from the nominal fact that such articles generally require controversy/criticism sections. Their absence is telling of either POV whitewashing, or else a FUD characterization of all such criticism. Even if 90% of such energy was POV vandalism, and I agree that that number is perhaps correct, the usage of such sections and articles is arguable a benefit, not a hindrance.

Demon wrote: "We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble." If it were not for me personally starting trouble, WP:CIVIL and WP:RFA/WP:DR, would not have come about. I invented those WP:shortcuts you use all the time, for Pete's sake. I not only understand both policy and process, but some of if was in fact my formulation. Can't take any credit for NPOV, though.

Demon wrote: "I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should." This appears to be based on your assumption that "this editor" needs you to give him "every chance" in anything, that these discussions are only "disruptions" and not actually discussions, and wherin "contributions" is a loaded term used to indicate only those edits which you deem to be valid. Thanks for your opinion.

Demon wrote: "He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature." Your support is most encouraging.

Demon wrote: "But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics." Ive been responsive at a point-by-point, argument-by-argument level, using reason, clear explanations, citations of policy, and general regard for the intelligence of my opponents, if not their arguments. Does that count?

Hey, next time you use a WP:shortcut, think of the "disrupting" editor who invented them. :) -Stevertigo 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not overriding? Consensus is always overriding, for anything and everything we do under our present "rules", which are that consensus rules. This is a distracting red herring on this page from the key discussion. And don't edit war. rootology (C)(T) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Maybe needs attention

In light of Steve's recent behavior, perhaps this idea needs another look. Grsz¹¹ 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Duh. He's been disruptive enough to warrant a block without the probation. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His point is valid, though as you've said he should have broached this topic on the talk page. I think you've already made your point clear though. This whole thing seems to be getting out of hand, though perhaps this is to be expected for what is arguably the most important article on Wikipedia currently. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it was roundly rejected on the talk page. And we delete BLP violations first and talk later. Otherwise we'd never deal with libel. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It very well may have been (though there does not appear to be any consensus in your linked discussion), but the way you worded the answer for Q6 implies there is a general Wikipedia discouragement of criticism sections, when in fact the consensus against a criticism section was specific to the Barack Obama article currently and not some sort of global consensus. We can continue this discussion on the talk page, but verbiage matters for a FAQ. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV discourages sections devoted to one viewpoint. Criticism articles and sections are devoted to one viewpoint. Therefore NPOV, in a roundabout way, discourages criticism sections and articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please discuss this on the talk page instead of ANI? I have created a section for discussion. JustGettingItRight (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious proposal

Limit Stevevirtigo in some way here. He's literally all over the Obama pages, DRV, this ANI, everywhere ranting about these articles now and every editor that politically disagrees with him. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. The ban I asked for was:

• Ban from editing Barack Obama and subpages.
• Ban from discussion pages of those articles.
• Ban from any Wikipedia-space discussion about the articles.

Which doesn't seem to harsh now... Sceptre ^(talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third thread you've started on this page trying to block Stevertigo. To neutral eyes, it's hard to see why he's being more disruptive than you. I suggest you both disengage for a bit. THF (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not. I've only started one thread, this thread, to ask for probation on him, and reminded people of this thread in the thread below. And you're hardly neutral in this dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Mitsube...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is complaining about my removal of his unsourced editorializing at a variety of places. He has responded by posting on the talk pages of editors I have had disagreements with and now posts on my talk page that I should "feel a deserved resounding slap on his face." Is this not a violation of WP:CIVIL? Mitsube (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube gets credit for tolerating a whole thread of complaint on his user talk. Any issues about incivility should go to WP:WQA, NazarK should stop posting a complaint about Mitsube to multiple user pages unless he is willing to open an WP:RFC/U, and let him follow WP:Dispute resolution if he has content issues. Those interested may continue the discussion on Mitsube's Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have acute content issues with Mitsube at this moment. His edits I observed were harsh, but justified to sufficient extent by Wikipedia rules. I'm concerned about his pattern of editing being a threat for preservation of valuable, though not perfectly referenced and formatted info, entered by not very experienced users. As well as his style of 'wiping out' what others care to put in. The way he does it is intentionally painful and humiliating for specific editors he targets, though he is seemingly dealing with article content only and does so based on the Wikipedia rules. It may be personally injuring for many, in my opinion. Thank you, EdJohnson, your comments were helpful and informative. I'll restart this discussion in a more proper place once I have enough evidence and better command of Wikipedia Policies and dispute tools. NazarK (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab again

I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The issue is our usual brand of toponymical irredentism (in this particular case, Iranian).

I'm edit-warring instead of limiting myself to discussing calmly in the article's talk page because in this particular article the latter option has proven time and again to be utterly pointless (see the archives): these people simply refuse to follow our naming conventions, instead using Wikipedia as a venue to promote their preferred terminology.

My talk page attempts to explain our naming conventions are characterized as "unfounded, and contrived, arguments", and not even read anyway.

The relevant sections of the article's talk page are:

• Algiers Accord of 6 March 1975.
• It is Arvand Rood/Rud.

And I'm edit-warring at 1975 Algiers Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too.
The relevant talk page section is: Arvand.

Anyone bored enough to take a look at this depressing issue ? Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 16 March – 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it now. Do not continue edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aknowledged. And thank you for taking a little time for this. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This issue looks to be a bit of a doozy. I have protected the page for the time being on the most recent version. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version. It looks like this has been going on for several years, and at least one effort at mediation was closed before running its course. Given that there appear to be legitimate gripes AND nationalism driving this, I would strongly encourage opening a case at RfAr and trying to get some kind of closure on the matter. There is certainly a fair amount of room to address the actions of many editors involved, but I think this will just keep going around in circles without some definitive statement to fall back on. I'm open to other ideas, but given the number of years this has gone on, it looks like RfAr is overdue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how much an arbitration could help here, at least at present. Although the issue itself won't go away anytime soon, the Iranian editors demanding the use of the Farsi name instead of -or at least alongside- the standard English usage are always new people. Neither BF (he asked to be addressed so) nor User:Nepaheshgar became involved until 13 March 2009 (four days ago). So, I'm afraid the issue could be easily dismissed as premature, or even considered a content dispute.

Probably the best option involving the Arbitration Committee would be to make them aware of the situation and then wait for the current West Bank - Judea and Samaria case to run its course and see if the issue is handled there (if, because the cases are not exactly equivalent: for the avarange anglophone Arvand Rud doesn't have the subjective connotations that Judea and Samaria do; it's just that it's not the common, standard name of the waterway).

But in essence it's a really simple issue: whether the article should be written using the most easily recognized name, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (along the spirit of our naming conventions policy), or whether it should take into account the grievances of Iranian nationalists who dislike/dismiss our current naming conventions (and common English usage itself).

I think we can handle this without arbitration, by simply blocking the editors for disruption (i.e. persistently violating our policies and guidelines; in this case, our naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names). Previous warning, of course. We shouldn't allow so much liberty of action for the introduction of nationalist grievances in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHECK request

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that the WP:CHECK checkuser tool be used to determine if user:Soidi and user:Defteri are sockpuppets of user:Gimmetrow. I would like to be able to treat each as a separate person but Soidi and Defteri emerged with instant Wikipedia knowledge to support Gimmetrow in a dispute that is now in mediation after months of discussion on the talk page of Roman Catholic Church. I understand that Wikipedia acknowledges some alternative accounts but does not allow sockpuppets to be used for voting or editwarring which is what is occurring in this case. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations is thataway. Algebraist 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's customary to notify editors of threads here concerning them by using the {{ANI-notice}} template. --Rodhullandemu 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 19:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor van Niekerk

I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.

This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.

I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.

See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] .

I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Wikipedia, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.

Viktor has been active on Wikipedia since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.

I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.

The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.

And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) [11]. I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

• [12]

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [13]

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [14] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" [15] and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.

Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are certainly food for thought! They raise real issues and I think they're progress. Discussion on the talk page is also appreciated. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Myusedupname's disruptive edits to Lebanon: 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

In these [16], [17], [18] edits, User:Myusedupname changed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War section from three different well-researched, reasonably NPOV versions into blatantly POV material. (Those are just the three I found in the first two pages of history.)

Given that this comprises about 90% of the user's activity on Wikipedia, and s/he has only registered in the last few months, what steps should be taken?

Vonschlesien (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the user's talk page is empty. A quick glance at Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War also turned up no discussion of the matter. Consider posting a message at either or both talk pages stating your concern. (Disclaimer: not an admin) KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism context

Found this at the help desk ([19]). It is an old, ongoing one but it does give some information about some of their targets. The forum where this is taking place, and the thread, is here: [20] dougweller (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation

(brought here at suggestion of Juliancolton after I reported this at WP:ANV)

User Einsteinbud (talk · contribs) has uploaded a slew of copyrighted images from airline websites and Airliners.net (upload log). Looking at his/her talk page right now ([21]), he/she has had one image deleted as no copyright status identified, 2 images deleted as NPD, 3 images deleted at FfD for similar reasons, and another 4 NPD that I nominated today. He/she has also been warned about blanking files listed at FfD. I would consider the notices dated 1 March and 5 March to be sufficient warning to stop uploading copyrighted images, but the uploading of copyrighted images continued until 12 March. Most of these images allege that the files are public domain when in fact they are not (some such as AirDC.jpg even contained "AIRLINERS.NET" and a copyright tag plastered on it).

A secondary issue has been this user's redirecting pages instead of using the "move" function (Example, Move log). Some of these moves have been against naming conventions. I just coached/warned the user about this today, so I don't expect action on this part immediately. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ; edited KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the image violations, I reapeatedly checked on swiss.com for copyright. As one user pointed out, at one point an admin explicitly pointed out to me that these images are protected. Till that point, I didn't realize. I believe that users should be given the benefit of doubt, since we are all humans, and mistakes can also happen out of good faith. Besides that, I still believe I was right to move the Brussels Airlines to brussels airlines. It is black on white that its official name is spelled in lower case. One needs to be really blind in order not to realize that. I deny having done anything wrong concerning the Brussels Airlines article. An article needs to have the real name, nothing else!

--Einsteinbud (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ATTACK before accusing anyone of being blind, this is borderline perhaps but discuss the content, not the contributor. See Wikipedia:official names for some clarification of the policy with regard to the move, it seems to be addressing exactly the point you are making. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to let an admin comment on the image copyright issue. As for the page move, I specifically identified it on this board as a secondary issue; as such, I'm going to pretend that the statement of "One needs to be really blind..." is not a personal attack. I have replied at Talk:Brussels Airlines, as I want the focus of this discussion to be the image copyright incidents. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but isn't this resolved? An admin has pointed out to the user that the images are copyrighted, and the user appears to accept that. I can't really add anything, except to point out that Wikipedia's servers are in the US, and that the US is a signatory to the Berne convention - "stuff" is copyrighted unless explicitly released from copyright. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He does not seem to have been notified of the GFDL issues of "cut & paste" moves. I've given him notice of this, which can also constitute a copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects and policy...

Looks like I need some help on redirects and policy. Neither WP:Redirect nor a search on this board could help me much yet. The best I came up with was this. Let's say someone is blanking lots of pages, putting redirects there, but neither is discussing those redirects nor is merging the content to the targets. The result is, that the majority of Wikipedia users (not editors!) will not find the content anymore, if they ever knew it's there. Is this just WP:Bold or is it WP:VAN? What if those redirects are controversial and regularly reverted by different other editors? What if this one editor does not change anything after he's been told to stop and also has been warned several times? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your inquiry with specific examples. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to know policy and not denounce.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting an article is generally thought of as a normal editorial action, albeit a fairly drastic one. The normal Bold, revert, discuss cycle applies: A good-faith user is welcome to redirect an article without discussion if they believe it would better serve the encyclopedia to do so. Equally, another user is welcome to revert that redirect if they disagree. At that point, however, a discussion needs to occur before any further redirecting gets done, otherwise it's simply an edit war. Obviously, the normal rules of common sense applies: someone who generally does nothing but redirect things with dubious reasons is likely to get called on that, and if they go against consensus then they're also potentially being disruptive. To be sure we would need to know the specific situation you're referring to, but in general it's best to consider redirecting as you would any other potentially-controversial edit: You may be bold and do it once, but discuss if there are any disagreements, and don't be a dick about it. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This still does not manage the fact that content is not merged to the target and so hidden for the majority of users. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So revert, and then discuss. If you already reverted, but have consistently found the reverts changed back to redirects without any attempt at discuss, let's have the details. I find it helpful to start the discussion yourself when you do the revert, not wait for the other party. It's not required, but it works better, to explain why, & on the talk p. not just the edit summary DGG (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there's nothing wrong with blanking pages then, I have to move on. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with blanking pages to create a good-faith redirect. There IS a problem with blanking pages against consensus, or as a pattern of disruptive edits. If neither of those is happening, then there is indeed no problem. If you suspect that one or both is in fact happening, I encourage you to bring it up here or at some form of dispute resolution - excessive redirecting of pages does not help the encyclopedia, but simply the act in itself doesn't have to be malicious. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But how does this improve the encyclopedia? It hides knowledge from those who don't know better, and is a good deal of work for those who know better. And sorry, it just works against {{sofixit}} - devil-may-care? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In many cases it hides unreferenced, unreliable information, pointing the reader instead to a more general article. In other cases it simply hides excessive, indiscriminate information about non-encyclopedic topics. Again, this is needlessly general because you won't point to specific examples of concern, but legitimately redirecting unnecessary and poorly-referenced articles does overall produce a more navigable and reliable encyclopedia. The question is when it gets excessive. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And if the editor thinks that they are just "not notable"? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you have a content dispute, no different from any other content dispute. There isn't any general rule that's independent of some particular page's contents, because the answer depends on the particular page's contents. If you wish to have Wikipedia's administrators endorse a particular action, sight unseen, then you may not get your wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As said before, I'm not here to denounce. Plus, it looks like I'm wrong anyway. Maybe I have to adjust my common sense a bit. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent threat

Resolved

 – Trolls. >.>

Just saw this Russian threat of suicide. Not sure who to tell, or where to contact. (move or rename thread as needed) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if that is true, that person is dead now. That is very fast acting insulin. However some one NEEDs to call the cops NOW. I have already informed the user who was mentioned in that of the edit (cause I had no clue if they were saying they were married to that user..or not). Geolocated the IP. Godspeed. Rgoodermote  19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed my notice to that user..seeing as I realized that is saying it is the user. Rgoodermote  19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Informed Russian Wiki..well..more like hit any one that I thought was an admin. Rgoodermote  20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moscow's big, probably much too big. Hope it only was a joke... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a troll which has been harassing ru:User:Ilya Voyager for a long time. Next time you see such threats, just revert them. Thanks — vvv (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I hope so too. But in case. I've got the Russian Wikipedia informed. I don't know Russian (surprise), so I have no clue if that has to do with the editor him/herself wanting to kill themselves or their ex-spouse. Can some one tell me if that editor mentioned is male or female? (do not bother with this then). Well good to hear it is a troll, but it's not something we would know here. However, I guess we know that the reaction time for such threats is going to be quick. Rgoodermote  20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444

User:Stevvvv4444 has resumed categorising people according to ethnicity without references and when their ethnicity is of little importance, in contravention of WP:OC#CATGRS. The user has been warned about this previously - see here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned this user. As they have already been warned for this in the past I think a block would be warranted if this continues. --John (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it happens again, I will request a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Templated by anon

Resolved

 – Reverted, if you believe you know who this is a sock of please take it over to WP:SPI. — neuro^(talk) 02:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just received the warning template {{uw-longterm}} as the first and only edit of an anon. It is possible that I have so seriously annoyed an admin he forgot to log-in, in which case I would like an explanation of how. If not, this is vandalism; but somebody else should remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed as obvious vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely a sock of someone you've encountered, however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I've made three sections here but no action has been taken. User:Jersay continues to remove cited content in spite of warnings edit warring, and 1. He has received 9 warnings in the past 7 days over editing contributions, and was recently rewarded temporary block but that didn't solve anything. I made my points clear in the history: history and urged Jersay to solve disputes in talk which he has yet to do. Am I at the wrong noticeboard? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure why nothing is being done. It's blatantly clear some action needs to be taken, as talking is getting you nowhere. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He just removed the cited information a 2nd time. 1. Should I stop reverting? I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring but this is blatant vandalism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Jersay 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne

There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages [22] [23] . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. [24] [25] Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Wikipedia policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."^{SPI guide}? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark fact tag

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

due to a fairly involved dispute about the use of the word Myth in this lead of this article, I added a {{fact}} tag, here. this was the second time I've tried to add the tag over the last few days. since there is an ongoing dispute over the use of this word (a dispute, mind you, which involves the sourcing of the word) the 'fact' tag seems perfectly appropriate until the issue is resolved. however, it keeps getting reverted for no particularly good reason: once because it was interpreted as a POV addition - [26] - (I have no idea how a fact tag can have a POV), and once because it was claimed to be inherent in the definition of Myth - [27] - which is precisely the dispute in question.

there are a lot of bull-headed people on both sides of this discussion, myself included . I'd like an administrator to reinstate the fact tag with some notice that it should remain there until until the issue is resolved one way or another, as an appropriate temporary measure against misrepresentation. that strikes me as eminently reasonable. can someone please help me out with that? --Ludwigs2 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is thataway. Be aware that pages are generally protected in the wrong version; that is, a version different than the one you want to impose. But so far this content dispute doesn't seem to have escalated to the point of requiring protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth is one our magic words. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for page protection, because the page doesn't need it. I asked for an administrator to reinstate the fact tag, and maybe keep an eye on things so that people don't continue to remove it before the dispute is resolved. or are you suggesting that three or four editors can simply remove dispute tags anytime they feel like it, without justification, and there's no recourse for addressing that problem? --Ludwigs2 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See that magic words link above? That page tells you exactly how the word is supposed to be used, and that's how it is used in the article you are asking about. Asking an admin to make an edit that goes against what that page says is kind of silly. Quit beating a dead horse and accept the longstanding consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, asking an admin to take a side in an edit war is...not what the admin privilege is for. Anyone can replace a tag, keep an eye on things, and demand that the tag not be removed; admins have no special rights in this regard. Admin action isn't needed here: what's needed is either gaining consensus for your views through discussion on the article's talk page, or acceding to the consensus that the other editors seem to have established. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack threat

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

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

---

[28] 99% chance this is just silliness, but ... just in case. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's come back from a forty-year holiday I think this is a troll. Combine that with two pieces of straightforward vandalism prior to the threat - revert, block, ignore...~ mazca ^t|c 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:AID

Wikipedia's article improvement drive is back up and running, and needs support. Participate, better then drama here. Secret ^account 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Block requested for sock puppet of indef blocked editor

Resolved

 – Thanks, Tiptoety! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a WP:SPI report declined on the grounds that the sock passes the WP:Duck-test. Could I get someone to block my quacking friend User:Far To Low (as a sock of User:Nimbley6)?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

204.225.211.2

This nitwit is threatening legal action on their own talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.225.211.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.222.100 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they're pointing out that what you wrote could be considered slander (or libel, as you point out). They're not saying that they consider it libellous, nor are they saying that they're going to take legal action. Thank them (done), move on (to do). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that IP 172 seems to be engaging in some baiting of IP 204 ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've just been reading through the history of Niagara Health System. It's seems there has been a determined effort by a series of 172. IPs to vandalise the article since July last year reducing it from this[29] to this[30]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I have semi-protected the article Niagara Health System as it seems that the IP 172.x.x.x has persistently vandalised the article over a long period of time. IP 172.x.x.x, appears to be conducting a vendetta against the NHS while IP 204.225.211.2, which resolves to the NHS, has been trying to rebuff them. The page was semi-protected for one month in December but this hasn't deterred IP 172.x.x.x so I have protected for three months. I've also semi-protected the talk page due to the derogatory comments and personal attacks made by IP 172.x.x.x there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11

This may be the first meta-WP:ANI report: I added an AN/I report at #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ as a new section, dealing with a new specific issue on a particular edit. After making a couple pointed questions/comments there, and before I could respond, User:Grsz11 moved this section from the bottom into an older previous section #Stevertigo/Obama topic ban. I believe Grsz' move was POV motivated, or at least improper handling for an ANI request. For one, the topic ban section is largely defunct: no consensus exists there for a topic ban, though Grsz himself commented in the new thread that such a topic ban (on me) "looks better as the time passes". That's right; he says that a defunct, unsupported topic ban "looks better" to him. Two, moving a new report to an older section has deprecating effects: instead of being found where new reports are, its included in an older report. That is, an older, dead request for a topic ban on me. So, what do I do here, and what can actually be done about Grsz unwarranted move? Can I get him blocked for an hour or two? -Stevertigo 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is rather moot, isn't it? Given that the discussion should take place on the Talk:Barack Obama page and not here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cut are you talking about #Stevertigo/Obama topic ban (above), WP:AFD/Criticism of Barack Obama, WP:DR/Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama, or WP:DR/Uncle_Stevertigo.27s_argument_matrix? (Which User:Tarc apparently tried to delete altogether. Apparently he's also under the impression that he can treat other people's comments/logical breakdowns as vandalism. He must have taken something I said as being snarky). I agree that consolidated discussion threads would be useful, but that would mean people would actually get to discuss things. The partisans here don't seem to want that; hence the reason for the three deletion issue threads. something like WP:OBT might help though. -Stevertigo 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Grsz¹¹ 01:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be anything like a 'threat' would it be, Grsz? I fail to grok any substance in your comment here. BTW, please don't deprecate this particular thread too. That would be.. improper.-Stevertigo 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's... NOT "the first meta-WP:ANI report." That sort of thing is as tragically common as human suffering around here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't quite know what I think about that. -Stevertigo 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is there an actual issue here, or is it just more smoke and mirrors. Grsz¹¹ 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Cut At issue, Grsz, is your misconception of talk and meta discussion comments by others as being mutable according to your will. Contrition on your part would indicate both your ability to reason and a further willingness to be reasonable. -Stevertigo 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I await a reasonable user's opinion, but don't hold your breath. Grsz¹¹ 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest that people take a break? Get off your computer and go and do something else for a while? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption - Deletion of "Criticism of" articles

Resolved

 – All closed for disrupting AfD. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A user nominates for deletion a huge series of "criticism" articles: [31]. This has been debated numerous times, and the articles were kept. Could someone intervene, please? It would be huge waste of time for many users to vote in all these unnecessary AfD nominations. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: Ism schism (talk · contribs) started the mass nomination, after the article Criticism of Barack Obama that he (re)created was deleted ( AFD, DRV). Irrespective of underlying merit, this seems to be a WP:POINT violation. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ism schism has agreed to "pause for some time on Afds"[32]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have these "Criticism of [...]" pages, and not one on Barack Obama? _{I volunteered and voted for Obama, but it is a legitimate question that I can't find one, solid answer for.} If someone can provide some DIFF's, that would be appreciated. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it time, there will be criticism aplenty, as there is with any President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it has something to do with the fact that most "criticism" of Obama thus far--at least the stuff that has received semi-widespread coverage--has been nothing but the sort of fringe-theory scandal-mongering that is already covered (in absurd depths that can only be justified by WP:NOTPAPER) in articles such as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Jeremiah Wright controversy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. That was the type of answer I was expecting Cosmic Latte (thank you), not some canned "look at the FAQ" B.S. There is a reason why so many keep asking, and why it keeps being repeated; you can't expect to just can out a generic answer for the removal of a page when there are similar pages regarding similar, notable figures. More detailed responses are needed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ones who want the page could list the top 5 things they would feature in the article??? Then we'd be in a better position to judge its worth as an article. I notice the Bush page was created 5 years into his Presidency. So in theory, the Obama spinoff page should not occur until 2014. I also notice that everything in the Bush article summary talks about stuff that occurred well into his time in office. It's too early to write anything substantial like that about Obama, who has been in office a grand total of 56 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse sending these article to AfD but I also recognize the futility of it. I've given up trying to have these articles deleted or even renamed to something more neutral (e.g. Opinions on Joe Bloggs or somesuch). How we can defend hit-jobs like these is beyond me; any article that focuses primarily on the positive about an individual gets very short shrift. Just try and create Praise for Barack Obama or Praise for Sylvia Browne. Neutral point of view does not mean journalistic point of view. For all the perpetual kerfuffle around the BLP policy, we don't come down half as hard on negative bias as we do promotional articles. CIreland (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. While I hate these types of articles, this was pure disruption. Some process-wonk is bound to take the Dubya page to DRV because I !voted in it before realising it was a disruptive pattern. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wittenberg University

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Wittenberg_University.E2.80.8E_copyvio_problem. The SPAs in question are:

• Windowsforgood (talk · contribs)
• USA987 (talk · contribs)
• Seanusa90 (talk · contribs)
• Johnathan87 (talk · contribs)
• Jejejeje568 (talk · contribs)
• Jejejeje567 (talk · contribs)

Can I get someone to take a look at Wittenberg University? It seems that it is being used as an advertising medium with constant insertions of copyvios and blatant POV. There have been a large number of WP:SPAs editing this article, coincidentally, not at the same time. Most of them have been completely non-communicable and the ones who do respond pretty much just tells that me that I am wrong and reverts. I have filed a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan87. The latest SPA told a telling statement here, "Wikipedia apparently is very reliable in student's decisions on going to college". I would be happy to just let the SPI run its course (which has not gone very fast), but at the moment, I can't even insert a tag without a new sock account being created and removing it. I find it hard to use any method of dispute resolution, since I'm dealing with a new account every time I edit a user talk page. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This post was removed a couple moments ago by User:Windowsforgood. Looks like they are trying to cover up their sockpuppetry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 05:53

Yep, every time I start to have any type of discussion or start to warn a single user enough to report, a new user gets created. For example, I requested that Seanusa90 reply to my post on the talk page here at 5:06 UTC, and then Windowsforgood was created at 5:09 and was the account who replied to me. After removing this post, I doubt we'll be seeing Windowsforgood again. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it right now. That might be enough given the pattern I've seen, but I note it's been fully protected not long ago. dougweller (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help for a little while at least, or at least make them stick to an autoconfirmed account. According to the protection log, the last protection was just semi, not full, though. The last full protection was January 13, 2007. Hopefully, they will try talking it out on the talk page instead of waiting it out, but, if not, I may be seeing you all again in a month :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have given the latest incarnation a shortish block for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. If he tries to evade that, we can begin just immediately indef-blocking any new account turning up in future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Hopefully they'll get the message. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton, El Machete and 74.248.71.191

Resolved

 – 72 hour 18 RR blocks issued. Jeremy also full protected the page. Please let it be over now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just issued an indefinite full-protection to Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in order to stem what appears to be a very protracted edit war. The request that led to it was filed by 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs), and his request has been tampered with by El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs). The moment I issued the protection, I warned El Machete against editing others' RFPP requests, both at RFPP and at his talk page. Almost immediately afterwards, he came onto my talkpage screaming bloody murder at me and accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet. To be clear, when he first made the accusation, I examined the link and content he was edit-warring to keep in (example: [33]). The link's added inside a {{cite}} tag, and the added info's all unsourced.

Could I get some help calming El Machete down? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Jeremy is twisting the facts and providing false information. It was not IP 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs) it was in fact IP 74.248.71.136 (talk · contribs) and Jeremy is very well aware of this! He has chosen to ignore the fact that a blocked IP has gamed the system and played Jeremy a fool because he cannot swallow the fact I have highlighted he chose to assume bad faith on me and side with a currently blocked editor. He has even made disparing comments in his ANi comment "screaming bloody muder at me" towards me and does not seem to be a good admin.

Could I get some help getting this admin to accept the obvious facts. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• He has now removed any evidence of me highlighting his wrong doing from his page as he does not want anyone seeing it as he quite obviously knows what he has done and is ashamed and embaressed to have it on his talkpage LOOK LOOK LOOK. I know this to be fact as he keeps archives and keeps all other comments just for some odd reason not mine! Does not take a genius to know why either. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because you would not wait for a response from me after your last post. I was dealing with the thread directly below this one when you started accusing me of sticking my head in the sand. I am not your butler. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the comedian Jeremy, I cannot distinguish wether you are giving excuses or making jokes. I have been waiting and still am waiting buddy so don't twist the facts and you would not have bothered to come here and defend yourself if it what I said was not true. At least personally I wouldn't have because I would just pass it off as nonsense unless it was true. Checkmate buttler. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending myself; in fact I'm trying to keep away from you since you won't leave me be. If I had blocked the IP, I would have had to block *you* as well, EMG, and since you two were the only editors on the article I opted to full-protect it instead. Stop accusing me of malice before you end up blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If you blocked me you would have had to ban the editor as he played you and the system and I am quite positive if I gamed the system like this I would not get off so easy! I am not accusing you of malice, I am merely stating the facts. You take it as what ever your consious makes of it. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - You did not explain which IP had been blocked and when until after Jeremy started to respond. You also are making some very wild acusations about the IP editor, which the edit history does not support on looking at it.

If those are bad edits, you need to explain why.

At this point, several users (the shifting IP user, El Machete Guerrero) could be blocked for 24 hrs under our three reverts per 24 hrs policy or our policy against edit warring in general. You both failed to do much on the article talk page to explain your positions as far as I see. I don't want to do this, but if you continue swinging at Jeremy there's not much to save you from a short preventive block here.

Please stop the acusations, explain why the edits you were making were legitimate and the IP editors were not. This can be resolved in a calm and constructive manner if nobody continues to escalate it. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel I am making wild accusations at all, just valid observations. The shifting IP has already been blocked for 36 hours under one IP and I am aware I could also be blocked for breaking policy but the IP can be banned for gaming the system and undermining his block with another IP, which is not the first time he has done so and he has been warned plenty which he always removes off his page. As for swinging at Jeremy, if that is the metaphor you want to use then I will say I am only swinging in defense for myself. He was the one that posted this ANI not me and he is the one removing all trace evidence of my dealings with him on his talkpage and he is the one who assumed bad faith on my behalf. The IP was reverting legitimate sourced additions to the article and has been patrolling this page for longer than me removing anything that does not adhere to it's POV and vandalising in the process. George please at least you admit to the fact I am right and it is a sockpuppet gaming the system. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy has not acted wrongly in this matter. Removing the discussion from his talk page and opening the discussion here are normal and proper. Asking for an uninvolved administrator to cool down a tense situation is entirely appropriate and shows good judgement on his part. Please do not continue to acuse him of improper behavior over these actions.

Regarding the edit warring on Reggaeton - Again, please explain why the changes the IP was making were improper. All I have at this point is that you and the IP were editing it back and forth. Yes, the IP editor was blocked a little while ago on a related IP and is obviously the same person back. That does not mean that they were wrong on the underlying content dispute. I cannot tell if there's any reasonable justification for their editing OR your editing.

If I can't tell if one side was right, with clear violations of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, I should block all of you and protect the article for a while.

You have time and a chance to explain what it was in the IP editor's edits which were vandalism or incorrect, and why your edits were legitimate. Please take this opportunity to explain rather than continuing to fight over Jeremy's actions or other side issues.

Please focus. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am focused and I have been justified in my arguments. You conviently do not offer an opinion on the IP's gaming of the system a persist with me. You can block me but because he evaded his original block he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me, but either way there is no need now as the article has already been blocked so there will no longer be an edit war as we can't edit war. I already said in my reply down the bottom that I will look for the blind reverts and I will not proceed in doing so. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to poke this discussion - I just wanted to quickly address the phrase "he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me" - please remember that blocks are not punitive, they are preventative - punishment doesn't enter into it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - this is a last warning. Stop attacking Jeremy and explain why you have been edit warring with the IP address on the article, and why their changes are inaccurate or improper. If you attack anyone further I will block you for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I attack him? Explain how I have attacked him. Don't threaten me with blocks if you will not explain how I being disruptive. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18 reverts in less than 24 hours to one article, particularly of edits which seem to fix problems, is very bad; see here, where the IP changes a URL in a reference named "village voice" to refer to an article from the Village Voice on Reggaeton, instead of a redirect to a "latin music fansite" (though this isn't the only change, that it was reverted is clearly indicative of blind, automatic reversion without giving a moment's consideration to the content being reverted). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (addendum: However, of course, the full protection of the Reggaeton article obviates 3RR blocks for either at this time (since such a block would be in no way preventative) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edit was a blind revert on his half, as a while before our revert war, someone else changed that reference to "reggaeton2009" and I thought that was the correction. He was the one editing blindly as you will see from my reversions any new content I would include in my new conversion but he would not. I will try and find exactly when it was changed and show you he did not revert that with the intention of improving it and only reverted with the intention of reverting me. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like he or she were trying to fix some things. If you can show version diffs which show them actively inserting wrong content, please provide them. So far, it looks on examining a bunch of the back and forth that you were blindly reverting them trying to fix things, not the other way around.

Please provide the diffs of them causing a problem or inserting vandalism. Maybe I just missed it, but you need to show us. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will provide some diffs of blind reversions but you have to wait as this has been going on for ages. Give me some time. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few diffs; .191 showed up here, reverting to a version pushed by .213 (to be honest it does llook like the user just jumped IPs, but there's no cause to call it deliberate as the user doesn't seem to be engaging in block evasion etc). The current EW started here, and another probably unrelated IP added the oddball link here. .191 reverted both Machete and the new IP, and Machete reverted that revert, [re-adding the bad link. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes thankyou you found it. I thought I was improving the article by keeping that and I delibrately kept it as I thought someone changed a bad link. But now you have told me that the IP in fact added a fansite and did not fix the link at all and honestly I don't remember checking to see if he did in fact fix it which is my bad. But I am trying to improve the article not blindly revert it. I will try and look for more blind reversions by the IP. Give me a sec. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify - there are three things here which are unambigous from the edit history:

• The IP editor jumped IPs within the same /24 CIDR block, and in doing so evaded a block (on purpose or accidentally, I don't know, and isn't material here).
  • Obviously on purpose as he was blocked and was not able to edit on the other IP. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• The IP editor edit warred to the preferred version they like.
• El Machete Guerrero edit warred to the preferred version they like.

All that really matters is a good clarification of what the underlying validity is of statements about whether one side or the other was vandalizing with those edits. At this point - nothing in the IPs edits appear to be intentional vandalism. Nor do El Machete Guerrero's. The IP editors' edits appear to be more correct, removing questionable links and claims, but we haven't heard a detailed explanation by El Machete Guerrero as to why they feel the IP editor is wrong in fact and is therefore vandalizing. If we can't get a clarification to justify one side or the other's edits there should be a rangeblock for block evasion and 18RR for 48 to 72 hrs, a block on El Machete Guerrero for 48 to 72 hrs for 18RR (at least), and a protection on the page for a week or so. Someone, please explain to me why we don't need to block you for several days. What did the other side do wrong that constitutes obvious vandalism? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel he vandalised as he continuosly removed content which I had to re-add as did other editors Warrington and Largoplazo. Also why are you showing bias to me "at least" this does not seem very appropriate and I don't feel admins should take sides. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have also previously mentioned to you and other admins that they have every right in blocking me as I also did break policy like the IP, but unlike the policy I did not game the system and evade a block which the IP needs to be punished for if I am to be blocked and hes punishment should be harsher than mine as he did alot worst "at least". I'm sure if I gamed the system in such a way you would not treat me the same George or Jeremy and in fact maybe you should block me so I can just game the system on purpose and see if you deal with me fairly and the same as you do with the IP. Because that there will be my proof that you show bias towards me and aren't fair. P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that." is a poorly veiled threat. We are not children. You have been extended repeated opportunities to explain yourself - that is about to come to an end. Get to the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They did 19 things wrong - one block evade and 18 counts of edit warring. You did 18 things wrong. I am not biased for or against either of you.

You need to explain why you think the content they changed was factually wrong / vandalism. Just noting that you and they went back and forth contains no information as to why you think their changes were vandalism, and yours were not. I can see from the article history very clearly that you and they went back and forth. That's not at issue. The question is, whether either you or they (or both, in some bizarre head-on collision) felt that the other was clearly vandalizing, and can explain how the others' changes appeared to be vandalism.

Just pointing out that they repeatedly made those changes does not explain how or why their changes were vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am so tempted to go and change evry "they" to "him" as you very well know it was one person and I cannot believe you are persisting with "they". I don't need to show bias as you show it yourself George! And I just answered above I said it was vandal as he removed content which me and to other users had to re-add. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His Repeated Additions. If you can find a single mention of any of those text additions in any of the sources used in that wiki, feel free to permanently block me. The short answer? You won't find them, because the above contributor either doesn't cite sources or adds POV or otherwise unreferenced text that is not reflected in the sources cited. That's inarguable. The purpose of the revisions were made crystal clear, case closed. Long rants and conspiracy theories of "gaming the system" aside, feel free to block both of us for 3RR. 74.248.71.136 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, thankyou sock I have not have such a laugh in a long time! "Conspiracy theories"!!! My god, you still cannot admit to gaming the system and are playing dumb. COME ON. And yes you would say feel free to block both of us because you will just jump to another IP and the article is the way you want it at the moment. So why would you not make this genrous offer, I would be very surprised if you did not in fact! El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke the conversation with a stick right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18RR blocks issued to 74.248.71.1/24 and El Machete Guerrero. The block on the IP range includes a block evasion component. Both parties are reminded to use talk pages to discuss content disputes in the future and avoid edit warring on the live wiki article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero seems to have discovered some socks of Machete. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Hollaback sock

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AntiFetch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would anyone be kind enough to block the user AntiFetch based on this edit? It is clearly the The Hollabck Girl coming back again to likely continue the activities the primary account was blocked for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AntiFetch just got brought back to the drawer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

... and 2 of its friends. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Hollabck Girl. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check/roll-back anon edits

Please see Special:Contributions/70.238.175.193. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31h for WP:NPA violations. May be prudent to delete some revisions since they seem to contain edit summary vandalism and/or soapboxing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

... that would be just to name a few issues with them. I'm reading those edit summaries and still just blinking my eyes... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc and User:Grsz11 on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15

I had written an "argument matrix" at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix, as part of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. My concept of an "argument matrix" was simply to list the various arguments in their condensed form, and treat them as a digest of point-by-point back-and-forth discussion. I had begun one a related WP:AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama, but that was improperly changed to "speedy delete" and discussion was closed before I could deal with it. User:Tarc removed it entirely calling it an "epic tirade of sarcasm". I restored it (though for a technical reason my full comment did not come through). User:Grsz came along and removed it as well, characterizing it as "soapboxing."

Even if the above criticisms were true, my comments, however organized, however sarcastic, however stylistically disagreeable to certain people, and regardless of any opinionated claim that such is "soapboxing", such are not vandalism - they are discussion comments. Editing them, moving them, interrupting them, deprecating them, and deleting them based on a simplistic POV opinion of what their value is is about as anti-Wikipedia as can be. The policy, rule, and convention has long been, unless its vandalism or a threatening message, do not in any unusual way alter people's comments on discussion pages.

Note that Grsz did a similiar thing here on this page, for which I filed an ANI at #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11, which details how he unilaterally deprecated my ANI report on a separate but related matter.

Both Tarc and Grsz are POV partisan editors in the ongoing discussions related to Talk:Barack Obama. Their removal of my comments was improper in any context, and in this context is all but certainly motivated by their POV in that dispute. I suggest blocking Tarc and Grsz for a short time, though others may think, contrary to our customs and policies, that what they did was proper. The fact remains, that it is not, while in fact their punishment will be. -Stevertigo 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: stop trolling. You're on very thin ice as it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cut I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I bet if we called for a list of people that Steve hasn't called to be blocked yet, it'd be a short one. IMO, there's simply no justification for this in a Deletion Review. It is somewhat of a Reductio ad absurdum, taking everyone's positions and sifting them down to an absurd abstract. It added nothing, and was merely a disruptive eyesore tucked within other user's comments. BTW, it is usually considered good form to notify one of an AN/I report in which they are mentioned. I only saw this in my watch list when Sceptre happened to be the most recent commentator on this section.Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Still trolling over Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama being deleted? seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block Steve and put him on probation? His actions are getting beyond a joke. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed my cut-in comment above, an encore:

I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap, you mean Obama isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread? — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by the rich history here, which includes an ArbCom desysopping for, in part, edit-warring, I would hope that it'd be more than a 48hr time-out. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Tarc) Well in my defense, that discussion was fairly heated, and that Arbcom decision was.. to put it mildly.. one of its most controversial and unpopular. Note also that that wheel war got people thinking; subsequent wheel wars were handled much better, punishments other than desysopping, and with more Wikilove to go around. I could have been contrite, and that would have kept me sysopped, but some things needed to be clarified at the RFAR level, and I was just the being to do it. -Stevertigo 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I must have missed something. Why are arguments on a page designed for arguments disallowed and removed multiple times by someone other than the author? In the diffs, he may be sarcastic, but he isn't personally attacking anyone. He's just arguing in a different style than perhaps you are used to. Shouldn't he be given the opportunity to present his agruments for or against the closure? How does removing them from a page designed specifically for those types of arguments help? Why remove them rather than reformat them if that is the issue? Someone fill me in. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I removed it because it was disruptive, trolling, and not at all conducive to DRV. It isn't Steve's own argument, or even just an argument in a different style/format; it is a pointy condensation of other user's input into that deletion review. What kind of precedent does this set? Can I go into any other AfD/DRV, look at everyone's detailed rationales for their opinions, boil them down into a bumper sticker form of my own interpretation, and tack it on into a new sub-section at the bottom of the discussion? Tarc (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, though. The comment *format* (which I called an "argument matrix", which means something like argument+matrix) was something you hadn't quite seen before; like a caveman who first lays his eyes on a Chinese restaurant; which naturally made you scared and as such you must have felt the need to destroy it.

I completely understand, as you can probably tell by my above agreement/explanation. Hence your concern is (somewhat) valid, and as such I will support you in dealing with such problematic phenomenon in a policy treatment. Wikipedia:Unconventional formatting might be a good place for it.

The "argument matrix" was in fact a brilliant (and understandably scary) new technology; one in which particular discrete points are broken down and laid plain, without confusing jargon, mis-references to policy that may or may not exist (unless the policy reference is the actual point), and compound arguments that mix an arguable argument with a POV characterization or some other useless thing. Plus it was editable, though I may not have made that quite clear at the outset.

So, in short, your crime was to delete someone else's talk discussion on a discussion page, under some pretense that probably does not have any relevancy at all to the sanctity of discussion comments. My crime was to use strange, scary, formatting; and within that formatting quoted the actual arguments made above. I'm certain there is a better motivation for wanting it destroyed other than that it made the opposition look irrational, illogical, pointless, and obtuse, but I have yet to see one written down. -Stevertigo 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Endless trolling by Axmann8

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

---

User has been blocked indefinitely. Multiple unblock requests have been denied. Please refrain from soapboxing about personal politics; this isn't the venue for it. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8 had garnered a lengthy block record in less than three weeks ([34]), due largely to disruption related to Barack Obama, which is on article probation. Then, an extremely generous admin offered to unblock him on the condition that he stay away from Obama-related stuff ([35]). Axmann8 accepted this offer ([36]) and was unblocked, after which he proceeded to nominate an Obama-related userbox for deletion in bad-faith ([37]). The MfD was closed as disruptive ([38]). The unblocking admin noticed this and expressed his disappointment ([39]). Then, what does Axmann8 do? He sees that Criticism of George W. Bush is up for deletion, and chimes in by threatening meatpuppetry-ish retaliation if the article is kept: "If this article gets to stand, I am going to get together a team of conservative Wikipedians and we are going to write a "Criticism of Barack Hussein Obama" article, and I am going to quote the keeping of this article as the reason for its creation" ([40])! This user clearly does not "get it," and has eagerly demonstrated that he will continue to disrupt the project so long as he is allowed to edit. I am therefore requesting that a hefty block be reinstated, or otherwise that someone with absolutely supernatural communication skills devise a way to get it through to him that this sort of trolling is unacceptable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• This user doesn't seem to be able to "leave his POV at the door", as it were. Would support an indefinite block as improvements in his behaviour do not appear to be forthcoming: AGF is not a suicide pact. –xeno (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter in the slightest that he's factually correct about the Wikipedia inconsistency? Why is it a terrible trolling for him to "threaten" to write an article that is mysteriously absent from Wikipedia? THF (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This edit demonstrates he (continues to) believe(s) Wikipedia is a battlefield. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You people can repeat this all you want, but standard talking head politics and punditry don't work here: repeating some fiction 1000x won't make it true, it just gets uninvolved people annoyed at your spamming it. DRV it based on sourcing, sway consensus, or go home. rootology (C)(T) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He is not anywhere within spitting distance of being "factually correct", though. The notability of the Bush article has to do with the near-global condemnation of many of the actions of his administration, from foreign policy to the environment to weapons treaties. That's had a good, lengthy 8 years to build up and become notable. Contrast that to the current administration, in office for a shade under 2 months, and that the bulk of the criticism simply seems to be a continuation of sentiments expressed by the non-victorious party/ideology. There certainly are parts of the blogsphere and the internet forums all abuzz with a dozen different Obama conspiracies, but there's serious questions of notability and fringiness. Also, we already have a Public image of Barack Obama article, which does deal with some general criticism. As for the threats, what he threatened to do is violate policy regarding meatpuppets. That alone is actionable. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The "mysteriously absent" article is up for restoration at WP:DRV, and it would have been possible, in theory anyway, for Axmann to discuss the perceived inconcistency in a civil fashion. Instead, he says that he will "get together a team of conservative Wikipedians" to attack Obama (read: WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS). Even civil discussion would have been a stretch, however, as he was unblocked on the condition that he stay away from Obama-related stuff--a condition he has repeatedly refused to abide by. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do all of the Wikiprojects that push particular points of view, like Wikiproject Labor, violate WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS? THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what/how they do. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity proseletized, they'd be up for a valid deletion and purging pretty quickly. Ditto if WP:OBAMA did anything beyond work to get articles to GA/FA. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note, Orangemike just blocked for 1 month. –xeno (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - the irony is that for non-ideological reasons (see my userpage for my opinion of Dubya), I believe that the article he was threatening about (if it wasn't deleted) should in fact be deleted, like all "Criticism of foo" articles. But Ax was unblocked after promising to behave himself, and immediately began tendentious editing and threatening to assemble a meatpuppet posse to push his POV on the same pair of topics. It is for that, and only that, that I blocked him. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • His unblock request a few days ago, which was granted, did NOT promise to avoid tendentious editing, but only promised to stay away from one article specifically, the main Obama article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That's not true; though that is the way he attempted to characterize it afterwards. –xeno (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC) It appears I didn't see his addendum.

(ec) Notified Axmann8, and requested clarification on those potentially damaging comments. After reviewing his contribs, I'm sorry to say that he is on the wrong track and could be blocked for continuing disruption and tendentious editing. seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread isn't here to discuss content, but to discuss behavior. So in place of political names let's substitute hamster food. A recently unblocked editor is topic banned, and games the margins of that topic ban, and then threatens to recruit meatpuppets to stack a hamster food deletion discussion. What would our solution to that be? Durova^Charge! 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An extended block, but I'd like to hear his response to this, at the least. seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His response appears to be an attack on the blocking admin. I have advised him to read WP:NOTTHEM before composing unblock requests. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:HIPPIESCANTBLOCKCONSERVATIVES is an interesting defense. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have reblocked indefinitely. The user just does not get it. –xeno (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had just left him a message about that. The huge dicussion about him that was archived off this page yesterday was probably missed as it not linked from this discussion but the consensus of that was that he was lucky not to have already been blocked indefinitely. I was (sort of) amazed when logging on today to see he had returned to the same behavior only 24 hours later and been blocked again. Mfield (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• He erased the last denied unblock and added a new one. rootology (C)(T) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

unrelated content related talk

If I were foolish enough to ask why one of these is a perennial speedy keep and the other is a protected redirect, what would the response be? Don't worry, I'm not really asking (so no need to ban me), but suppose for a second that I was… — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because of the length of their tenures and the general viewpoints these days toward BLP & Criticism articles. Obama has been in office less than 2 months; Bush was in office 8 years. Plus, consensus so far has been to not fork or split this for Obama yet. It probably will eventually, but people of a certain limited minority viewpoint want it done now for 'equity' reasons. rootology (C)(T) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems very specious: that is an argument for one article to be longer than the other, not for one article not to exist. There is more than enough reliably sourced material to write a criticism article for both presidents. THF (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be specious at all, and it's deeply rooted in AGF. It is, however, calling a blue sky a blue sky rather than saying it's something else. If it's sourceable and long enough, someone can provide a detailed listing of all the appropriate sources and take it to DRV through the proper process--by demonstrating sourcing and swaying standing consensus--rather than someone DRVing it on the grounds the "Obama people" are holding them down. rootology (C)(T) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that even draft pages are being speedy-deleted with the specious reasoning that any such page would violate BLP--when it's clearly not the case that criticism pages are considered to violate BLP. THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're deleted again and again then they're clearly against consensus. See? That's how Wikipedia works. We could give a pundit's fart about your precious political views, nor mine, nor equity for them. Wikipedia doesn't give a crap about our little blue state/red state scraps. If the consensus of the user base is such an article in some raw form is a BLP vio and should be deleted, it will be, and that's the way we roll. You'll note though, that I didn't say present a sandbox'd version at DRV. I said "by demonstrating sourcing and swaying standing consensus", which is a quite different clue. ;) Re-read it. rootology (C)(T) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) They're being speedy deleted, and "consensus" is acting to violate Wikipedia policy on neutrality. I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User_talk:THF#Criticism_of_Barack_Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than edit-warring at intermediate stages. THF (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at the Bush criticisms article, a couple of things jump out at me. One is that there's a lot of stuff in it, and the arguments that it's a "piling on" has some merit. The other, though, is that the point in time for most of it centers on and after 9/11. There's really nothing about Bush's first 7 or 8 months in office. Was he free of criticism at that time? I doubt it. It's just that 9/11 defined his Presidency and spawned most of these criticisms, some way or another. Has Obama had such a defining moment yet? I think not. All a criticisms page would contain right now would be either nutcase conspiracy theories about his eligibility, which are already covered in a lengthy article; and criticisms that he's a liberal, which is a major "Duh!" since that's been well-known all along. And maybe the fact that his approval rating has dropped a few points. That's not an article, it's maybe a couple of sentences. Give it some time, and there will be plenty of material. But not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the only criticism of Obama has been "nutball conspiracy theories" really reflects the systemic POV bias of Wikipedia. There have been numerous reliably sourced critiques of Obama's foreign policy proposals, of his judicial philosophy, of his stimulus package, of his mismanagement of the financial crisis, and of his broken promises. THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Omitting partisan criticism, which is the norm and is irrelevant; and baseless conspiracy theories like Axmann is pushing, which are garbagio; you're left with a pretty short list, and none of it comes anywhere close (so far) to the scorn heaped upon Bush from all corners. But it will come, I assure you. Most every President wears out his welcome eventually. Bush was just kind of skating along until 9/11 hit, and in fact he still had the public goodwill for awhile after. It didn't really start to go south until he declared "mission accomplished", which will live in infamy as surely as his father's "read my lips" comment. One writer said that Obama would need to govern toward the center. So far, I don't think he's doing that. And if the recession worsens or doesn't improve, and if his bailouts don't make a dent, the criticism will mount. Patience, Grasshopper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bush criticism article is largely partisan. You argument seems to be in favor of a double-standard. I defy anyone to look at the outline at User:THF/Obama and tell me a FA couldn't be developed from that. There's plenty of legitimate or mainstream criticism without having to delve into the nutball or racist stuff. THF (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you source all of those to non-partisan reliable sources? The Bush one is almost all mainstream media. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can adhere to the same quality of reliable sourcing that is used in every Wikipedia article about a Republican politician. THF (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fill out that page with a bunch of sources for each section from non-partisan media that are on par with the Crits of Bush article, take it to a fresh DRV once the current flawed one fails, and you might get to say "Mission accomplished". rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

IP user 132.181.42.201

I have just issued a single issue warning to this IP for an abusive comment made on Talk:Burnout Paradise (now reverted). But it seems a little strange that an IP user with no previous edits would be so concerned over another IP user using a talk page as a forum. I suspect this may be a sock who has logged out of his/her account to make an abusive edit. Just thought I should raise it here in case it warrants looking-at. Also, if using a single-issue notice was too much, please change it but I did this because (like I said) this was the user's first edit and it was a very inappropriate one. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Per whois that IP is registered to a University in New Zealand. Maybe a proxy with a large number of iPs behind it, maybe a dynamic IP. There's not much to be done unless we start getting a lot of vandalism form that address, I'd have thought, in which case a {{schoolblock}} might be appropriate - but not for a single edit. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre closing AfD debate without authority

Resolved

 – Consensus here is "this was a proper application of WP:IAR" or "no one cares". Moving on... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre is purportedly closing AfD debate for Criticism of George W. Bush with edit summary, "Fuck process, I'm closing this." The summary below calling nomination disruption seems to not assume good faith either. I personally believe that Sceptre is baiting a lot of people into an editor war, with abusive edit summaries (not only including this one), and specious actions. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with closing down an AFD that was purely disruptive? Non-admins can perform closures, but the hilarity of this is, Sceptre is dead-on. seicer | talk | contribs 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a valid closure to me too. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Speedy Keep requires no other delete vote and actual vandalism. However, it the abusive nature that some of you guys are proceeding on with this that is concerning. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(a whole buttload of ec's) I don't see a problem with it. The closures are within the spirit of WP:IAR – instead of letting disruptive AFDs go on distracting others from improving/maintaining Wikipedia, they should be closed to move on, admin or non-. MuZemike 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't need to be an admin to close an obvious Keep AFD. rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'll drop this. This policy is not entirely clear, though. Though the abusive language and rhetoric is not the basis of my inquiry, this is still a concern. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "fuck process" was meant to attack any editor or assume bad faith. It was an indication–with minimal tact in that–that the user was invoking IAR. MuZemike 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

However, how's this: "Sceptre, please don't use that language in edit summaries. Thank you"? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

G-rated edit summaries are the right way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "with minimal tact in that". I don't disagree. MuZemike 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems almost hilarious the context of a few months ago: [41], [42], [43], [44], etc. Are you saying these articles are "ok" now? — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was a contentious AFD closure, but I have noted that I, an admin, concur with it. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The trolls at the DRV are making the people who are trying to enforce NPOV, like myself, look bad. I can't have that going on, even if it means closing an AfD of an article I want to be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the closure was correct, Sceptre, as a participant in the discussion, should not have closed it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "fuck process". Sure, on paper, what Sceptre did was 'wrong', but was it a positive? Obviously. Seems to be what IAR was made for. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

iMagic OS

This is not a call for page protection, but the IMagic_OS page needs some attention. Any attempt at cleanup seems to be reverted by IP 69.206.224.176, who also made some rude comments in the talk page. The page is seriously lacking, giving mostly advertising information, but since it has received some attention as "the worst commercial Linux distrobution" it could be justified as notable. I added a Criticism section to reflect this, with references, but 69.206.224.176 reverted the page. I personally don't want to invest alot of time in a Wikipedia dispute, so I hope some Adminstrator could take a look at it. --Audunmb (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be six or seven editors who've worked on this article in the last 30 days. A single stubborn editor is going to be unable to maintain his preferred version against six others who disagree with him and who behave reasonably. But you don't seem to have universal backing yet. Why not work harder on the Talk page to explain and justify your criticism paragraph? See if you can persuade others to support you. There do not seem to be any grounds yet for admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate links added by IP hopper

I'm not sure if I should bring this up here or the spam page. I did a clean up of the external links on Subaru Alcyone SVX which contained a lot of fan sites and forums. However, there is now an anonymous user (or users) that are reverting my removal, adding all the links back in. I've tried warning the IPs, but the IP address keeps changing. Here are the relevant diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. What course of action should be taken? swaq 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edit from troublesome IP was about ten hours ago. If it starts up again, bring it up at WP:RFP and suggest a short semi-protect. HalfShadow 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is extremely persistent, then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. I'^mperator 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TheGoldenSubpageTester

I suspect TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a brand new user who seems highly familiar with editing wikipedia, is almost certainly a sock of someone. His first two edits about a secret "OS" he's building in userspace [45]. His fourth edit: "I am afraid that people will start claiming I am a sock and ban me? What should I do?"[46]. His sixth edit, a response to a querry on his secret project "Its a highly experimental project that I am working on that will create a article based interactive "OS" but right now I am designing the code for it privatly on a seperate wiki hosted on a wiki farm along with studing the coding of the site in order to make this reality." [47]. Maybe he'll have a good explanation for all this. Eyes on him, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment If it will make you feel better, the prototype I am working on will require the use of two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS (Wiki Operating System is a better term kinda like with DOS) continusuly but I will not make a beta for this site until I am sure the coding will not cause any major problems. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"...two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS" Oh, I wouldn't do that. Last time someone did that, the whole system achieved sentience, just like Skynet. 'Twas horrible, the developers were up to their arses elbows in Terminators. Took them ages to clean up. No, no, no, bad idea that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the account adds the "This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron" userbox to his userpage, then heads for deletion discussions ... and then comments "Speedy Delete" in two of the three he's edited (neither were speedies, either). The phrase "taking the piss" springs to mind ... Black Kite 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now fairly convinced it's this guy [48] though it's not an iron clad duck yet, and my suspicions are largely of a behavioral nature (convoluted/paranoid style) and the fact that two of his first five edits were in an AfD i've been involved with today, and a witiquette alert im involved with in which he made the comment "people will start claiming i'm a sock and ban me." But i guess that's insufficient/a waste of time for SPI.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He has now twice inserted an obvious copyvio of [49] as Elab, speedy-deleted twice by PMDrive1061. He has also revived a moribund project Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion Deleters, where the original eds. have been off-wiki for over a year now. Regardless of whom he may be a sock of, this does not seem like the beginning of a promising time here. DGG (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He also voted to "Strong keep per nom" at an AfD. I think he might be some sort of troll. ThemFromSpace 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And now a G12 speedy claim on an article that isn't a copyvio. Warned appropriately (stretching AGF, but meh). Black Kite 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

• Seems to be getting out of control. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, the topic on this was archived by bot without any resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Edit_warring.2C_plus_suspected_sockpuppetry_on_both_sides. for the background to all of this over the past few days. I am far too real world busy today to keep up with this but it defintiely needs more eyes, I have been whack-a-moling sock IPs canvassing for AfD votes and removing disruptive comments for the past few days. Mfield (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• TheGoldenSubpageTester, given the rampant sockpuppetry that has surrounded this article, I am concerned that your edit history begins today and you're obviously an experienced user (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). Did you have a legitimate reason for creating a new account? --Boston (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dual vandalism only accounts.

Resolved

Volunteer20greg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Greg20eagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clearly the same person, making the same vandalism edits. [50] & [51]

(My appologies if this belongs on another board. I debated between AIV, SSP and here.)--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:AIV would probably have been the ticket, but both blocked anyway. Black Kite 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Ron Paul?

My request at WP:RFPP has not been dealt with yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Already done by Toddst1. I rangeblocked the edit-warrior's school for good measure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They were also using other accounts in the Ohio region. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)