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

Levine2112

Moved thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. Davnel03

User:hopiakuta

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta —Random832

User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

Resolved

 – Nothing more to see here, it seems. —Random832 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Original thread re-located to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Larry Lurkington. Further comment is welcome at that page.

Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.

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

---

Well, that's one way of hindering a debate you don't want to have! It would be helpful to have more clear edit summaries in future for such moves (eg. indicating the section title of the moved material). DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• It was a compromise between clogging up ANI with a thread that had moved towards "Yes it is/no it isn't" territory, and merely archiving it. You are of course free to continue the conversation on the subpage if you beleive it would be constructive. BLACKKITE 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There should not be a compromise between something and "merely archiving it", because archiving an active discussion should not even be under consideration. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It wasn't archived, just moved elsewhere. Does this need to be moved into another sub-page? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I admit that moving it to a subpage is better than just slapping on the archive tags, but neither of them should have happened. There was no cause. -16:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The discussion no longer belonged on the main ANI page as it had mainly moved towards a discussion of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK, and no admin action is currently required. BLACKKITE 16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

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

Articles

• Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created 20 December 2007 by Magnonimous

Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [1], so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.

I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal Re

Magnonimous

User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense... Sweet Mother Irony, what would humor be without you? JuJube (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem [2]. He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest [3]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only question is whether these studies can be applied to coral calcium; and the only difference between all calcium supplements is how much calcium is made available to the body. This amount, or percentage, is called elemental calcium. Example: "If a tablet contains 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate, it contains only 200 milligrams of elemental calcium. This is because only 40% of the calcium compound is elemental calcium". -Calcium Supplement Guidelines, VERONICA A. MULLINS, M.S., R.D. and LINDA HOUTKOOPER, PH.D., R.D.; [4] It's not: What amount of coral calcium provides health benefits?, it's that coral calcium provides health benefits. Magnonimous (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer.[5] Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody on this noticeboard cares for content disputes. Take it somewhere else. east.718 at 02:24, December 18, 2007

Continued edit-warring

Magnonimous continued to edit-war after commenting to this report, and after calling for a "TRUCE": [6]. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "TRUCE" applied to me and you only, and stipulated that both points of view be included in the article. Magnonimous (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will agree not to add any more to the article." This clearly implies that I would not add more than I already had. Magnonimous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnonimous, while we do not care about content disputes, we do care about things like WP:3RR. The edit Ronz pointed above brings you a hair's breadth away from the electric fence of that policy. I strongly encourage you not to reinsert this material into this article again unless you can obtain a consensus on Talk: Coral calcium. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

"

1. 02:59, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 - continued edit-warring)
2. 02:52, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Calcium‎ (→Coral Calcium Merge - Oppose)

"

• User Ronz enlists the help of a respected colleague: User Someguy1221 to help him resolve this edit war in his favor.

• Someguy1221 Gives good advice including the fact that parts of this article may be a content fork.

• User Magnonimous takes advice to heart, and proposes reintegration of content fork into main calcium article.

• Ronz opposes proposal based on advice of his friend, and then proceeds to retaliate by claiming the edit war continues, in his tireless quest to ban his arch nemesis, who's only crime is to have a differing opinion, and to express it, with sources to back it up.

Magnonimous (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and stop wasting our time. Thanks --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to have me blocked. As in a court of law, I am allowed to call your character into question, to weaken your credibility, as it pertains to your objectivity in this matter. Magnonimous (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are operating under some severe misconceptions here. The administrators' noticeboard isn't a court of law, and "calling someone's character into question" is usually a personal attack, and can be a good way to get yourself blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now creating a content fork

While Magnonimous clearly understands what content forks are (Talk:Coral_calcium#Content_forking) he's decided to create one [7]. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And is now using this new article to continue his edit-warring [8] --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've boldly deleted the fork as a clear creation of a page to circumvent a discussion at an existing page. If anyone has strong reservations about this deletion, I would be willing to list it at AFD, but simply moving content that is being edit warred over to another article isn't a good way to deal with the core issue of the content. Please note this action is only based on WP:FORK and is no judgment on the content and it's worthiness to be at Coral calcium; that is a decision that should be reached on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, is this chap doing anything constructive?

Or should we apply a topic-ban from anything related to calcium? Admittedly, he's only been here a week, but he's packed months of disruption into that brief time. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Defense

I don't believe this; all I ever did was try to balance this grossly biased article. And now you're all talking about banning me?? You've deleted my contribution. Deleted it again when I found sources for it. condemned me for even suggesting we should merge this obvious POV content fork back into calcium (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Rallied against me when I suggested a compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Confused me into creating a proper place for the POV content by not contesting my compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Deleted the new article even though it was balanced. And are now trying to have me banned for good.

It seems patently obvious that you aren't concerned with factual accuracy, neutrality, reliable sources, content forking, of the original content of the article. Only when I try to add something new. Could it be that you are averse to change??? Which is particularly stupid when you consider that this is a wiki, which changes constantly.

Or are you all just intolerant of other views that happen to conflict with your own. You obviously care about this wiki. You aren't overtly malicious. What is the motivation behind all this??? Magnonimous (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Un-semiprotecting

Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) has started systematically unprotecting semiprotected pages without attempts of obtaining consensus about his actions. This includes pages such as obesity, cancer, Judaism, Muslim, Jesus and other predictable targets of vandalism. When I asked whether he'd considered the risk of vandalism, I received the reply that "eight and a half months is excessive. Period." This user has now stopped communicating with me.

I am deeply concerned that important and vandalism-prone content is being exposed to vandalism. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've told you already, I'm dealing with the 8.5 month backlog at Special:Protectedpages, mostly because no other admin has taken the initiative to do it. Your also twisting what's happened, because I haven't stopped communicating with you. Your using as many methods you can to make sure that everyone has a bad first impression and therefore side with you. Anyways, yes I consider that 8.5 months is excessive for semiprotection. Every article is unprotected at some time, even Bush gets unprotected once and a while. Why not others? There isn't a policy that says that cancer can be indefinitely semiprotected just because someone says. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, unless you haven't checked, this is a wiki. Everything is vandal-prone. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection is never meant to be indefinite solution. Take a look at this discussion on meta: m:Protected_pages_considered_harmful ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The meta page does not allow for semiprotection, which is the crux of this dispute. JFW | T@lk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We are clearly disagreeing on an interpretation of policy, so I would like to ask you to stop until this has been clarified. Is that possible? JFW | T@lk 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be blunt, but I think this is more of a case that you are misunderstanding policy and precedence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedence" actually dictates that indefinite semi-protection be used for articles subjected to continued heavy vandalism, biographies subject to POV-pushing or slanderous material, user pages when requested, and policy pages on a case-by-case basis. I'm disappointed that this administrator didn't seek input before going on a large unprotection spree. east.718 at 00:47, December 18, 2007

Could you explain what I'm misunderstanding here? Or rather, how do I know that it's not Royalguard11 doing the misunderstanding? And where is the precedent you are referring to? JFW | T@lk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd agree with most of these unprotections, but a few should probably never be unprotected - I've just re-protected Gay after it was hit twice within minutes of the protection being lifted; this one probably isn't worth the effort. I've watchlisted a lot of others, and will keep an eye out. BLACKKITE 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds, and for how long, would you reinstate semiprotection? Obviously, the majority of the pages unprotected by Royalguard11 will suffer vandalism within the next hour or so. Where are we meant to draw the line, and should these pages have been unprotected to begin with? By semiprotecting we are not exactly closing down editing - we are only delaying for autoconfirmed registered users. JFW | T@lk 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I feel I must chime in here, that mass unprotection is a Bad Idea(tm). Those articles are vandal magnets and consensus has long been reached that indefinite semiprotection was reasonable for those. Quoth the WP:PROT "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as the George W. Bush article." — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am glad that semiprot seems be putting back in place on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a blind mass revert. I haven't checked a list, just yet, but from the chatter it seems like a fair number of these were overdue for unprotection. Possibly not the best method, but I think it was done in good faith, and it's brought attention to the issue. Sooo... on to the issue. If any of these become controversial, we can (and should) discuss them in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Royalguard11 acted in good faith, but the unprotection of some of these articles shows a lapse in judgment in my honest opinion. In any case I agree with Luna, lets take it case by case for now. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt this was a good faith move, especially given the foundation issue. But it's also a ill-conceived moved— I would support reexamining all of those semis, but just doing the blanket unprotect was a bit... too bold. — Coren ^(talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Batch unprotection is not uncommon. There are several admins who routinely go through Special:Protectedpages to let in a breath of fresh air to those that are locked for too long without expiry. There are some pages that remain protected for years because no one has remembered, or bothered, to get them unprotected. There are some pages which are obvious candidates for permanent semi-protection, and I hope the unprotecting admin applies some common sense, but if any are unprotected and subjected to extreme vandalism then they can always be reprotected. No big deal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like batch unprotection... but at the same time, I don't like when admins semi-protect an article and never follow up. Your goal should be finding the right balance of semi-protection and non-protection. Going around and unprotecting articles like Gay and walking away is irresponsible, but so is semi-protecting some obscure article due to a few instances of vandalism, then leaving it semi-protected for 8.5 months. Everyone needs to be more vigilent here... if admins wouldn't make perpetual semi-protections where they really aren't needed, there wouldn't be admins running around doing batch unprotections and walking away. Unprotecting articles like Gay and so on shouldn't be done en masse... anyone wanting to do that should be familiar with the article and its editting patterns and willing to stick around and revert vandalism, and judge when or if semi-protection is needed again. Assuming someone else will do the dirty work is disrespectful of people who deal with unprotected pages, rather than just dash around making them unprotected. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following what's been done before here. Before I did it, VOA did a ton of unprotection runs, again because no one else did. A lot of the ones I unprotected had "vandalism" as the reason, and was protected for 8 months. Maybe I'm missing something, but vandalism that happened 8 months ago doesn't matter anymore. If I don't do large unprotection runs, the backlog will just get bigger and bigger as time goes on (as it has for the last 8 months). Sometimes these articles are protected almost indefinitely because no one goes through them ever, and no one bothers to ask for it to be unprotected. That's obviously not what Jimbo nor the WMF have in mind for the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", because we have way too many uselessly protected pages right now. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to try to figure out which ones were bad semi-protections, just in response to relatively minor vandalism, and which ones were on articles with severe vandalism problems. Unfortunately, community consensus is that some articles, like George W. Bush, really have to be perpetually semi-protected... advocates of non-protection have unprotected that article then quickly reprotected it in frustration. You unprotected too many pages, as far as I can tell, for you to be following up on them all to see if vandalism got out of control on any of them. --W.marsh 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how are all these articles going to be unprotected? Shall I request the unprotection of a thousand articles at WP:RFPP? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You should indicate you aren't just throwing the article to the wolves, but will be watching it and helping out. Vandalism isn't just magically dealt with... the people who deal with it appreciate a little respect. --W.marsh 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, even after the "excessive" amount I unprotected, the backlog still stands at late April. If I unprotected the first 1000 articles, that only puts us at Oct. 10. There's still 2 months after that. Do you have any better ideas on how to deal with that? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, everyone needs to be more vigilant... that includes admins who don't set expiration dates (not sure if that feature was around in April though) on semi-protections, and otherwise don't follow up with their semiprotections. If they didn't do that, it's my belief there wouldn't be such backlogs in the first place. But one irresponsible action doesn't justify another... even if it is a big backlog. I could go close every open AFD in a few hours, and justify the dozens of bad closes by saying "How else could we have dealt with the backlog?" --W.marsh 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed the memo. When did AFD become 8 months behind? The difference is, of corse, AFD is always cleared within a week because it's watched. And while looking through the logs for pages, some had been thorough an expired protection, then reprotected without one. There were several admins who just repeatedly didn't set an expiry date. There are some who don't put an expiry date now for no good reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to any of these admins? --W.marsh 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things would help here - first, talk to these admins, as W.marsh says. Second, in the spirit of poka-yoke, is there any way of changing the protection page so it puts an expiry period of 1 month in the field as default, forcing someone to actively select indefinite protection? Neıl ☎ 09:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That second is actually a really good idea. Don't know why it never occurred to me that "Indefinite" should not be the default option for article protection any more than it should be for account blocking. Is this a proper issue for a BugZilla request, or is there a simpler way to edit that interface? — Satori Son 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. Some even missed the whole point here, so if you want to say something, go ahead, I don't think it'll change anything. I see also that no one has come up with a viable solution for the problem at hand (backlog of pages). The idea about defaulting to 1 month I like, because I'd consider that to be the maximum for any new protection. As zzuuzz said above, articles can be reprotected, it's not a big deal like it's been made out to be here. If someone reverts my unprotection, I won't loose any sleep over it, I promise. Everyone is way too afraid of being accused of "wheel warring". Like Nike says, Just Do It, and stop trying to be politicians. Be bold has been a wiki-principle forever, but no one does it anymore. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point trying to talk to admins. I'm not sure if that's a good approach. By that reasoning, the rest of us ought not talk to you, either, and just undo your actions without comment.... Incidentally, I don't mind the idea of having a default protection period of some intermediate length. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in talking, the only solution is to undo admin actions with a template message? This kind of behavior on both sides is why we have this problem. As far as I'm considered both sides are being uncommunicative and irresponsible... then wondering why there's a problem. --W.marsh 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

... be bold but not reckless. I have no beef with unprotecting most of those articles. I have a big problem with mindlessly unprotecting all articles without so much as a bit of consideration on whether it's a good idea for the specific articles. — Coren ^(talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As nobody seems to object to putting a default protection period of a month rather than the blank "indefinite" period, does anyone have a Bugzilla account and would be willing to request this? I am technically inept and would quite possibly request the wrong thing from the wrong person. Neıl ☎ 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto; such a request is completely unfamiliar to me. I'm not even sure BugZilla is the right venue; it might just be a matter of someone editing our local en- interface? Again, no idea, but it would be a shame to let this excellent suggestion fall to the wayside. Any suggestions from anyone on how to get this implemented? — Satori Son 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I found no Mediawiki page for this. You're welcome to dig through Special:Allmessages, but I'd just report a bug (I'll do it myself later if no-one does, but the bugzilla search isn't working for me right now, and I'd want to check it wouldn't be a duplicate first) —Random832 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to give up here. I will stop unprotection runs. But, since you guys want me to stop, you can figure out a way to deal with the problem that we have. Oh, and just keeping them protected for longer isn't an option. We're already violating our principles by having these protected for 8 months. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The dépeceur of Bergen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:The dépeceur of Bergen is accused on the checkuser page of issuing serious threats in french. It does not qualify as a checkuser case and I do not speak french so I am bringing it here. Below is the text of the complain from CAT:RFCU. -JodyB _talk 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABradipus&diff=177566301&oldid=173777205.

I do not know if any of you speaks french, but this text is a death threat directed to me and my family. This is most probably linked to fr:WP:MS, a long term vandalism on WP:fr. Besides vandalising, the vandal steals identities (I had some difficulty getting back the "Bradipus" identity, also here), and posts defamation on WP:fr admins all over internet (here in the serbian WP, a text accusing various admins of serious crimes such as pedophilia!!).

But what brings me here is this text of which I will translate the beginning: "I will cut you into pieces. I was unfairly blocked (not by me, as far as I know), I will do justice myself. I will cut you into pieces and eat your brain and your willie. I will kill all french speaking bourgeois (...). I will take care myself of your two little pieces of trash (that refers to my two children who are mentionned on my user page) that I will drown after crushing them against a wall. We will have your wife raped by hobos. No flemish would want to have that latin bitch (...)".

Death treats againts me and againt my family, this is getting quite serious. And according to what I know, this guy may well live a couple of kilometers away. I would like to get the IP of that guy if possible. Bradipus (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask Slakr. He knows French. —BoL @ 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely a death threat. Blocking. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

... been beaten to it. — Coren ^(talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was able to get it confirmed. -JodyB _talk 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ewww... Very nasty (odd it's in French, though, given the rantiness of the content against Francophones). I see there's a link in there to the nl wiki. Might that be worth investigating by the people over there? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Took a look at nl - the user mentioned appears to have been blocked as a sokpop (what a nice word) some time ago. Takes all sorts. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Affaire Lustucri-MS and m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should update the meta page (is protected). x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken advice from Mike Godwin here and have now answered the above checkuser case to the best of my abilities under the circumstances. I wish there was more I could do here but there isn't. I've revealed as much information as I can legally do and note that there is no useful geo-locating information to be obtained from the underlying IP address. BTW - the message in French actually reads worse than the above translation, IMO. It's disgusting - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to be accused of exagerating in my translation...thanks for the efforts. Bradipus (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not an exaggeration. ("I impatiently await the day of liberation for Brussels by the forces of public hygiene" - Mon dieu!) Neıl ☎ 13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, a death threat in another language, possibly to intensify the message - block endorsed. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And coupled with a username which is the nickname of one of the bloodiest serial killers in recent Belgian historyFrenchEnglish[9]... Not much positive can be expected of this editor. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi once again

The following thread above was archived so I had to start a new one. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muntuwandi_and_the_Origin_of_Religion. This user has once again thumbed his nose at the process and recreated the same entry now under the name Evolutionary origins of religion. He has been warned by more than one admin not to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like a neutral admin to look into this rather than me - I don't think Muntuwandi appreciated my warnings of "stop recreating deleted content under different article names", and someone he has not previously interacted with may have better luck with him. The content is, at first glance, good, but it is pretty much identical to the recently deleted Origin of religion, so needs a considered approach. See the above thread as Pelle mentions for context and background. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would very much so appreciate someone looking into this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to my responses earlier to Mutuwandi above, I may not be considered an objective observer, but taking a look into this matter I found something disturbing: he claims two Wikipedians support this article he repeatedly inserts into articlespace, when to look at what both actually wrote, neither do. This is dab's comment to Mutuwandi: "you are right, I need to sit down and devote some time to this. The problem is, as always, not with the validity of the topic itself but with your erratic or idiosyncratic approach. I'll get back to this." (italics mine) Bruceanthro's is far to long to quote in total, but he says much the same thing as dab: the topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but how Mutuwandi handles it is a problem & gently suggests a couple of ways he believes would be better & not result in these objections. I can only wonder how Mutuwandi would consider they support him.

FWIW, I know just enough about the subject this article treats to know that it is a fertile ground for potential original research problems. Any attempt to cover it would need to be extensively referenced, & would include many diverse and controversial opinions -- & this from the sources any contributor would agree are reliable or expert! Personally, I wouldn't dare touch such an article beyond simple copyediting without extensive preparation, & can only speculate the dread any reasonably qualified but non-expert Wikipedian would have. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed some important part of Dbachmann's comments.

"ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

• 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
• 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
• 3. the teleological view (revelation)

the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?

These are some of Bruceanthro's comments

Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world. Perhaps rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!) .

As mentioned earlier I would welcome any admin who is neutral, willing to listen to all sides and who will follow wikipedia guidelines to participate in helping to resolve this dispute. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please supply links to the page where dab's comments appear. As for BruceAnthro's comment, you have only quoted part of what he said, as well as quietly removing indications that the text after "Perhaps" is one of two proposed solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab made those comments (just above) during the AfD and prior to realizing that Muntuwandi was about to revert all of his attempts to help improve the entry in question. Muntuwandi was unwilling to accept Dab's assistance in order to preserve his own version, the version that was being but through AfD, and subsequently was deleted. This is in part, I believe (sorry if I'm inferring incorrectly) why Dab made the other comment more recently about the manner in which Muntuwandi participates being the real issue. It is exactly that issue that I'm asking for assistance with here. Muntuwandi also has a nack for quoting other editors in the same manner he quotes scholars -- very selectively to serve his purposes despite the fact that those being quoted may in fact have written a whole lot else that contradicts those purposes. Of course he doesn't just do this with quotation. On the talk page of Prehistoric religion he is currently arguing that the term "prehistoric" is derogatory and therefore we should delete the entire entry, yet despite this argument every single source Muntuwandi uses in relation to this subject matter uses the term "prehistoric"--of course in reality there is nothing derogatory about using this term to describe the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras but he'll make any argument or utilize any out of context quote he can in his weird crusade.PelleSmith (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case -- or it may not be. I'd like to see a link her to the edit so I & any other Admin can form their her/his own opinion -- although seeing Ryulong's note below, this request may be moot. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMINS: Please see the thread I posted above. This is not a content dispute, this is an issue of refusing to abide by the results of established processes. Muntuwandi was warned by two admins but it seems the warnings aren't going to be backed with any kind of action. I have suggested that he only work on the materials on his user space since the entry was deleted but he doesn't care for this suggestion. He has now even recreated Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion and redirected it to the latest entry. Whatever the outcome is regarding this content his behavior is unaccetable and I thought it was being dealt with until now. Could someone please attend to this. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody has "issues". Up until now, I had not come across an editor who was so determined to see another article deleted. This article causes no harm, it meets all the standards of WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY. Because of past disputes this article is heavily referenced, from peer reviewed scientific journals, and contains the works of a number of high profile scholars. There is no one who will be misled, cheated by the contents of this article, in fact most will learn at least one or two things. I am aware that I have been the ogre, in this fiasco, because I have insisted that this article is necessary against what on the surface appears to be a consensus. But if anyone is interested in giving it a closer inspection, one will actually find that other editors have engaged in a gross misapplication of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They believe the WP:OWN, these articles on religion. I am aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but this article is much more in line with wikipedia's policies than a lot of other articles. For, example these editors accused me of creating a content fork of Development of religion. Development of religion has only 4 footnotes for the entire article and they are only found in one subsection(in short the article is crap).The article evolutionary origins has over 30 footnotes from highly related articles. None of the citations is titled "Development of religion". Any admin is free to verify this. How they came up with this accusation of content forking is still a mystery to me. The notice board isn't a place for content dispute, however because it is an active place frequented by admins, i believe it is ideal place to make an appeal for dispute resolution. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked Muntuwandi because I have never seen him on these boards except as a part of a dispute or because his activities lead to long and winded discussions. I have explained in full why he has been blocked on his talk page at User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block. His most recent recreation is practically identical to recent deletions. I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but seeing his name here multiple times has never seemed to be good.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"I have never made contact with Muntuwandi, but I've seen his name a few times" - that's one of the worst reasons for an indefinite block I have ever seen, and I have seen some stinkers recently. I'm going to consider unblocking unless I see a better rationale for this. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

At User talk:Muntuwandi#Indefinite block Ryulong states that the block is for repeatedly recreating deleted content after multiple warnings. Sandstein (talk · contribs) has reviewed the block and declined the unblock request. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef seems a little extreme, even for a user that has been blocked before for editwarring, in my opinion a few months could have helped us to do a better assessment of the situation, let us see if he has any intention of contributive contribution (if he does agree to be contributive of course). - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong may be unaware of this, but there's a pull down button on the block page that allows one to select block lengths other than indefinite. 24 hours would be reasonable, but indefinite is ludicrous. Neıl ☎ 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I shortened it to a month, seriously a indef seemed like overkill, not that I don't agree that issuing a block may have been appropiate though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely because he has repeatedly created deleted content despite warnings not to, and at multiple titles to obscure this fact. I have indefinitely blocked him because his actions are sporadic, but he has created this particular article under three different titles and on four different occasions. His unblock request does not reflect any reason as to a way that he feels that he will change his activities following his block, but instead discusses how he feels that this is only a content issue. I acted as a completely uninvolved administrator in this manner and acted in a way that I feel is beneficial as Muntuwandi's actions, while in good faith, are not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Should he see the particular error that I blocked him for and says that he will not act in such a way in the future, then he can be unblocked. As of right now, what he has stated does not reflect that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm asking for some comments on this user. This user has repeatedly made significant changes to articles without consensus, altering active articles to his preferred version, despite several warnings [10] [11] [12] - these are just a short selection of his repeated changes to active articles, reverting them to his preferred version. He has received countless warnings and notices on his talk page, which he simply ignores and continues. I think a block is in order here, as his repeat reverting an editing without consensus despite warnings is becoming extremely annoying. Qst 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't got the time to properly look at this now, but judging by this talk page we may also have a problem with unfair fair use here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be one of the few people here who don't know the show, but edits 1 & 3 above seem pretty good edits, and the second one very much the opposite. I think the sequence is he makes a good simplifying edit, gets reverted, then tries to make a point by making things a great deal too complicated, gets reverted with an edit summary "this is the last straw" , and then tries to make a similar good simplifying edit. If this is a sample, it looks like he could improve some of the plot summaries. Some but not all of his most recent edits seem OK also. What's wrong with [13] or [14] ? DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he has been asked repeatedly not to do this, I rewrote the plot on Stewie Loves Lois when the article was pretty much dead; he then made minor edits, slowly changing it back to how it used to be, I rewrote it further for when it had its GA nomination, and once again, he repeatedly began reverting to his preferred version. Qst 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has frequently defied warnings about adding frivolous content, yet he continues to add nonsense to several articles including: [15] and [16]. The number of times he edits his sections and the amount of change is pretty significant, borderline original research. The Family Guy article contains a note for users to explicitly NOT add the section about a feature film series. He defied that note and added it anyways.Milonica (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, Milonica, & looking into what happened only confuses things further. First, it appears you are talking about Immblueversion, not Qst -- correct? (You have an unclear referent in your paragraph.) Second, the first edit you point to merely formats an existing footnote, while the second adds a extrenal link (which I did not verify) to a page at a newspaper site about the feature film series. That edit then is a content dispute, unless there is a note about not adding a section about a feature film series, in which case it could be arguably disruption -- but not vandalism. Which leads to my third point -- where is this note that explicitly asks users "NOT [to] add the section"? I looked on the pages you linked to, & found no trace of this on either Talk page. Please explain. -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about Immblueversion, and to help explain what is going on, the note about "not" adding the section should be in the actual article itself (if it wasn't deleted by another user). It can only be seen when making changes to the actual Family Guy article, visible underneath the "Feature Film" section. Also, the talk page for Family Guy does have a section about the film right here. I agree the edits are not vandalism but merely a disruption. Hope that helps clear this up. Milonica (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is far more persuasive to explain the matter as carefully as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Immediate action requested regarding email abuse

This morning, I opened up my email to discover a blizzard of short messages saying "F*** you, n****"--all sent by way of the "Email this user" function. All of the emails were sent from accounts that were created very early this morning (North American Eastern Time). I am assuming that these are all socks of an experienced user, as it is very unlikely that a new user would know about the email capability. They are also clearly the person, as the emails all come from the same Yahoo Mail address.

I am asking--no, demanding--that the following users be indefblocked immediately:

• Glorybud44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beganbud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maildeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If necessary, I'll forward samples to any admin who needs proof of this ... just one email from each ID, before anyone gets spooked. Clearly someone is in need of a permanent Wikibreak. Blueboy96 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, e-mail blocked. Although of course it will be difficult to stop them from continuing through other throwaway accounts if they really want to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could try WP:CHECKUSER to try and block the underlying ip. Woody (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Email personal attacks. Woody (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't demand. :) However, based on a CU check as reported here the three accounts you've reported operate from a common IP and I have blocked it for a week with account creation disabled. Please advise of any further issues or concerns. I think Kim's on to something interesting if it can be elaborated and turned into a developable thing. Maybe not once per day but certainly not unlimited. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Lar ... I was just hot enough to melt the snow in the Northeast when I saw 400+ emails from this troll clogging my Inbox. Thank God I have Yahoo Mail ... Blueboy96 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this might be useful to report to devs, as it's a spamming loophole. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim, are you thinking of putting a limit on its use? For example, allowing each person to use this feature only once per recipient in a given period of time? (The recipient usually has an email address for the sender, so if the recipient wants to talk about something off-wiki they can reply, which gives the sender the recipient's email address, & neither needs to use this again.) Or do you have a better solution Kim? -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerns for User:Bluetim1

Here. Special:DeletedContributions/Bluetim1 may have clues as to identity. Dlohcierekim 14:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Worthless People" and expression of anger User:Bluetim1 and on my talk. Special:Contributions/Bluetim1. Dlohcierekim 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. There is not direct threat at all. I consider this matter to be a non-issue. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Resolved tag as I believe that this IS an issue. Is it possible for someone who can access the IP address of the user in question to forward details to the local law enforcemetn so that a check can be made - as has been done in previous cases? DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Too right! Wikipedia is not therapy, but it might be nice if a checkuser could identify him and send out the appropriate help. Do I need to post there, or can we get this done from here? Dlohcierekim 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But, there is no threat apparent. Let's not create drama for the sake of drama. Encouraging people to file reports that waste law enforcement resources is not a joke! Perhaps I am missing something. Can you point to the diff that contains an actual threat? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a nurse, I see enough to say we need to try to identify this person and have the cops do a welfare check. Speaking form Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users, there is enough to contact the authorities and have them do a welfare check. We are not shrinks and could not assess over the internet if we were. Ergo, the best, safest choice is to try to identify and get local authorities to check. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also per Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users, it is not a waste of time. Dlohcierekim 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk of suicide is often a threat of suicide even if the threat is not directly articulated. In my experience, the police would much rather investigate and find no real problem, than not receive a report and run the risk of having to tell a family that their loved one is dead, and that someone knew there might be a problem and chose to do nothing. To make a good-faith report of concern to the police is never a waste of their resources, instead it is giving them the information they need in order to do their job properly. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Diff? I don't see talk of suicide. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The VERY FIRST diff at the start of the thread - the addition of the comment "solves everything" to the talk page of Suicide. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide talk page here, as I already posted. State of mind as evident in his comments to my talk page and and his uesr page. State of mind in the deleted article Worthless People.(Links as per my original, heading refactored by someone else, post.} Dlohcierekim 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's trolling, perhaps, but not a threat. I will say it again, Wikipedia is not therapy. Don't try to get inside other peoples' heads. Bringing this to ANI is risks WP:BEANS. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not qualified to to say it is not a suicidal ideation. Having the cops come to the house and consider an involuntary commitment is the last thing any one wants. It will not encourage anyone to post such remarks to have someone send out the cops and check. That is why the policy says to post here. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like a simple venting of frustration to me rather than an actual serious threat. I wouldn't consider a ambiguous statement made 10 hours ago to be something that is really actionable at this point. More likely than not, any attempt at this point to get authorities to contact this person will only exacerbate the situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy is just frustrated because he really wants Wikipedia to have an article about his favorite science teacher. Last time I checked, Wikipedia:Notability says we don't have articles about non-notable people. It isn't worth it for us to send law enforcement out to his house. There's no credible evidence that he's threatening anything against himself. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that "otherstuff exists" isn't regarded as a valid reason for keeping an article, but Wikipedia has thousands of articles about non-notable people - but women who flash their tits for money, or guys who wrote some obscure video-game are apparently the sort of people a lot of editors want to see here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we're not in a position to judge whether somethings credible or not. We're not mind readers, it's always worth it to send law enforcement on check welfare calls. It's part of their job and it's what they do. I'm always surprised when I read people's comments when they try and judge whether someones serious or not. I'll tell you one thing, they (LE) always take this stuff seriously. Always. And we should too. It's not "therapy" having someone do a welfare check...RxS (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no threat at all. If you look at the diff, there is no statement whatsoever like "I am going to do X". Please people, let's stop being trolled and get back to work. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that if law enforcement authorities conclude that there is no threat and do not act, it then becomes their decision rather than ours, and I'd much rather they decide than myself. That being said, there is a high chance it is simply trolling. Orderinchaos 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Expressing unhappiness is not a threat to commit suicide. Proceeding with matters like this is nonsense. W are not here to do welfare checks, or to screen our posters for mental illness. DGG (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we are not here to do welfare checks - but the police are happy to do them, it is, after all, part of their job. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

re the 'lets stop being trolled' comments (& keeping in mind what duncan just pointed out): following WP:SUICIDE & passing it on to relevant lea without attempting to second guess users mindstates is the least 'troll-feeding' option. as it is by having this discussion every time this comes up (a few times in the last fortnight) we are effectively giving potential trolls far more attention than we would by simply following a procedure which, btw, was wholeheartedly endorsed by jimbo & many long standing eds/admins in one of those recent discussions.  ⇒ bsnowball  08:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

Probably vandalism, but this comment was posted on the talk page: "I MUST SAY THIS DUDE IS LIKE A ROLE MODEL TO ME.. IM PLANNING ON DOING A SIMILAIR MASSACCRE IN MY SCHOOL ITS GONNA BE AWSOME!!!" see diff: [17] --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, he just posted that it was a joke, [18]. --Strothra (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Still worthy of advice that this, even as a joke, is unacceptable on Wikipedia. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. --Strothra (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Report to WMF if possible? —BoL @ 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much, I doubt the Foundation would be bothered. A stern warning from an Admin should be enough. It would be very different indeed if the comment had not been retracted, however. That would have merited LEA involvement. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam"

Continuing his crusade of administrative abuse, User:JzG has add legistorm.com to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see this edit). As discussed earlier, this is a neutral, non-partisan site that provides objective and relevant information regarding Congressional staff salaries. Above and beyond the general benefit of providing this information fro all congressmen, an example of where this is particularly relevant was a citation used at the Jerry Lewis (politician) article, documenting the fact that the representative's wife is employed at $120,00 per annum as his chief of staff. This reference was removed by JzG, with an excuse in the edit summary noting that he was "removing per discussion on ANI and elsewhere". The problem is that there has been no consensus reached that Legistorm.com is spam, nor has there been any support here for JzG's bizarre position. It seems that JzG, having been caught with his pants down in an abusive block of User:Timjowers, has decided to compound the abuse by declaring the site spam, preventing any reference to the site in any context. Above and beyond removing the listing from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, it is high time that JzG is stripped of any and all administrative powers. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest proposing the removal of the site from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• I can't find any relevant ANI discussion or even a consensus on the blacklisting of the link. After viewing the site, I can't find any reason that the site should be banned, given that it does do a heck of a job at providing politician salaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is all I can find: [19]. It's used as such in the CongLinks template, such as this example. And there has been no discussion or even feature removal at the template, indicated here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would have been blacklisted for spamming, obviously. It was blacklisted per here, here, and here. Sean William @ 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking above and here, five accounts and an IP registered to the site have spammed the link. I support the blacklisting. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• One problem with the site is lots of ads. Adding a link to hundreds of congresscritter's articles helps to funnel eyeballs and therefore ad revenue to the site. Linking to a noncommercial source for the same information is preferred under external links policy. Thatcher131 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right (although google adsense is hardly "lots of ads"), but is there a non-commercial site? A quick look finds me no replacement. Unless there's an alternative available, I think the site should be removed from the blacklist and be linked on its own merits.

As for the retributive attitude, I understand the need to deter spammers, but I'm going to confess some ignorance. When I think of "spam," I think of a minor site getting undue placement for its own benefit. These links, although they were spammed, look meritorious and have been adopted by non-COI users. I think it would be bizarre to blacklist meritorious sites; it would give bad faith spammers the ability to block links to sites they don't want. I think this kind of gaming would occur in political topics. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don;t think the links, as added, were meritorious or editorially appropriate. It's as if you put a list of salarys of Microsoft executives in Bill Gates' article. See my comments below. Thatcher131 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Gates is not a public servant; it's a strange comparison. Even JzG saw merit to the information stating, "If that is public information it'll be available form a site that does not eomploy spammers." Isolated sources do sometimes report on staff expenditures, but this has the combined annual data in one place, along with their financial disclosures, which are useful primary documents. The Washington Post links have more ads than this, quite honestly. Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) is it appropriate for an editor, who may be associated with a website, to add hundreds of links to the site; and 2) does the legistorm.com website, which provides neutral and objective details re congressional staff salaries qualify as spam, such that it should not be included as a link under any and all circumstances. You might find support that case 1 qualifies as spam (though I would heartily disagree). As for case 2, there has been no discussion, let alone any valid justification offered, as to why the site should be included on a blacklist so that neutral third party editors could add it as a link or reference. It is case 2 that is the subject for discussion here. I am more than willing to leave issues of JzG's administrative abuses to be dealt with separately. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no attempt to provide any context here, such as "representative Smith has the largest and highest paid staff, despite being a junior member" or some such. Remembering that this is supposed to be Rep. Smith's biography, a bare link to a site with information on his staff salaries seems tangential at best. If Rep. Smith has had problems with his staff, or his staff has in some other way come to public notice, perhaps. As nothing more than a link, without context in the article, and on a tangential topic, it is unquestionably spam. It may or may not deserve to be on the blacklist; I expect that if Rep. Smith or Sen. Jones' staff suddenly get embroiled in a scandal, their salary information will be covered by other sources without the spam problem. Thatcher131 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you put information about Microsoft executive salaries in Bill Gates? Is there an article on Congressional Staff Members that discusses salary? This would be a good place for the link, or as a source. Thatcher131 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a faulty analogy. I also wouldn't link to how Bill Gates voted, what his campaign contributions were, or how various interest groups rated him either (all of these are currently on all/most congresspeople). Neither those or staff salary information makes since in the context of a CEO of a private company. However, they all DO make sense when we are talking about a public, elected official. Each of these are currently used. The following two of them also from sites that feature ads as well (more prominant than those on legistorm), and have not be blocked.

The bad actions from some users/ip's apparently associated with the legistorm domain justifies blocking (after the warnings I assume took place) those users and/or ip #'s from editing -- it does NOT justify blocking an a site that offers useful, relevant information that is not offered anywhere else online (that any of us have found). kenj0418 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Claire McCaskill's voting record maintained by The Washington Post (huge ads)[20] Claire McCaskill's issue positions and quotes at On The Issues (dancing and/or blinking banners) [21]

• Jesus wept. See the start of the thread? User:Alansohn. As far as he's concerned the definition of an abusive action is: I did it. He has been nurturing a grudge against me for pointing out that he used misleading edit summaries in a content dispute. I blacklisted the site because it was being spammed, it's a perfectly standard action, thois is an AdSense spam site which was being heavily linked by single purpose accounts - the canonical definition of link spamming. It was linked on the noticeboards and the spam project. What's really bizarre here is that it was Alansohn who originally complained about the legistorm spammer! Which admins will Alansohn permit to deal with his reports of spamming, so we can avoid being accusded of admin abuse for dealing with a problem that he identifies? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Before everyone gets out the pitchforks and torches, lets look at the spam report earlier today (well before the blacklisting) on the WikiProject Spam talk page. Another admin, Hu12, went through all the edits of multiple single purpose accounts (and a Storming Media IP) and found two of these SPAs had added 656 links with no other edits.

That's incredibly abusive spamming -- probably the worst case reported in a month or two. Guy absolutely was justified. He just got confused and referred back to the WP:ANI page and not the WT:WPSPAM page. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The bad actions by some legistorm related people (I'll take it on your word that it happened) does not justify removing a legitimate, informative website by blocking the entire domain in the spam blocklist. This is a ridiculous overreaction. I have requested that this domain be removed from the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals kenj0418 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a complete inability by JzG (and his apologists) to distinguish between actions and content, combined with an utter refusal to pursue consensus on this issue. While one could argue (weakly) that the addition of links by those assoicated with an external site could constitute spam, no one -- not even JzG at his most disruptive -- has argued that the site itself is spam, and that no third party editors should be able to add links to the site under any circumstances. You admins can decide amongst yourselves if the editors associated with site and adding links are spammers. I'm not, and I am one of many editors who want to link to the site. Either give a legitimate policy reason why the site should be blocked as spam under any and all situations or remove the link from the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a wiki, and what is done can be undone. There is no question that the addition of 600+ links, to an ad-supported site, with no other editorial content or purpose, is spam. Putting the site on the black list is the most effective way to deal with it. If a regular (i.e. multi-interest, not connected with the site) editor wants to selectively add the link where appropriate (say, to an article about a congressperson who has a staff scandal) he can ask that it be removed from the list, either temporarily or permanently. But there is nothing wrong with the initial blacklisting at the time. Thatcher131 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• So if I added it, it'd be okay? Either the links are okay or they aren't. The account that adds them shouldn't matter. Timjowers e-mailed me today. Fortunately, I don't think he's gone for good. So, at least Guy didn't manage to chase off a potential contributor. Mr Which??? 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I get the impression a huge number of SPAs (sockpuppets?) were adding a huge number of links in a very small amount of time. Why wouldn't that attract some stiff attention? I don't think I've seen a declaration that "we won't link to this site, ever," more like "WAAAAAAGH WE'RE DROWNING IN LINKS STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT." Now that things have hopefully calmed down a bit, it's easier to discuss the merit (or lack thereof) to linking. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if you as an editor felt that this site was a reliable source in an editorially appropriate context, then you should be able to do that. However, adding 600+ links in the absence of any editorial context was spamming. These are bios about the members, not their staffs. If the article includes discussion of the staff so that it is relevant to talk about their salaries or financial disclosure forms, then this site might be a good reference to cite. The distinction is perhaps too subtle for some, but I think (in general but definitely in this specific case) that adding relevant sources to the body of the article as determined by the needs of the article is good editing, but adding the same external link to 600+ articles is spamming, even if the site would be acceptable as a reference under other circumstances. I guess that means that I think the site should be taken off the blacklist, but that the prior editors who made 600+ links were spamming, and the addition to the blacklist was in good faith. Thatcher131 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Justifiable Blacklisting, supported by evidence, more evidence and facts. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. This blacklisting is a clear result of WP:SPA (WP:SOCK) accounts and a WP:COI IP ('Storming Media LLC) being employed for the sole purpose to Spam Legistorm.com and to self-promote. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming. Storming Media LLC has clearly illustrated a situation where a single company is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763).--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, all you have accomplished with this supposed "evidence" might support the fact that those individuals associated with the site who are adding links may justifiably be considered spam. There has been no discussion or justification provided by the administrator who blacklisted the site as to why this was done or what we're being protected from. Nothing in this laundry list of links justifies falsely labeling the site and its contents as spam. I -- and many other editors -- have indicated that there are valid reasons to include the site in articles, both in references and as external links. Rather than asking "Mother, may I" for each and every article that would benefit from a link to the site, the entry must be removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Leaving it on the blacklist is disruptive in the most WP:POINTy way possible. Hell, if ads are the real issue, let's get rid of all those links on Congressional articles to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Alansohn (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then go to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. Thatcher131 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Alansohn, Additions are logged. The administrator who blacklisted the site did properly log the entry apropriatly, so that future users can easily find the reason. We had this discussion on the CongLinks template's talk page, You were aware of the posibility of blacklisting, and act supprised that it has occured. --Hu12 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu12,t he policy say one should avoid editing with COI, not that it is prohibited. The reason for this is that many good articles (and many good links are originally contributed by people with COI (and then have to be discussed by other editors). What would have been really good is if the outfit had come out with the proposal to link the material there, and let people consider it objectively. I hope we would have decided to use it, for it is truly excellent material that cannot be matched by any other single site, is non-partisanb, and very useful; to supplement our articles. They support themselves by ads, yes, but they do do to a good purpose. Our own purpose is to write an encyclopedia. We have the COI and SPAM policies because most material from such sources does not help accomplish this, and instead contributes to onesidedness, lack of NPOV, and bias rather than enlightenment for the user. When something comes along otherwise, we should use it. They did it wrong, but to we want to punish them for it, or to provide information in an encyclopedia. I care about results. I care about providing NPOV information. DGG (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear what your saying DGG, and was well put. Perhaps Whitelisting on a "case by case" basis is best for Wikipedia at this point. Whitelisting should be implemented where it can be demonstrated as a valid source, in an appropriate context.--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that there are two people who believe that there might be a conflict of interest here does not constitute a discussion nor does it create a consensus. No one appointed you or JzG as the authority to determine the appropriateness of this site, and I couldn't give a crap that you can't figure out why anyone would want to link to the site. You have no authority to unilaterally impose a whitelist, and consensus seems clear that this site provides relevant, useful information, that there is no objectionable content that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy and that there is no alternative source for this information that would satisfy your arbitrary demands. I'm not surprised that someone would have the gall to propose a possible blacklist; I'm just stupefied that anyone would have the chutzpah to follow through with it. The fact that someone can point to their own gobbledygook in a log doesn't constitute a "justification", it merely provides an excuse. Now that the damage has been done, and it's clear that this is no legitimate purpose to this abusive permanent block, it's time to fix yet one more mistake and remove legistorm.com from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. You can even feel free to a log entry explaining the screwup. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter what you think of how it was handled, clearly there was blatant and massive linkspamming by someone with a significant conflict of interest. And as I read through this thread and the previous four discussions, I do see that there was consensus for the initial blacklisting of the site based on that inappropriate behavior.

So let's please try and stick to the current issue, which is whether or not it is now appropriate to un-blacklist the site, as might well be the case. Personally, I am not at all convinced that legistorm.com meets the requirements of a reliable source, but I can see times where it would be appropriate as an external link. Are there any strong objections to now removing it and monitoring its addition to articles? — Satori Son 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. They spammed their website using five user accounts and an IP. And their website is full of ads. If/when it gets unblacklisted, whats to stop them from doing it again? And what about the advertising on there? I'm thinking that Wikipedian clicking on link = money for them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Now that I think about it, this is probably not the best venue for this particular discussion anyway. For those interested, this matter is currently being debated at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#legistorm.com. Thanks. — Satori Son 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can "object" all you want. The WaPost and the NYTimes have ads all over them, and they're not black-listed. If the only problem is that SPAs are adding them, then let Alansohn put them back in. The information found at the site is neutral and helpful. Blacklisting them is not helpful to the project, which is what we're all about, right? Mr Which??? 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:AeronPrometheus

This user is re-adding prod templates after I remove them. --NE2 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is currently here - from AeronPrometheus's comments, I think there is possibly some confusion between proposing deletion and listing at AfD. Addhoc (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this really an ANI grade problem? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. In other news, AeronPrometheus reported NE2 to WP:AIV, which obviously led to the report being rejected. Addhoc (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken similar issues here in the past, and sometimes asked if this was an appropriate place with a positive response. Where else would I take it? It was quickly approaching 3RR, and I don't know if removing prods is an acceptable "excuse" for breaking 3RR. --NE2 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looked like it was posted here before there was enough time for them to reply on their talk page and discuss there, though they seem to have missed that for a bit during the reverting.

If they'd refused to talk or kept doing obstinate things for longer then sure, here's fine. But this seems like it was still in an early stage. I figure this is where we come if AGF and patience failed, or in case of serious urgent emergency... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with George, and notified the user. A bit premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2 ignored repeated invitations to discuss the matter as adults. I looked up the proper procedure for this particular issue and reported is as advised by the help pages. Removal of a proposal without any reason given and refusal to discuss matter properly after being given repeated chances to was classified as vandalism so I treated it as such. My infraction, as it is being viewed, was brought to light by other members and I have agreed to back off. However NE2 seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to make this an issue that wouldn't have existed had he too followed the rules. Thank you to the other member of Wikipedia involved for being supportive and informative. AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You must recover

I've just seen two different pages vandalized by several unrelated IPs, a new user, and a sleeper account with the text "You must recover." Has Colbert organized a new assault on Wikipedia or something? This just doesn't make sense to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai and Super Smash Bros. Brawl so far (the former is helping create the latter, so maybe not unrelated?). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairly small number of distinct IPs related, it appears, i'm semiprotecting pages for a week and blocking the IPs for a week. If more show up let us know here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is a vandal reference to yesterday's Smash Bros. DOJO!! update, where a "Team Healer" item was revealed. Colbert hasn't been running new material for a while. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm interested in hearing from administrators in relation to this user, who has been editing tendentiously on Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Therapy for some time. The user has consistently failed to AGF in relation to editors that do not share his POV. He has accused others of being sockpuppets, lying and falsifying information.

Particularly concerning is his pattern of stalking and harrassing another editor, Abuse truth. I've asked that he cease this pattern of behaviour but it has continued[22]. He has followed Abuse truth from one article to another ("I followed Abuse truth's trail of inappropriate spam here from his disreuptive edits on other articles")[23] whilst blocking dozens of Abuse truth's edits without seeking consensus[24] or establishing a any basis for the constant reverts. When challenged by Abuse truth, he admits that he is reverting AT's changes on 'suspicion' that AT is lying about his sources ("I have no idea whether you're accurate when quoting hard-copy")[25]. He has also accused me of being Abuse Truth's sockpuppet [26].

Recently, he deleted info posted by Abuse truth stating "I don't believe AT understands the concept of truth"[27]. He has also claimed that Abuse truth cannot speak English [28] and later claimed that Abuse truth is lying about his competency in English [29].

Rubin takes a particular interest in articles relating to child sexual abuse, and his POV on these matters is clear. As his userpage states, he believes that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is "scientific, unbiased, and in support of children" [30]. It is clear that Rubin seeks to entrench this POV within the articles that he edits, and he has a particularly elastic approach to assessing credibility. In two instances where a source that supports his POV has been demonstrated as unreliable (for instance, by the substantiation of that sources link to a pro-paedophile organisation [31] or the False Memory Syndrome Foundation[32]) he claims that a "severely biased" source is not "necessarily unreliable", whilst elsewhere, he deleted information from a newspaper article on the basis that the newspaper itself was somehow "discredited" [33], and he supported an attempt to remove a reference to a book by a tenured professor on the basis of the political orientation of the book's publication house. [34]

It looks to me as though Rubin meets all the criteria for wiki-stalking and tendentious editing. A number of editors have expressed concern about his conduct on RMT and SRA but he has yet to modify his approach to the articles, or cease his attacks on Abuse Truth. Any advice or assistance would be welcomed. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, User:Abuse truth is a fairly provocative editor who makes a habit of pushing his POV as far as he can get away with. He is not deliberately disruptive, but many of his contributions are prejudicial, lack sources, or are sourced to (say) the "Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media", a small and fairly controversial group of therapists who work in the area that used to be called "Multiple-personality disorder", or to Feminista!, the online "Journal of feminist art, literature, social commentary and philosophy." To say nothing of his rather "aggressive" username (with concomitant double entendre). Reviewing his contribution logs, and reverting or discussing where appropriate, would not necessarily be out of line. <eleland/talkedits> 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

this topic has, not surprisingly, a long history of this sort of behaviour on all sides. As neither believes the opponents are acting in GF in the RW, what can be expected? I know I could not edit there on a neutral way, so I don't try to. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, it is not appropriate for you, or Rubin, to regularly review an editors contribution logs and revert dozens of changes en masse. Rubin has achnowledged that he undertakes this activity on suspicion that AT is lying or misrepresenting offline sources, but he has yet to actually demonstrate that this is the case.

AT is an inexperienced editor, and your confrontational approach to AT, and Rubin's pattern of harrasment, constitutes a failure of either of you to AGF and work collaboratively with him so that he's more effective in the future. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like also like to draw admin attention to the two complaints have been made recently about Arthur Rubin's conduct on the RMT and SRA pages here [35] and [36]. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, you should have left a message on Arthur's page about this report on WP:AN/I. It is quite novel for inexperience to be used to excuse poor editing by a new editor (adding unsourced material, removing sourced material) and to condemn the inevitable remedies from experienced editors/administrators as harrassment and wikistalking. You yourself have recently had your own contretemps with Arthur [37] over WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Abuse truth is a single purpose account, my first assumption was that they were an anonymous user to "Abuse the Truth". Their single purpose is to alter every article on child abuse, repressed memories, and articles on people who supported the concept that the day care abuse hysteria of the 1980s was a panic. AT has has been smearing the author of a book, Paul Eberle, and removing text that references the book, and heavily editing the Elizabeth Loftus article to discredit her. AT's tactics are to use fringe material and overwhelm the article with tendentious text. Most of the sources he has been using have been coming from a website called "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" see here [mind control and Abuse]. Although AT denies using the site, they have cut and pasted a typo from the site. The Associated Press articles they have been using only exist at that website and the text was verbatim, including typos. Thats why Arthur Rubin has been suspicious of sources used by AT. AT denied using this website but at least four references used in an article only exist at that site, and a typo was cut and paste from the site. Here is an example of AT using smear tactics to discredit the author of a book used as a source in the article: [[38]] by adding text to an article that uses Eberle as a reference. AT also relies on prosecutorial accusations made during trials and gives undue weight to those accusations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Abuse truth (talk · contribs) looks like exactly the sort of tendentious single-purpose account-with-an-agenda that we should be a little more aggressive about restraining. Given this editor's contribution history, screening his/her edits for policy violations across multiple articles is hardly Wikistalking. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Indiejade, 76.230.237.117 and COI

This user (and her anonymous associate; let's be generous and assume she'd forgotten to log in) have been hitting open source, open-source software and free and open source software with an extlink to her site for the last week. A sample counterargument for leaving these links in from her talk page:

Are you writing your tirades from Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Operating System?

Anyway, yeah, it's not vandalism, but it is obvious COI and it's beginning to get annoying. Talk isn't getting anywhere. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the best way to stop this type of nonsense is to blacklist the website. That will put an end to the whole tirade. Consider a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized that WP:COIN isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If any further explanation about the logic behind the link contribution is needed, I'll be happy to offer it. If user ChrisCunningham read my question as a 'personal attack,' I do apologize . . . there was absolutely no intention for my question to be read as anything but a simple question, and it certainly wasn't directed at him directly. Read it in context. Seriously, people. Who really stands to benefit from a removal of the link? Perpetual Microsoft-fanboys, yes, but the article topic is open-source. Where is the actual discussion on this from the opposing side? Indiejade (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade and 76.230.237.117 are clearly the same user. The link was first added on 2007-12-15 by the anon, and has since been re-added serveral times by both of them. So yes, let's be generous about Indiejade forgetting to log in, but also, let's consider a block for violating the three revert rule on Free and open source software yesterday. RossPatterson (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade has been told both politely and more strenously that their website doesn't contribute to the articles that they have been adding it to. As I've explained to them:

Your website does not belong as an external link in Wikipedia articles. It adds nothing encyclopedic to them, it has very little content, and nothing significantly original. Please do not add it to any more articles. RossPatterson (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 14:29, 16 December 2007

Please explain what content at zentu.net is significant, notable, or not available at better-known and well-established sites. I followed every link I could find and looked at every page and observed none. The site is nothing more than collection of links to various open source projects, and not a particularly good one at that. Until it becomes something significant, please refrain from adding it to articles on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 17:21, 16 December 2007

The Wikipedia article List of open source software packages does a much better job of categorizing and enumerating packages than your website does. It also has both the advantage of being part of Wikipedia and of linking to the many package articles Wikipedia already contains. As a rule, Wikipedia prefers internal links to other articles over external links. RossPatterson (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Indiejade revision of 18:03, 16 December 2007

After that I stood down, because it was becoming obvious that Indiejade was unable to discuss the issue and would continue to re-add the link endlessly. RossPatterson (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

User:Quadell decided to expand the function of User:Polbot without getting permission to do so, without posting any notice on the bot's user page describing the fuction and without monitoring the edits to see if they were being done correctly. This is totally unacceptable behavior. The added function which was the addition and editing of FUR's has very little in common with its other approved functions. An administrator has blocked the bot. Many of it edits have been reverted as vandalism. This kind of behavior should never be tollerated. Bot operators have a greater responsibiliy to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and need to be held to task when they so blantly violate them and even more so when the operator is also an administrator with over three years as an administrator. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion forming at User talk:Quadell but I informed him of this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but that discussion is basicly a discussion of the problem with the bot, this is more of an abuse of power issue; of not think that expanding a bot's function needs approval, of not monotoring a bot when it is given greater functionality. Of forgetting that as an administrator you need to take even greater care not to blantly break the rules and damage pages in the process. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not impressed at the wholesale reverting of the bot's edits without any check to see if the changes were valid -- isn't that what the bot was accused of doing itself?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the wholesale reverting was not the best approach, especially in light of the fact that much of the material added is of a usable nature, but since that is being done by another agressive editor, I was simply commenting that it was being done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale reverting is a common approach when a bot makes a large number of possibly broken edits; on its own it isn't problematic. If the bot is fixed, it can make the same positive edits again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that the bot was adding things that it shouldn't have been guessign at without human intelligence. I don't see what other way there is to fix the problem, except for humans to individually go through the thousands of edits it made and check them all over again, which, to be honest, won't be happening any time soon. In any case, it wasn't reverted wholesale, or at least no one finished all the reverting yet, as there are still literally thousands of Polbot's edits that are the current revision, starting with all its contributions on December 17 [39] continuously until it was blocked a couple days later. Dmcdevit·t 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DerHexer and I have reverted a couple of thousands of the bot's edits, but we stopped since we encountered the overlapping of the article backlink. DerHexer said he'll work a solution today. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some bots and bot operators are given more latitude than others. As far as this incident goes, the bot was blocked, its edits reverted, and Quadell has committed to open up a discussion for approval of the new task. I don't think there's anything more to address. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but when that latitude is abused, turning a bot loose and not monitoring it, it needs to at least be noted as a serious violation and acknowleged as such, not called a simple mistake. If an administor is not held accountable for his actions, then there is absolutely no grounds on which one can hold an ordinary user accountable for his. The minimum that should be expected is the acknowledgement that is was a serious break in protocol and judgement and the committment that it will not happen again. Without that, some of that extra latitude needs to be withdrawn. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I'm sure it was a mistake. Maybe he just forgot to get the permission or something. I just don't think this AN/I post is hugely necessary, given the fact that he's a long-time editor and admin who likely just made a mistake. No reason to grill him over it. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not getting approval is one thing which could be looked to as a simple mistake. But turning a bot loose with new functionality and not monitoring it, that is another totally unacceptable action, not a simple mistake. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

People who believe in the "flawless administrator" will never, ever find him or her. Administrators are trusted editors who have access to an extra set of tools to assist in maintenance work on Wikipedia, and they are also human. Therefore, even the most respectable administrator is liable to human misjudgement, such as mistakes and the occasional bad judgement call. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not expect to ever find a "falwless administrator". But I do expect that when one make as SERIOUS mistake that he would acknowledge such and commit to not doing it again. So far the only acknowledgement has been for not getting approval. The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Polbot is/was doing a good service and after Quadell gets the correct permission, I hope Polbot can continue to add fair-use rationales to images in need of them. If anything, it would cut down on work for deleting them, mass postings on talk pages and the "hundred or so" discussions on BC Bot a week.

Having a bot that adds F-URs is a damned good idea. Quadell made a mistake not getting permission, no biggie. We all screw up. But let's give Polbot and Quadell a second chance. What it is doing is a good idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: The above user is not an admin, but an editor voicing an opinion.)

Based on this, is it now OK to block bots that you see making mistakes while they tag images at speed or delete images at speed (without having a human reviewing the process)? Those bots or scripts have at least as many errors as Polbot was generating, if not more. Equally, can a bot run be reverted in its entirety if you find a few mistakes? I think that would justify reverting all the edits ever made by... No, I won't go there. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My view is that reversion of removal of content should always be reviewed by a human (you need to look at what you are re-adding). But reversion of addition of content is generally OK, as long as the removal doesn't make something less OK in terms of copyright, sources and rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that User:Quadell/Report on backlinks is a useful report that Polbot is producing. That should be discussed at the botrequest and that should be no problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overstating your case here, Dbiel. I didn't think to get approval to run this bot, and I have apologized for that in multiple places. But you claim "The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it." Isn't that just a negatively-biased was of saying "running a bot"? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the attitude that bothers me. The idea that it is OK to assign a bot new functionality and turn it loose, allowing it to make countless edits without checking to see if it is working correctly and calling that simply "running a bot" and "overstating your case". That is just plain wrong and also, totally a violation of Wikipidia policy. As far as not getting approval, that issue has been handled and apologized for. The failure to monitor your bot is another issue, which if I am understanding what you have written, you are saying that it is not your responsability to make certian it is working correctly before turning it loose. Unproven bots should NEVER be left to run unattended. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that, and I don't see how you read that into what I've said. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the issue seems resolved. The unapproved task has stopped, Quadell has apologized several times, it's the first time (AFAIK) that such an issue happens with Polbot. I've also unblocked the bot. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Snowolf, the issue appears to be resolved. FWIW, I hope the bot gets approval, because it would be very useful. Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: A BRFA has been opened for the task, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait, was User:Dexter authorized to simply undo every single one of Polbot's actions? Because he did, making literally thousands of reverts within the space of a few minutes, most obviously using a bot (a human cannot make 4000 contributions in one hour). I find it interesting that, in order to undo someone who has done something against process, we now have an administrator doing something even more against process: running a bot on his main account. Anyone care to address this? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean User:DerHexer? 4494 edits in 112 minutes (40/minute) seems implausible but I managed 8.5/minute for 18 minutes while reverting massive spam (see this AN post) with Twinkle and a 256k/64k connection. Admin rollback is much faster and I believe DerHexer has access to real broadband. Then again, it was 3x faster than what Wiki.java 0.11 can do (13/minute). MER-C 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by my old account

Resolved

When I first started editing wikipedia, I used the username User:Senang Hati but requested a rename after policies were pointed out to me. The rename was performed by User:Nichalp (17:10, 13 April 2007) [40], whom I've just notified of this incident. The account seems to have been resurrected to troll me concerning some of my more recent edits about the notability of things like tv episodes and characters as well as Dungeons and Dragons articles. I have commented extensively on the current arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters mostly on the workshop page.

The new incarnation of User:Senang Hati is tagging articles that I originally created such as Senang Hati Foundation with clean-up tags and has now nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation. I would appreciate folks looking into this. Thanks, Jack Merridew 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

addendum: The same pattern is repeating on Smile Foundation of Bali; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali. --Jack Merridew 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. East718 had already blocked your impersonator, and I've reverted and protected your former talk and user pages to point to your new ones. — Coren ^(talk) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering what should happen to the two AfDs that were started:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali

--Jack Merridew 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned because with the redirect to my current user name these appear to have been initiated by me. --Jack Merridew 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry, I've speedily closed them as bad faith noms (and reverted the mess of templates on the articles themselves). — Coren ^(talk) 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He's back as Special:Contributions/71.212.42.88 - and I reverted him. --Jack Merridew 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Confirmed. See User talk:71.108.64.236. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)`

Now at: Special:Contributions/88.112.61.33 --Jack Merridew 10:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Finland... --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And at Special:Contributions/90.9.220.148 --Jack Merridew 10:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that 90... is in France, so he's brought in friends. I suggest that Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali be protected for a day or two. --Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/87.65.176.152 (Belgium). This is probably being discussed on some off wiki-forum - 4chan? to bring on an assault of vandals. This has frequently happened to my user page; see the page history for tons of reverts of vandalism. I believe this is tit-for-tat for clean-up tagging of D&D stuff rather than tv Episode and Character stuff. --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/82.27.237.61 (UK) --Jack Merridew 10:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/24.205.138.236 (St. Louis) --Jack Merridew 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 4chan; see [41] --Jack Merridew 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

s-Protecting the pages for a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

s-protected User talk:Jack Merridew for a short time as your talk page is being hit as well. — ERcheck (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• We should probably get a 'crat to forcibly rename the old account, the users blatantly used it because Jack changed names. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'm really surprised that this was even doable. I expected the old name to still somehow be 'taken'. If this happened once, it must have happened before... and should be prevented in the future. nb: Special:Contributions/Senang_Hati are edits that I did not make yet the user and talk pages point at me. --Jack Merridew 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure it's not doable any more - it's happened before and I think that account creation is blocked for renamed users post a certain date. I could be wrong however. I'll have a word with a 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  If it's possible I would like the impersonator's edits disassociated from my name. I don't, however, see quite how that might work. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  It was still doable recently - I had to recreate and protect my old account when I renamed. BLACKKITE 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  You could move the account to something like User:Senang Hati (usurped) then create the account again in your name. Would need a crat to agree though. Woody (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you would want to do is have a 'crat rename the impersonator's account from Senang Hati to Senang Hati impersonator or Hati impersonator vandal or something similar. (The 'crat should chooose a name that makes clear that the impersonator isn't the original person, and isn't related to the Senang Hati Foundation.)

As soon as the account is renamed, Jack Merridew (or a 'crat, or someone else responsible) can recreate the Senang Hati account to ensure that another obnoxious individual doesn't snag it. Presto—the nasty edits are no longer associated with Jack or the Senang Hati account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said. The WP:BN would be the best place for it. Woody (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• nb: see WP:BN#I was harassed by my former account for next phase. --Jack Merridew 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

UK v Britain

Resolved

75.70.133.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has some kind of a vendetta against the name United Kingdom. He's going around articles changing it to Britain, which is a disambiguation page and not to be linked to. One of his first edits was to erroneously alter the name of a book cited in a footnote. He ignored a note on his talk page asking him politely to stop linking to dab pages. He has made over thirty edits to Timeline of World War II, none of them helpful, including removing relevant information regarding the UN. No single edit is clear-cut vandalism, but the entire corpus, taken as a whole, seems to indicate some kind of agenda against Wikipedia policies. He has almost no edits that are not of this character. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP vandal hasn't edited since yesterday, so hopefully this is a dead issue now. Please file a new report if the behavior starts up again. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Time and date of his last edit: 02:24, 20 December 2007, twelve hours before you posted this comment. Seems a little soon, to me, to assume that he's stopped. Anyway, he's gotten one very mild comment and one severe warning, so if you think I should, I'll wait and see if it starts up again. And do you consider this vandalism? I think it could be argued that it's good faith, but misguided.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOLMAX (talk · contribs)

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

---

Is it possible to get some more eyes on User talk:LOLMAX? Ever since people have been putting vandalism warnings on his page, he's been blanking them ([42], [43], [44], [45]) despite the fact that he's either not read them or is blatantly disregarding them ([46], [47]). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes after a final warning, it doesn't matter if the warning is present on the page or not. It is inappropriate to keep re-adding them after they have been removed, and I have re-blanked the page. I have noted this user on WP:AIV though, so that if they vandalize again it is known they had a final warning —Random832 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism since the LOL edit. How is this blatantly disregarding the warnings? And anyway, editors look at the talk page history to determine appropriate warning level or reports, right? Gimmetrow 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this not just a pure vandal account? Reported to AIV. Look at his main space edits. Blanking, adding the word flatulence, adding his own name to articles since December 3rd. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And he's blocked. Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Obeoboy again

Per my previous report here, Oboeboy (talk · contribs) has come back off his previous block and has simply started adding the anti-death penalty petition to talk:Capital punishment again. Could someone try and explain things to him. Thanks. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a second time. He sees nothing wrong with this despite the explanation to him which is as clear as it's going to get. Since I believe he'll just keep doing it, I've blocked him for 48 hours to prevent him from doing it again for a bit. Metros (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted one of his earlier edits here at Day, but the unsourced information (an argument for biblical justification of the theory of evolution) was re-added by an IP here. Could this user be evading a block? And is this worth taking to Checkuser? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There was also a pair of edits to Pythian Castle by Oboeboy and the IP, where the IP added a POV section to the lead, and then Oboeboy copyedited it. It might be that he forgot to log in, but then again...? The diff is here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Resolved

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) is editing once again. Taking a look at this user's block log, it appears that he was banned on 2007-09-21 by community consensus, block implemented by FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs). Ferrylodge was unblocked on 2007-10-08 by Y (talk · contribs) with the following note: "To appeal community ban to ArbCom. Edits to any page other than ArbCom pages and relevant user talk pages will result in an immediate re-blocking." Ferrylodge is now definitely editing outside of the ArbCom pages. I cannot find a reference to his ban being overturned but it may well have been. Anyone know what is going on? If his ban really was overturned by ArbCom, perhaps could someone issue a one second block to make note of this in his block log? --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge to be unblocked.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found that as well. I'll add a brief note to this user's block log. --Yamla (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note, Yamla.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lurkers

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Solumeiras ^talk 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good essay - could an admin advise as to what would be an appropriate place to invite comments? DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez and VartanM

I would like to request an impartial investigation into User:Golbez claimed mediation activity at Nagorno-Karabakh. He recently violated neutrality by singling out the contributors of one ethnicity and offending them:

1) [48]

• "Maybe the Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs - stop treating Nagorno-Karabakh like it killed your damn puppy"
• "To say that the Azeris are far less helpful than the Armenians doesn't mean I support the Armenians - it just means they express their positions a lot better"

I think after such statements against contributors based on their background, User:Golbez has exhausted all his chances to be a mediator and needs to formally apologize for singling people out based on their background.

2) He also uses uncivil language and assumes bad faith in his "mediation" efforts:

• [49] -"This isn't about origins or accusations or comparisons to the Nazis or any of this bullshit"
• [50] - "Go bitch at their talk page, I'm tired of you all.

3) Targets me as contributor:

• [51] - "my first executive decision is to ignore Atabek
• [52] - "I would dearly love to see the Azeri position presented - by someone other than Atabek, who has shown to be entirely illogical"

After the last note, he generalized about all Azeri contributors as mentioned above, and I don't see how he could be mediating this article further. My report is specifically about this mediation case, I find User:Golbez as a valuable Wikipedian otherwise.

Also, while attempting to mediate, User:Golbez continuously engages three Azeri contributors at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, while User:VartanM, who posted this note [53] at User_talk:Golbez is pretty much editing and pushing POV [54] on the main page without any restriction or discussion. User:VartanM further posts notes attacking me and assuming bad faith [55]. User:VartanM has also attacked again a whole group of contributors by generalizing their ethnicity with "bazaar mentality" [56]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, when I say "Azeris", I mean what I've termed the "Azeri contingent" - I have no idea if the people promoting the Azeri point of view on that article are nationally or ethnically Azerbaijani, but I mean the people promoting that view. I can't be expected to write longhand every time. That said, I note you posted diffs made by VartanM in the last 12 hours - Not exactly time for me to respond to or deal with, I'm not here 24/7. Secondly, who said I was giving VartanM an equal ear? He just isn't as annoying about it as you are. Your complaints about VartanM are valid and can be dealt with in a thread independent from mine.

Second of all: For #1, you skillfully left out the first "the", which makes it clear, I think, that I'm speaking about the suite of editors here, not the entire goddamn country. For #2, I have given you good faith for however long you've been here, and you still pull this crap, so it's over. My language escalated with my frustration, and for that and that alone, I apologize. As for #3, there's nothing wrong in what I said. Finally, I have no clue what VartanM's note on my talk page meant. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when do mediators ignore participants or make 'executive decisions' about anything? It sounds like, just from reading what Atabek wrote above, Golbez needs to withdraw from this and request that another uninvolved editor act as mediator. He may also wish to review his suitability for future mediator roles. Avruch^Talk 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediators have to ignore people who are not amenable to consensus or compromise; if they did not, they would never arrive at such a consensus or compromise, and would only go crazy in the meantime. Like I have.

I'm leaving it as I found it: It's yours. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, saying "Azeris should learn how to calm down and not sound like raving maniacs" is not only diametrically opposite to any thought of mediation, it's simply generalizing of contributors due to their ethnicity. I hope you will be able to calm down and understand that you did offend people based on their background for no apparent reason. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I name each of you by name? It's obvious to any logical person reading this that I wasn't impugning the entire race. Please take this to arbitration, I look forward to them laughing at you. If I offended you, good. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, it's obvious that you are unwilling to take a neutral stance. Just look, in light of so much insults, assumptions of bad faith from VartanM and Fedayee without checkuser proofs, VartanM's calling Azeris "bazaar mentality", edit warring, harassing banned users by names or questioning the Jewishness of the background of others, you can only see Atabek as a "provocateur" :) Who else is, oh yes, Grandmaster and Parishan, other Azeri contributors are also "raving maniacs" - for disagreeing with your "mediation" approach.

As far as arbitration goes, I don't see any use for taking arbitrator's time at such an obvious case. My concern about your inability to mediate or assume neutral stance in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles was addressed, so I don't see any necessity for further comments. Apology is more of a good faith suggestion from me, since you did insult a group of us, and a matter of own business for you. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, I admit, not for the better, but since you have not read any of what Atabek says or does, you can't understand the situation. Atabek was not trying to reach consensus, he was basically there to sell his position. When you fill the article’s talkpage with comparisons between the NAZI regime and Armenia, compare Khojaly with Auschwitz, and dragging people into exhaustion by changing what has been there for months after reaching a difficult consensus after months, if not over a year, of discussion. I don't think that it is to run against AGF to say that Atabek is a provocateur. Golbez and Francis have been mediating the article for months and have achieved a very difficult consensus… months later you have Atabek coming here without discussion and making a move which he knew will again cause a worthless conflict between editors. I don't think more evidence is needed that Atabek’s conduct is not compatible with Wikipedia but since we have all lost faith in the arbitration committee, we are here wondering what next could be done. - Fedayee (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mediation is voluntary on the part of the mediator and the other editors, and the result is non-binding. If Golbez became frustrated at the behavior of some editors in this dispute, it merely means that the mediation has failed. Thatcher131 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right now, I just need a break, but if this is going to be dogpiled on ANI by people who make judgments on my quality as a mediator purely and solely by reading what Atabek wrote, then I don't know if I can continue. Atabek made me frustrated; him getting others to agree with him made me want to quit. There's a difference. I'm probably willing to keep trying if I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis). --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Atabek on this and I think that Golbez should withdraw as a mediator on all Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, because he was never invited by both parties to mediate and he clearly takes sides instead of remaining neutral. If you noticed, Golbez's mediation is supported only by the Armenian users, while no Azerbaijani user wants to see him as a mediator. His recent comment directed against the Azerbaijani users was the last straw. Please see this thread for more details. [57] You can see the joy of some Armenian users who really enjoyed Golbez's comment misrepresenting the Azerbaijani position. I don't think Golbez can be considered a neutral mediator, he admitted his sympathy for separatist movements in the past, and I personally always objected to him being a mediator, as his mediation only resulted in further escalation of the conflict. The above should not detract from Golbez as an editor and admin, and he is free to contribute as a regular editor, but the mediation task should be taken up by someone else. I agree that Moreschi or someone else takes up this role. Grandmaster (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Golbez, if you actually tried to listen to opinion opposite to yours on talk pages, instead of "I don't have to deal with him and those like him (that is to say, people who use his style of arguing, not to say, as he would prefer to put it, fellow Azerbaijanis)". If you really tried to be an impartial mediator in case, where "fellow Azerbaijanis" are one of the disputant sides, and you were eager to reflect the best and most neutral information in Wikipedia article, there would be no necessity for my report here or elsewhere. As I said earlier, you're a very valuable Wikipeditor otherwise, but you just can't mediate in a heavily disputed article by taking a non-neutral stance. And talking about frustration, imagine how frustrated I, Grandmaster, Parishan and few others can get unable to add any reference or citation, or make any contribution to article, without being reverted by VartanM, Fedayee and now by yourself. The only hope is for impartial mediation, and there we are with you attacking "fellow Azerbaijanis" for sounding like "maniacs" for simply presenting facts and views. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe mediation is the wrong word here. In mediation (at least as practiced by MEDCOM), the mediator maintains neutrality on the issue and tries to facilitate the agreement of the parties. However, it is also possible to make positive contributions and to help resolve conflicts even if you have taken a side, just "mediation" is not a good word for it. For example, I mediated a conflict for MEDCOM where I truly didn't care one way or the other about the outcome. I have also stepped in to edit several articles where I had definite opinions about the content but was able to negotiate compromises with both sides because I was seen as reasonable, I did not have a lot of baggage from prior conflicts at other articles, and was able to use facts and policies to my advantage. It wasn't "mediation" but it was progress, and resulted in significant agreements on content and a cooling of the rhetoric between the two original sides of the argument. If Golbez wants to do that then more power to him. He doesn't have to be neutral. Thatcher131 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Offer to participants of Armenia-Azeri conflict

Note: this is no comment on Golbez or Vartan or Atabek or anyone. This is simply a response to the general picture I'm seeing from the Armenia-Azeri fights, and is copy-pasted from my response to this thread here on my talk page.

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to control the destructive users such as Atabek, untill that, changing admins is like changing captains on a sinking ship, we need to fix the hole first. Steelmate (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur, posted my agreement at WP:AE as well. But I think both Golbez and VartanM need to reconsider their generalization about contributors of one ethnicity and apologize for insulting people. We should not forget, that Wikipedia editing is not a paid job, people do this for fun and enjoyment, while contributing valuable information. So we should not discourage others by fueling ethnic conflicts or trying to insult others ethnic identity. In my turn, I apologize to both, if I insulted their ethnic background in any manner, although to my knowledge I did not. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for nothing. I did not insult any ethnic background, nor you as a person, only the method in which you present your arguments. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has been provoking members into fights; he's been pushing them literally to exhaustion. If it isn’t his provocations with offending remarks about the Armenian Genocide, it is to replace countless articles' terms, when was it, months ago? True, this was documented in the AA2 arbitration case. But Atabek did continue his provocations by using offending words, reporting members and engaging in pissing matches. Comparing the Armenian regime to the NAZI one with explicit words and as usual, there were no consequences for any of those provocations and attacks along national lines. So it is somehow naive to expect that some level of reasonable discussion could take place if Golbez, Tigran or Vartan feel engaged in this unhelpful discussion which takes place in a battleground atmosphere, being fooled into believing that there are no consequences, since Atabek’s disruptions have been totally ignored by two arbitration cases and what followed.

When someone pursues his provocation as far as comparing the Khojali event with Auschwitz [58], how is Golbez supposed to answer to such an atmosphere of illogical and irrational comments destined only to provoke others? I don't see how he expects any member to behave when those members know that acting like Atabek will bring no consequences at all. In short, how is Atabek actually expecting others to react when he's provoking them day after day after day? Vartan, Tigran and Golbez did take the bait, but who is the administrator who will realise that Atabek is doing just what Adil was doing prior to his ban.

Also, wasn't Adil banned? So how on Earth is he allowed to continue contributing under his Ehud Lesar account? - Fedayee (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek is shown to be completely illogical and after spending in talking to him half a day, I realized he is trolling the talk pages, he has an ill faith in editing Wikipedia by ruining the constructive process itself by provoking other users to escapades and emotional exhaustion. After that I decided myself, separately from Golbez, to ignore him. The decision by Golbez to ignore him came later and it has all foundations to be so. Regarding the language Golbez used, I can categorically assert it was intentionally provoked by Atabek. Steelmate (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that; I got frustrated and let my words get away from me. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I got frustrated too, he was provoking me all the time. Steelmate (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a loss of faith in ArbCom is warranted - they simply aren't setup to mediate content disputes, as they freely admit. If Golbez is fed up and driven crazy with this mediation, then as I said - he needs to withdraw and request the assistance of a different mediator. It may be that no side will ever be satisfied completely with the status of the article, and there may be some actors who are clearly driving that impossibility. It doesn't seem like an AN/I issue, really, but I think its worth it to suggest to Golbez that he withdraw or act henceforth as an editor rather than a mediator. Avruch^Talk 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Moreschi has made his offer, there's really no need to continue this discussion here. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because Morschi has made an offer, doesn't mean it's been accepted by all participants. I see no problem with Golbez' mediation--he knows the history of the dispute between editors, he is patient, and he takes the time to learn the issues. Since Atabek caused Golbez to make that comment by his disruptive style, asking Golbez to step away would be rewarding a disruptive party who keeps pushing mediators away as long as he disagrees with them. Anyone involved in the discussion would find it healthy to ignore a disruptive user such as Atabek. And Atabek is not the only Azeri user anyway--he is just the most disruptive (after Adil_Baguirov's permanent ban).--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not reward the disruptive party? That's how this works, even after two toothless arbitrations. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why you shouldn't step down. I respect Avruch's and Corvus' opinions, but they cannot be expected to properly conclude who should be a mediator in the few seconds it took them to read Atabek's post. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with Golbez, the problem is Atabek as a disruptive user, by changing admin we are not going to solve the problem. Nothing against Moreshi or any other admin, but I think you are trying to cure not the issue but symptoms (see my comments above). Steelmate (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No no, you've misunderstood me. I want to work full-time on all the Armenia-Azeri articles you chaps are fighting over, and those are not, unfortunately, limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh set of articles. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, Steelmate, VartanM and Fedayee, with all sense of reality, if Golbez returns to these articles, after his insults and "raving maniacs" words, no Azeri contributor will work with his mediation. Grandmaster and Parishan have already stated their positions at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. So I am not sure what he will be mediating and between whom will he be mediating other than following this suggestion from VartanM [59]? I think you're viewing the issue from the position of eliminating any and all Azeri viewpoint, while arbitrators and mediators aim at protecting the fundamental "neutrality" rule in Wikipedia, which is not about to be changed. I am sure most of you don't want to spend your times in perpetual discussions going around the circle and reaching nothing, new user appearing every day, disagreeing with radical wording of the other side and new battle starting. No one wants to participate in such time-wasting lengthy exercises, so it's more practical to simply engage in dialog (and I mean really try), and come up with truly neutral wordings to preserve the hard work of contributors in long term. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, since Moreschi's offer hasn't been accepted, how about taking the whole discussion off of this page, since this isn't the complaints department, nor is it the dispute resolution department. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know see why the contributors rejected Moreschi's offer (did they?), perhaps, this should be discussed in Arbitration Enforcement, where Moreschi made his proposal. All I can say is that Golbez mediation on Nagorno-Karabakh or any other conflicting article is no longer acceptable in light of the facts listed in the report above. Now, perhaps, opposing contributors can present us with facts showing why Moreschi would not be qualified for mediation, at WP:AE? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say Golbez' mediation is unacceptable doesn't make it so. Considering his knowledge on the issue, he is the most qualified at this point. If you can't get along with him, step away. There are other Azeri contributors other than you, who hopefully can learn your lesson and be less disruptive.

By the way, Golbez hasn't insulted anyway. He simply said that you should calm down instead of acting like a raving maniac. Despite being an accurate statement, it is a sincere, friendly, and quite useful advice. You will be wise to thank Golbez for it.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I Reject offer of Moreschi as it is not going to solve problem which we have now. The problem is Atabek's destructive behavior. Golbez been there long time and in this complex conflict we need someone with good knowledge of the conflict and history of this particular article to avoid stepping on the same wounds. Steelmate (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The issues are not limited to this article, nor even to this set of articles. I have no complaint with Golbez's mediation on the Nagorno-Karabakh article - like as not he's been doing a fine job. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Per suggestion from admin above, I opened another thread at WP:AE to discuss this. Just as a reminder, we were all asked not to post here on this subject, and I think Avruch spelled out the final conclusion on Golbez mediatorship. So let's move the discussion to WP:AE. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. After skimming the NKR talk page I see what looks like discussion of the issues. It is clear from this incident report and many many reports at WP:AE that Atabek dislikes a lot of users and wants to run them off, and a lot of users dislike Atabek and want to run him off. But the diffs offered by either side never seem to support the arguments. Thatcher131 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to run off Parishan, Ulvi/Aynabend or Grandmaster. How come Atabek succeeded in pissing off Persian and Armenian editors or Pocopocopocopoco and Golbez who are neither Armenian nor Persian? Didn't it occur to you that Atabek is doing something reprehensible which makes contributors want to run him off and only him? You read the exchanges... did you also consider that the NK article was in a form of relative peace that had never been reached before, thanks to Golbez and Francis who have put so much energy on it, before Atabek screwed it up? There must have been something really bad which Atabek did that would make Golbez react this way. - Fedayee (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco managed to piss off many users on various articles by supporting the separatist POV, and many Armenian users pissed off many Turkish users on related articles, does it show that all those users are disruptive? People happen to disagree with each other, the problem here is that mediation is supposed to help the disputing parties find the middle ground, and not take sides by promoting a certain POV just because the self-appointed mediator happens to share the same views with one of the sides of the dispute. I suggest getting a more experienced mediator to work with the parties from now on. Grandmaster (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that you want to run Atabek off :). And who is we? You mean you have a group strategy on which users to target? Apparently, I am not the only one, Ehud and even banned AdilBaguirov are also targets, check your own comment here [60]. I am not sure if WP:AGF principle of recent ArbCom had quite any effect on your editing, Fedayee, to keep accusing contributors this way. And by the way, mediator should not call a group of contributors, not only me, as "sounding like raving maniacs", there is WP:CIVIL after all. Golbez is still trying to mediate right now at Nagorno-Karabakh page, without Azeri contributors. I hope Thatcher131 will read this comment too, and make necessary conclusions. I realize I may be annoying with reports of all violations at WP:AE, but I am definitely not trying to run anyone off, as in such case, I would not even spend my time discussing article contents on talk pages. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

View from user:Pocopocopocopoco (re: user:Atabek's conduct)

Greetings, I am neither Azeri nor Armenian if that means anything. I follow and contribute to articles about de facto independent republics including Nagorno-Karabakh. I want to say that from the time I've been contributing to the Nagorno-Karabakh article I believe Golbez to be an excellent mediator for this article. I don't always agree with him and he's reverted me a couple times but I believe him to be fair and even-handed. I also believe that User:Atabek's conduct in this matter is reprehensible. We were having a productive conversation in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and he came in and made some very inflamatory statements that could also be considered trolling, broke Godwin's Law several times by making comparisons between Armenians and Nazis and ruined the discussion.[61][62] Note that Atabek is under civility parole by two Arbcom descisions.[63][64] I urge you to read Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and get a full picture of what happened. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not find those two diffs objectionable. The allegation that the Armenian population ethnically cleansed the region of Azeris is a matter of ongoing historical debate. Indeed, the sources that I can easily find seem to agree that it was the Armenians who were ethnically cleansed by the Azeris. Either way, stating this argument is not uncivil or a personal attack. It would be quite a different matter if Atabek accused Armenian editors of trying to ethnically cleanse the article, or if he accused Armenian editors of participating in the alleged crimes. You're trying to enforce a standard of "whatever offends the most easily offended editors is not allowed." To enforce a sanction against Atabek for making a historical argument (not directed against any particular editors) we would also have to be prepared to sanction any Arabic or Palestinian editors who criticize the government of Israel, on the grounds that it offends Jewish editors, and we have to sanction any editor who is critical of radical Islamic terrorists on the grounds that those comments offend moderate Muslims. I need some real incivility here. "The referendum was invalid because 30% of the population had been ethnically cleansed [65]" just doesn;t ring the bell here. Thatcher131 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After I read Atabek's statement above and commented initially, I did in fact go and read chunks of the talk page (I don't know much of anything about the conflict, aside what I've read lately in the papers about the Armenian/Turkey genocide issue) and I still believe that it would be useful to trade out mediators. Golbez is obviously frustrated and finding it difficult to maintain his neutrality. Even if Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor, the statement 'If I offended you, good' is inappropriate for someone trying to be a content dispute mediator. I also wouldn't necessarily conclude that Atabek is an exceedingly frustrating editor - these pages attract folks with very strongly held POVs, and so it takes a particularly practiced and even-handed mediator to make any headway at all. I've left a note with some advice on Atabek's talk page here. Avruch talk 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be extremely difficult to understand where we all are coming from (me - Steelmate, VartanM, Fedayee, Golbez...), but the frustration with Atabek is fact. No other Azeri user is casing that frustration. What he does is avoids answers on the question, changes topic of conversation, adds illogical to the point of discussion imflamatory statements, comes back to where it all started - being non constructive in one word. F.e. if I asked him if (A > B) and (B > C) so can we all agree that (A > C)? his answer will be NO, because 1. A - is illegal and is not recognized by any country, B - is supporting A economically and C was a genocide made by A and B just like Nazi did, and also I have a very small D that looks like A but D can never be bigger then C.... So he changed the topic of conversation about logical statemnts and started bringing other topics non relevant to conversation and wants to discuss them in order to find solution for a problem, and solution (that A > C) is absolutely independent on all those thing which he brings into conversation. So he is completely illogical and I decided for myself to refrain from communication from this destructive user. I am ready to communicate with any logical person. His behavior is simply distracting from finding solutions and destructing the process as the whole. Who wouldn't become frustrated? Golbez is a human and he was provoked by Atabek as well, maybe he is tired, but the cause is Atabek's behaviour. Steelmate (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, can you explain what behavior of myself are you and Golbez keep talking about? Saying that population was ethnically cleansed prior to establishment of "NKR"? Why would Golbez get frustrated by this and how was I provoking him to make demeaning comments about me and other Azeri contributors? Atabek (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally see no provocation on part of Atabek. He expressed his opinion, and he is free to do so. Atabek never personally attacked or insulted anyone, unlike some other users. I understand why some folks representing a certain POV like so much Golbez, but I don't find acceptable when a person who wishes to be a mediator makes comments generalizing all editors representing a certain position. That's not the way mediation is done. Grandmaster (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmanster maybe you are right and there was no intentional provocation from Atabek's part and he might have a sincere difficulty for logical thinking due to maybe he is too emotional person, or not mature enough, I don't know..., the fact is - communication with him fruits no results and is frustrating, no consensus can be reached and time is just wasted in such a non constructiove talks. Steelmate (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for more eyes related to Easter Rising and Tom Clarke (Irish republican)

There has been an edit war going on between (amongst others), User:Domer48, and admin User:R. fiend on the above articles. Domer DID violate 3RR on Easter Rising, and R fiend did block Domer, despite being in an edit war with him (I don't doubt the validity of the block, but there is no way that R fiend should be blocking someone he's in active editing conflict with, which R fiend apparently sees no problem with). The situation has since devolved, with R fiend violating Civility and personal attack guidelines with statements like this and this.

There are two reports on WP:3RR by Domer about R fiend, one about Easter Rising, which Luna has since protected due to the edit war, and now about Tom Clarke (Irish republican) the first one was determined to be 3 reverts total, and the second one I'm not sure of (I can't be the one to do any blocks here). With some of the usual suspects chiming in (including User:Aatomic1 inciting R fiend to place Domer on an ArbCom enforced probation remedy here, I'm requesting that admins cut this incipient war off at the knees before it devolves into the situation that previously led into the uber-fan (dripping with sarcasm) "The Troubles" ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did not block Domer for 3RR on Easter Rising. It was for a separate article (Segi) I was not edit warring in. That block has been upheld by numerous other admins. -R. fiend (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, R. fiend. The block was upheld (as I said, he did violate 3RR), but several people have mentioned to you that you shouldn't be blocking people you are in active confrontation with, even if it's on another article SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This tiff is a bit silly. Both editors have sources on their sides; However the most recent work is by Charles Townshend and is the best and most up to date source. Perhaps the editors should both check that out. The argument seems to be about whether Clarke was in the Irish Volunteers and the extent of the secret society the IRB's invovlement in the 1916 Rising. In this case R. fiend is incorrect in his POV. User:Domer48is more correct re the IRB role. The IRB had different motives to the Volunteers and did not at the last moment believe that they could win. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See Townshend, Charles Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree more than it seems, actually. In any case, this discussion belongs on the Talk:Easter Rising page. Care to get involved there? -R. fiend (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Having previously been involved in edit conflicts with Domer48 myself, I don't need to check the article histories to believe that he violated 3RR to preserve an Irish Republican viewpoint. That said, I agree that blocking him yourself was not appropriate. File a 3RR report and let an uninterested party enforce the policy. Dppowell (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse SirFozzie's approach here. All parties need to remain calm and focus on improving the article(s). R. fiend needs to be careful about blocking editors he is in conflict with; next time getting an uninvolved admin to review and block if necessary would be better.--John (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My dealings with this editor have been very unpleasant. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi and start there, adding thing to referenced text. They then go and block me]. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI, which is an abuse of admin tools, Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. Now it has got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong Fozz warning, which they ignore, and tell John to to leave it in. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of being here that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on Patrick Pearse. They Block on another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers Sean Huston. Having filed another 3 rr I notice they still have not been blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse gose on. To top it all of they abuse their admin tool now to edit an article which is protected with no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. It over to you now to sort this out, because what can I do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on he is editing a protected page after being warned not too by the admin who put template on see Domers statement above. He seems to be on a rampage disregarding warnings and the 3RR rule today BigDunc (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was specifically requested by Luna to NOT edit a protected page because he was in an edit war, but did so anyway? Is that what I'm reading? I thought if an admin was in an edit war, they shouldn't be editing the page period, even if they claim it's a change worked out with the other party. I have to research what happened (and if Domer actually agreed to the change he made), but this smacks of REALLY bad form to me right now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice the way they slipped their POV into the edit, while supposed to be removing a sentence. Bad form, bang out of order. --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a Joke, look at his buddy on the Irish Volunteers article now. Weasel word, POV and spouting I have a PhD. Will I ask for a reference, or take the usual advice, just walk away and let them get on with it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, let other eyes have a chance to look at it. --John (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Easter Rising article edit, I'm really disappointed in R. fiend's actions. I am very tempted to revert back to the post-protection version, but considering that would be a wheel war, I need to ask for consensus. Does anyone have a problem with undoing that edit, especially considering his edit summary states that it's a compromise worked out with Domer on the talk page, and it's now apparent that it's not? And would any one have a problem with full protecting Irish Volunteers? This is threatening to spiral out of control, and I think needs to full-stop NOW, before we head off to ArbCom again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can point out a problem with the edit (so far no one has) there is no reason to revert to the inferior version. But I'm open to discussion. It should probably take place on the article's talk page, however. -R. fiend (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is condescending tripe, and I view it as a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. They done the same thing on Segi article. Now lets stick with what I'm used to, page protect it on their version. In fact page protect every article on WP: IR. The diff is there to show that the edit on the Easter Rising article was wrong. The edits on Irish Volunteers are wrong. Referenced information is removed, and replaced with POV. It is obvious no one want to use the policies, so whats the point me quoting them. --Domer48 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, you did notice that the diff you provided describes an edit made by a different editor? If not, or if this comment was made in error, you might want to adjust your comment above. --John (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No John, its the right link, check the Segi article. They are getting brought into this as well now. Now that said are they breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Domer48 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no apologies to make. I know what history is and how it should be written. I believe I've improved the SEGI and Irish Volunteer articles. Indeed I was thanked for the copyediting on the former.[66] Nobody else has complained about my behaviour, which is something you cannot claim. You really need to look yourself here. Who is attracting controversy from so many quarters? Who is involved in a permanent state of reverting? Who believes that his references are of greater importance to all others? Who believes that "referenced material" cannot be altered in any way?--Damac (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm sure it will help his case much, but I am in full agreement with Damac here. -R. fiend (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the advice of John, I'll let the Wiki admins sort it, and I do know some of them don't like editors blowing smoke up their... Kind Regards --Domer48 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a contensious area of history. Emotions should calm!!!! Read the books!!! Argue it on the talk pages before edits. This won't stop without mediation and in the end someone will change again !!!!! read the current litreture and merge with older ideas and versions for a truly good article. PS both editors have 3RR violations but they should be encouraged to speak to each other. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I use referenced sources, not comment or opinion. But thanks for the advice re the book. Now as to the 3rr, ye I did make a report but no admin seem to want to take it on. Though I got blocked without a report on a bum rap, but that was ok to. --Domer48 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources were good. It is a matter of digging deeper when COI re POV occurs. The work exist to strongly side with you but the other user also has sources so a historiographical section should be included to show those diverging opinions. I teach this but even grads still have their bias. C'est le monde de l'research . Meda Ryan vs Peter Hart stuff. Take a break and come back with banging up to date refs and arguments based on published work.In the new year i can send you both v good bibliographies. PS was in the colour guard at the Liam Mellowes commemoration on the 9th in Castletown. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re 3RR both of you should mediate and try to avoids blocks by agreeing to that as you are both valuable if headstrong contributors.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats sound Opiumjones, but this is all about the abuse of admin tools, and incivility by an admin. The content issue, I can deal with no problem. --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 probation

Resolved

 – Probation stays per [67]. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

[68] I have removed myself from probation as this was not in accoirdab=nce with the ruling. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot remove yourself from probation, Aatomic1. The probation was valid. Alison was in no conflict with you, and ArbCom endorsed the rights of admins to place those users under the status of probation. You were only placed on probation for one month. The terms of the ArbCom case state that we can apply that probation indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

is this acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereis the section that clarifies the ArbCom ruling, Aatomic1... that specifically states that the admins who were involved in the Troubles case but NOT involved in any edit warring CAN place people under Probation. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to state a couple things here. First of all, the two edit summaries cited are certainly sarcastic and snarky, but are not personal attacks. One was dismissive of what I considered trolling on my talk page (keep in mind WP is not censored) and wasn't directed at anyone. Also, when I blocked Domer for his Segi edit warring, I was not involved in an edit war with him. That developed later. Finally, Aatomic1 did encourage me to take actions against Domer on my talk page, but I have done nothing about it and don't intend to. That much should not be an issue in regards to me. -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no actual arbitrators commented in cited thread discussing the meaning of "uninvolved." I suggest posting a Request for clarification at WP:RFAR, unless some admin here wants to unilaterally lift the probation. However, the probation placed by Alison remains in effect until otherwise lifted. Thatcher131 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note Sir Fozzie has also tampered with the mediators decision aswell as removing my comments from this ANI] Is this really acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up, Thatcher. Considering past history with admins Tyrenius and myself placing users on those remedies without any problem, I think it's rather clear, but agree that an unequivocal clarification of the remedy would be useful. And Aatomic, considering I was praised by the mediation cabal for rephrashing the mediator's decision without attempting to make it seem like it was an official ruling, I think it reflects better on me then you.. (who was placed on probation specifically because you ignored the mediation and continued to play silly buggers with the Birmingham pub bombings article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you are saying I ignored the mediation the you are a liar Sir Fozzie. You delibarately tamperded with the mediators decision to back up Alison. Your comments were subsequently amnded by the mediator Aatomic1 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA not the way to go about things. BigDunc (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was well aware of WP:NPA when i made the above comment. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well could you adhere to it instaed of callin other editors liars. BigDunc (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you want to impugn my honesty, Aatomic1, let me walk you through it step by step, K?

Step 1: Here's the original decision of the mediator Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list."

Step 2: Addhoc, another member of the Mediation Cabal, changed it to just plain closed, and the reason was (trim comment to avoid appearance of giving a judgement or ruling)

Step 3: I change it slightly to indicate the mediator's suggestion, while making sure it did not appear to be a judgement or ruling.

Step 4: Addhoc Thanks me for rephrasing the mediator's comment, saying my suggestion was much better, then just leaving it as closed.

So. Would you like to apologize for calling me a liar, or would you prefer to add hypocrite to your resume? SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Step 1: I note you have said Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list. My reading is Comment: Closed as "Do not add the list... Aatomic1 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in that (in fact, it was Addhoc who tried to make sure that it wasn't taken as an official decision) . However, you are incorrect that I tampered with the decision: What's the differnce between Closed as "Do not add the list... and, Closed: Mediator's suggestion was "Do Not Add The List" (besides a couple capital letters and making sure that it was posted as the mediator's suggestion? SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So what was your motive for this slight change? As far as I can see, you deliberately tampered with the comment to undermine a valid edit of mine. The mediator was not satisfied with your edit and yet your edit was used by Alison to undermine my defence to her ultra vires placing of me on probation. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "facts" don't support your theories, Aatomic1. It turned out that folks decided that no the mediation wasn't done, and argued the mediator into reopening it afterwards, so the mediator reopened the case. Please note that two INDEPENDENT admins took independent looks at the decision by Alison to put you on probation, and they both agreed with the decision And if that's as far as you can see, may I suggest a good Optician? SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

..Er they did not ...they simply made off the cuff comments. if they had looked into the decision thay would have reversed it as being by an involved adminstrator anf, if they belived it was justified they could have, being uninvlved imposed it themselves. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, as you have been told numerous times, that the commonly accepted viewpoint is that no, you have your definition of "uninvolved" wrong.. and in fact you ended up calling one of the admins a buffoon, after he told you.. I also know that you asked for an outside admin's input. Interesting that now that it's been given, you're still trying to make a case. That tells me you weren't really interested in accepting the input, unless it went your way. For what it's worth, I'm not putting primary stock in the mediation. I am, however, putting a lot of stock in the ArbCom decision, which clearly says that anyone, regarless of whether they were involved in the original case or not, edit wars, then a probation ban is appropriate. You edit warred, you were put on probation.. Sounds to me like he was endorsing it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• ..commonly accepted by whom? Aatomic1 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By every admin who's used it previously (myself, Tyrenius and Alison), and considering that every logged action has been put on the article, and that it had been discussed on WP:AE when Alison put you on it.. the only reason admins were "involved" was because they were not edit-warring, attacking others, etcetera, because we had been involved in tried to keep BOTH sides from edit warring all over the place. There was NO evidence provided at the ArbCom case to even SUGGEST that any one had used the tools inappropriately, and in fact, several workshop proposals dealing with both sides had wide acceptance that all the admins involved had acted appropriately, from BOTH sides? SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on this: Alison may have admitted her nationality, and that is the only reason I can think of for her being "involved", but even so, the ruling is to stop abuse by admins heavily focused on one side of the debate. Alison is not. Given that she has checkuser and OTRS rights, I will not even think of doubting her trustworthiness. Will ^(talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For your two cents let it be known that both Alison and Sir Fozzie are specifically named in the Arbcom decision as involved parties. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we brought evidence against people who were edit warring and tried to stop both sides from inserting PoV into articles. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But still, Alison is a checkuser and OTRS clerk. If the Foundation can trust her with confidential information, then I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't trust her with something as petty as probation. Will ^(talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ie let us not bother with what the Arbom rules? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly am I being dragged into this? IrishGuy ^talk 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it Ironic? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether Aatomic should or should not be placed on probation, he does bring up a valid point. When I issued a warning to Vintagekits that he was violating the terms of the probation issued under The Troubles ArbCom, Vk and his supporters protested that I was not an appropriate admin to be making such warnings, since I too was listed as a party at the ArbCom (albeit, like Alison, SirFozzie et al only as an admin who had previously had the misfortune of getting between the warring factions, having attempted to help sort it out). Despite strong objections from myself, John and Tyrenius that having prior experience of editors does not make one an "involved", there was significant support from people like NewyorkBrad, Alison and Fred Bauder that I avoid interpreting the ArbCom's decisions in future on the basis of my "involvement". While I strongly disagree on principle that disruptive editors get to veto admins enforce ArbCom decisions (especially when those admins are the ones most familiar with the history of this dispute), I nevertheless acceded to their requests.

However, we seem to have the same principle here, and the commmunity appear to be coming to a different interpretation. Irrespective of whether Alison was right or wrong to place him on probation (and, personally, I fully expect she was right), we either have to have an established situation where so-called "involved" admins can use ArbCom remedies in which they were named as a participant as a consequence of previous admin action, or one where they cannot. What was can't have is it arbitrarily decided based on how much of a fuss the editor wants to kick up (or, to be more realistic about it, they have an agitator par excellence - hello Giano! - in their corner). Rockpocket 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Please check on this user/user name

User:You need a name (YNAN) has a similar user name as User:I need a name (INAN). Another editor flagged the former as a sockpuppet of the ladder. YNAN claimed to be alter-ego for INAN and the discussion was closed since the new user did not appear to be avoiding any sort of ban on "I need a name" or otherwise curtailing policy.

However, I believe YNAN is semi-imitating INAN and is not an alter-ego/alternate account. YNAN made these edits to INAN's user page, which INAN reverted as vandalism. YNAN made several other oddball edits that look like vandalism (specifically removing from another user's page the entry for a list he uploaded and this userbox about what hand the editor masturbates with; both of these edits have been reverted, one by me and the other by INAN).

For these reasons (but only citing the INAN vandalism), I listed YNAN as a vandal. User:Dreadstar cleared the entry without further action, but the edit summary only mentioned the editor being cleared on the sockpuppet issue.

Anyway, INAN has had several vandals closely imitate his user name (e.g. User:I need a mallet, User:I need a game, User:I need a lame) that have vandalized his and others' (including my) user page. Since my post at vandalism intervention got wiped, and this is more than just the blurb that is mostly friendly in that section, I'm chiming in here. If this is a vandalism account, would this vandal's tenacity (e.g. creating another account two months after the last) warrant a checkuser and possible IP block? --EEMIV (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted User:I need a name, still awaiting a reply. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Smells like an impersonation account just as EEMIV presented. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think you're right. I've blocked User:You need a name as impersonator until further communications from User:I need a name. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You's on first, I's on second? LOL Bearian (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How long until User:We need a name, User:They need a name, etc. pop up? Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS alert. —Kurykh 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Doppelgangers now in place. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Babytoysfor bill

Resolved

 – account blocked by User:Flyguy649. Tiptoety (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization were both semi-protected because of persistent deletions by an anonymous editor. Now a new account, User:Babytoysfor bill, is making the same deletions, so I think that account should be blocked. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note-The account has been blocked. Tiptoety (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyoshka, legistorm

Lyoshka (talk · contribs) was blocked for adding links to his or her own site, legistorm.com. This was discussed right here on WP:ANI. Lyoshka has emailed unblock-en-l and requested unblocking. He has read WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI and agrees that he will refrain from adding links to any site that he or his company own. His reason for adding the links in the first place seems credible to me and I am strongly inclined to unblock this user. Any objections? --Yamla (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am voting for not only unblocking the user, but also to allowing the additions of the links to legistorm. IMO the blocking editor was too fast and fierce. The links are obviously useful, since the site looks unique: where else you have a comprehensive list of US congressmen salaries and other expenditures? the information is clearly encyclopedic, so I don't agree with classification of these links as spam. The site itself looks notable & pain in the asses of congressmen `'Míkka>t 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur; he seems cooperative. if he does add more, he can easily be blocked again. Now that the other editors here know about the site, they will use it as appropriate. If it is on any spam blacklist, it should be removed, for it does look like the best non-partisan site for the subject--it has more than just salaries: see its information on staff & legislator travel. I cannot put the link here because the spam filter blocked it. Some uninvolved party might well want to write a WP article--given that posting, there will probably be enough news coverage to make it appropriate. Introducing a bill to close it down would seem the best publicity for it possible. Well worthy of adding to 'he sponsor's article. DGG (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Per his mail on the blocklist, I'd have no problem with unblocking. He seems to understand the inherent problem with mass linking a site you are affiliated with to articles here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good faith cut & paste for Jingū of Japan

I've encountered a good faith editor who did a cut & paste move for Jingū of Japan → Empress Jingu. I reverted this, and requested him to read WP:RM and Help:Moving a page.

He must be a new editor, and might be unwilling to listen to me. Can one of you please follow through and see to it that he moves the page correctly? Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Ooperhoofd‎, that page has links to (or from) multiple articles:

• List of Emperors of Japan
• Emperor Chūai
• Emperor Ōjin
• Japanese empresses
• Queen regnant
• Himiko
• Hirota Shrine
• Nihon Shoki
• Sesshō and Kampaku
• Edoardo Chiossone

Somebody may need to go in and clean this all up.--Endroit (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the page in correct way, since it is in consistency with all other Japanese emperors/empresses. `'Míkka>t 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious case of article ownership

User:DCGeist has totally dominated the punk rock article, so it is almost impossible to introduce necessary copy editing improvements and NPOV corrections. Almost all the edits to that article in the past several weeks (if not months) have been by him, and he pretty much automatically reverts most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity. I do not know if he is technically violating any specific Wikipedia rules, but he should definitely be asked to back off from that article a bit, since this is a serious case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm guessing that his behaviour has chased off a lot of good editors from contributing to that article. One major problem with the article is that it is full of opinionated quotes that are presented as if they are objective neutral fact. Another problem is informal, unencyclopedic wording and awkwardly-structured sentences. Another issue is that some of the sections suffer from list creep (in the form of paragraphs), of non-notable bands that don't even have Wikipedia articles. Any attempt to majorly address those flaws have been reverted by the editor mentioned above. Spylab (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, before making claims of "awkwardly-structured sentences," it might be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with standard American English style, in which "-ly" adverbial phrases are not hyphenated. You should also be experienced enough to know that the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article is no measure of "notability." The verifiable sources cited in the article establish each band's significance to the topic. As a largely underground movement in the United States, it is not surprising that many of the early punk rock bands outside the country's major media centers do not yet have articles written about them. The same is true for the redlinked bands from non-Anglophone countries.

As for the quality of the various edits of the article, I will direct other contributors' attention to my latest revert ([69]) of what I assume you believed to be your "necessary copy editing improvements." In fact, both of your edits detracted, if slightly, from the quality of the article. As noted in my edit summary, your desire to identify The Diodes et al. as "Other early Ontario punk bands" is unfounded, as no Ontario punk bands have previously been identified, just one protopunk band. Your desire to change "Punk rock was already beginning to give way there to the anarchic sound of what became known as No Wave" into "Punk rock was already beginning to give way in New York to a newer sound that became known as No Wave," is poor on several grounds. It is inaccurate--making a claim about New York in general, when the previous and now-restored version of the sentence described what was happening at CBGB specifically. It is unnecessarily redundant--mentioning New York for the second successive sentence. And it is less informative--the description "anarchic" telling the reader substantially more than "newer." I believe the record shows that many, though by no means all, of your edits are similarly poor or, at best, unnecessary.

As for ownership, the amount of work I've put into the article no more gives you the right to claim that I own it than it would give me that right. I preserve those edits that I believe improve the article, modify or revert those that don't, and attempt to explain in every case where explanation seems helpful or is asked of me. You will note, for instance, that I did not contest your edit removing the adjective "celebrated" from the description of D.O.A. and The Subhumans. I believe that adjective did serve a purpose--efficiently signaling which were the most notable of the scene's bands--but I accept the logic of that edit, as I did your perspective on the Bad Brains sentence (which I further edited and to which I restored the necessary period). I'm happy to address any further concerns that are posed here or on the article Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

looking at the page history, not the quality of the edits, both parties seem very near WP:3RR by now. DGG (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to DCGeist, it's not just about one or two edits, some of which have been justified; it's an ongoing pattern of dominating the article and reverting most changes by other editors, regardless of validity. In response to DGG, it is not true that I am close to reaching 3RR, as the edit history of that article clearly shows.Spylab (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do have some concerns too about DCGeist's well-meaning tendency to WP:OWN this article. Although he is a good writer and the article is also pretty good, I too was annoyed a while back when he reverted changes I made to bring the article into compliance with our policy on non-free image use, weasel words, and various MoS issues. You may see my detailed suggestions at Talk:Punk rock; there really must be a way to allow other editors to improve this article further without alienating DCGeist. See also the recent messages I left at User talk:DCGeist, both before and after I realised this was being discussed here. More input from sympathetic and experienced editors would be welcomed, at least by me. --John (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As John knows, I do appreciate his concerns—while, of course, we agree on the best course in some instances and disagree in others. We do fully agree, on a conceptual level, in "allow[ing] other editors to improve this article further." Other editors bring both knowledge and perspectives that I do not. The issue is this: the well-meaning contributions of some editors tend to improve the article, while the well-meaning contributions of other editors tend to degrade it—perhaps subtly, but quite definably.

As I noted in the article's Talk page not long ago ([70]), Grant65 is an editor whose contributions, I believe, clearly improved the article. I have never corresponded with Grant65. I do not know who Grant65 is in real life. I do not have a clue if Grant65 is someone with whom I share many aesthetic, ideological, and semantic predilections or not. What I do know is this: Grant65's edits substantively enhanced the quality of the article. My response to his edits belies Spylab's claim that I "pretty much automatically rever[t] most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity." Indeed, as I've detailed above, my response to Spylab's own edits belies his claim. I believe my recent correspondence with Wwwhatsup on two separate issues (Talk:Punk rock#UK Proto and Talk:Punk rock#Leeway) and the edits that resulted also belie Spylab's claim, at least on a philosophical level (and check the latter thread to see what role my accuser played). In sum, I don't imagine that I do or could "own" punk rock. I do believe that I've dealt properly with Spylab's edits over the past months—i.e., in a way that best maintains and improves the article.—DCGeist (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point; as I've said I think you are a good editor and a good writer, and that your intentions are good. I do think you revert too readily though, and that the article would potentially benefit stylistically from your taking a more laissez-faire attitude to it. I personally have been put off contributing to it by your zealous defence of your work. No big deal, as I said the article is pretty good and there are plenty of others to edit. Maybe as a couple of people have said these things to you now you can internalise some of it. All that said, this is hardly an issue needing admin attention and I propose archiving this, unless anybody else has anything to say. --John (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll a little concerned DCGeist that your response to WP:OWN complaints is "look, I didn't reverted this person because I liked what he did." That isn't the proper attitude to take. If someone else edits the article, you should let it be for a while and go back and discuss it later if you want. Everyone else shouldn't have to justify their edits to you. Either way, I haven't look extensively into this; nothing more than just a quick glance at this thread. I agree with John that this is a content dispute (which doesn't belong here) and you might want to consider WP:3O and the rest of dispute resolution options if there is a particular point of contention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this image, and it's placement at 9/11 conspiracy theories

Resolved

Questionable Image

There are a couple of issues here, in my opinion. First, there's the copyright problem. Does this image even belong on Wikipedia. Then, there's the caption used at the 9/11 CT page about it showing the "fireworks" that brought down the WTC. Seems very POV to me. Thoughts? Mr Which??? 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Send to Misc. for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? I've participated in AfD, but not sure where to find MfD. Also, would it be acceptable to classify the addition of such an iffy image as "vandalism", and revert on sight? If not, what would you recommend, as I've removed it once, and he reinserted it? Mr Which??? 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to show the actual explosives, nothing else, and the link is http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) And how can I know if it's copyrighted or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is everything for WP images. And the moving photo shows nothing like what you claim in the caption. It shows white flashes inside of a superimposed circle. Mr Which??? 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's copyrighted; it's footage from a documentary produced by 911 Eyewitness, and is therefore copyrighted under an non-free license unless specifically released under a free license or into the public domain. I've fixed the caption so that it's more reflective of neutral point of view. --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's copyrighted, and non-free, should it be speedied? Mr Which??? 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's copyrighted, but it might be released under a free license. It's currently tagged for "semi-speedy deletion" which should give people time to try and confirm the license status. --Haemo (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this {{Resolved}} then, pending the semi-speedy? Mr Which??? 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems resolved until then, yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ

Could someone semi-protect Churches of Christ as an anonymous editor keeps reverting with pov edits? --Ichabod (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The amount of edits, at this time, does not warrant the need for protection. If vandalism persists, please make your request at WP:RFPP.↔NMajdan•talk 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Could an uninvolved admin please reverse the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination), which was only open for one day? Corvus cornix_talk 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799 and VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25

Resolved

 – User indef blocked Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs blocking. Obvious sock of User:Crawdad23, etc, all of which have been indef. blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, indef blocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT and personal attacks

WT:FICT can get pretty heated at times, but I felt this comment was in particularly bad taste, and removed it. (calling the page, and those who supported it "an idiotic circle jerk"). Another user had since replied to him, so as you can see in the diff, I left the a diff link that would show people what he said, but somewhat minimizing unneeded attention to the inappropriate comment. The comment has since been restored three times by other users who believe that comments should not be removed (the last one saying "I sympathize, but the most asinine of comments shouldn't be removed by 3rd parties"). Any help would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking carefully at the comment, I think it could be seen as a legitimate, if poorly-worded and impolite, expression of a user's frustration with the goings-on at what seems to be a rather contentious policy page. The "idiotic circle jerk" bit seems more like a comment aimed at characterizing process than characterizing people. Since it is actions that seem to be being commented upon and not individual editors, per se, I would leave the comment be and let the participants in that discussion respond to or ignore the comment as they see fit. {EDIT:] Looking further into a couple of other other incidents where The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gotten him/herself into trouble for similar trespasses against propriety, I think it's clear that these comments are not in the same class as the kind of deliberate trollings that would qualify for summary removal. It seems this user has a history of responding to perceived confrontation by getting confrontational, so perhaps a better response to the comment would be to politely contact the editor, let him or her know why it's a bad idea to characterize (most) Talk pages as idiotic circle jerks, and ask him or her to strike the comment him- or herself in the interests of keeping the peace. Just summarily removing the editor's contribution to the discussion, jagged as you may feel it was, might actually provoke more of the behavior you're trying to attenuate. --Dynaflow babble 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Anchoress (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Curious Blue

This person is probably just bs-ing to waste other people's time, but a blocked account is claiming he has a sockpuppet at RfA. Fireplace (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one of his socks got caught in an autoblock would suggest to me he wasn't trying very hard to mask his activities by using proxies. So a checkuser (which has already been performed on him, but another could never hurt, I suppose) would probably have no trouble uncovering his good-hand account, if it even exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All socks that were able to be found via checkuser have been blocked so he must be bluffing. John Reaves 09:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Net

I'm a bit concerned about the edits of Lollipop-3 (talk · contribs) - almost all of her edits have been to user talk space, and she's impatiently waiting over at WP:CHU for a name change. I'm also concerned about I love entei (talk · contribs) since she's also got a very poor UT:mainspace edit ratio, but she has gotten involved in actual editing. I've given Lolli a socialnetwork warning; could we have some more admin eyes out here? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a lot of the users listed at User:Daniel/Sandbox/1 for similar reasons. Daniel 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agh, the user page hurts my eyes! I would keep an eye on Lollipop-3's edits as all five of her mainspace edits - the ones that haven't been deleted, that is - are somewhat problematic (all were reverted or made into redirects), and she appears to be hostile in her posts at WP:CHU. She seems to be a kid who is unfamiliar with WP:NOT; it might be a good idea to explain this to her in more detail (aside from the template) and see what happens. If she continues to be impatient and refuses to contribute, sterner warnings/a block might end up being needed. --Coredesat 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, more useless bureaucracy! All the users on Daniel's list need absolutely stern warnings that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as well. Quite a few of those users' recent edits are all in regards to obtaining positions at Gp75motorsports' latest attempt at creating a useless project. --Coredesat 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was worse before I took a hack at it. Daniel 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if what's left would warrant yet another MFD; it seems to be clear they have no intent to actually contribute. --Coredesat 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations

Just letting you guys know that there is a backlog of 229 articles over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.M.N. (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't need to have the administrator buttons in order to review Good Article nominations. In fact, I think most of the editors who review Good Article noms don't have admin tools. Neıl ☎ 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I know, but I'm trying to get more people to review articles to clear the backlog over there. Cheers, Davnel03 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting it on Wikipedia:Backlogs. If people want to clear backlogs they will look there. Don't spam here, this is for incidents - what if every backlog got noted here (AND on AN, where you've put it too)?--Doc^g 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickdrew

Not sure what I to do with the user: [71], [72], and [73] could an uninvolved person check over these diffs and suggest an action to take. Thanks, VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Suggest suggesting he calm down a bit and take things less personally. He seems to be a new user who was just caught off guard by a new page patroller (and may have put the article up prematurely). It's not unusual for new people to react this way when this first happens. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much, but thanks for checking it. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Destinyefine

Destinyefine (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
This user uploaded Image:Efine.jpg (history · last edit), a blatant copyright violation, both text and image, of non-notable Nigerian hip-hop artist E-fine and recently created the article E-fine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) that User:Pegasus speedily delted per WP:CSD#A7. Destinyefine then vandalized Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. (diff)
Would a Wikipedian experianced in these matters please advise what should be done in this situation? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Userspace Harassment and battelground posturing by User:MONGO

I know many are tired of talking about him. But is this sort of thing [74] (as part of this kind of content dispute [75]) considered acceptable behaviour? To my mind, this is exactly the sort of thing that turns articles into battlegrounds. (The disputed edit was originally reverted by MONGO with the summary "rv CT" and later justified with the claim that he did not have "time to examine the ridiculous" [76]. When arbcom rejected the last request in regard to MONGO, there was some suggestion that we had reached the outer limit of what can be tolerated. It would be great if were possible to edit the articles on the WTC without these sorts of accusations, which seem to arise at the drop of hat and don't seem to stop even when requested.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it might be nice if people would edit other things now and again other than WTC-related articles. Y'know, there is the rest of the encyclopaedia, and no, by that I do not mean Steven E. Jones. Would also be nice if single-purpose accounts, such as yourself, would leave Wikipedia:Single-purpose account alone. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitches

There have been some weird goings-on here at Wiki lately. Yesterday, an individual diff I could clearly see had been made, failed to show up for several minutes on the mainpage, and I was not the only one to notice this very odd delay.

Just a few minutes ago I made a small edit on the RAF Fylingdales page, which was just the addition of the term "so-called" along with a couple of apostrophes - but the diff shows up as me having made a couple of dozen edits right through the article!

Is anyone else experiencing technical problems like these? In my opinion they are potentially quite serious, I wasn't sure of the best place to post about this so I thought I'd post it here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that. Even if someone else was adding material as you were editing, there would have been some sort of edit conflict. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, egg on face, I think I know what must have happened on the previous edit. I think I may have opened an earlier version of the page and edited that without realizing it. That's what you get for staying up too late and failing to notice the red warning signs :)

The delay thing yesterday was weird though. I guess that just happens now and again, although I haven't experienced it before. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)