Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502

User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behaviour by this admin at Sarah Palin talk.

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

At the Sarah Palin discussion page a new section for discussion gets created: [1] Here it is for handy reference:

Start quote >

Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill

This essay presents a critical, but insightful and vigorous character sketch that I think should be incorporated into the article. A passage:

Having come to power saying that her agenda was to pare down Wasilla to ‘the basic necessities, the bare bones’, she surprised its citizens when she redecorated the mayor’s office at a reported cost of $50,000 salvaged from the highways budget; its new red flock wallpaper matched her bold, rouge-et-noir taste in personal outfits. Another $24,000 of city money went on a white Chevy Suburban, known around Wasilla, without affection, as the mayormobile. She hired a city administrator to deputise for her in the day-to-day running of Wasilla’s affairs and employed a lobbyist in DC to wheedle lawmakers into meeting the town’s ever-expanding list of claims for congressional ‘pork’ (so named from the antebellum custom of rewarding slaves with barrels of salt pork). That expenditure, at least, paid off: during Palin’s six-year tenure as mayor, the federal government doled out more than $1000 for every man, woman and child in Wasilla. Her pet project was a $14.7m ice rink and sports complex, which opened in 2004. It is said to be lightly used, it has left the city servicing a massive debt, and a Jarndyce and Jarndyce lawsuit continues over the bungled way in which Palin acquired the land on which it’s built.

Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill London Review of Books Vol. 30, No. 19, 9 October 2008, pages 7-10, Jonathan Raban --24.17.191.27 (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

< End quote

Uncollapse for lengthy report.

User:Threeafterthree deletes it in toto [2] with the comment “not a forum” User: Factchecker atyourservice restores the deleted section [3], commenting that the deletion was inappropriate. User:Threeafterthree reverts Factchecker[4], commenting “this is not a forum, leave deleted” Factchecker again restores the deleted section[5] and comments: "'Not a forum' completely inapplicable to these pertinent comments. Read the policy. These comments should not be deleted. Reply to the comments, don't delete them." Threeafterthree again deletes the section[6], commenting: “rv SPA, please stop pushing your agenda” Wanting to restore the section so that I can reply to the contributor’s proposal, which I consider perfectly reasonable, and get some discussion going, I revert Threeafterthree’s deletion[7], add my own edit about the material ("I'm not convinced that these commentaries would be of use to the article; aren't they opinion pieces? Albeit, in the case of the Raban article, from a respected and highly distinguished author. If some of the meat was found in RSs it would be more worthy of consideration, methinks. Certain cuts from the joint may have already been served in one or other of the SP articles but I can't be arsed to check. There's so much verbiage"), and comment “Raban distinguished author; piece qualifies for Talk discuss” Threeafterthree posts new section to SP Talk [8]: Start quote > Talk page “Can we please try to use this page for discussing how to improve the article rather than just linking to garbage (see above)? Also the single purpose trolls still seem to be out in force here.” < End quote (Nice, that "single purpose trolls".) Sysop User:KillerChihuahua now steps in for Threeafterthree (whom 3RR prevents from reverting again), deletes the section in question [9] and comments: “Rm, Not a forum.” My attention distracted by festive libations and crashing investments etc., I fail to notice that this sysop (who, incidentally, is already involved in editing the article) has deleted the section. I assume it has merely been re-deleted by Threeafterthree (I have not been counting the reverts; such is the innumerating power of Absinthe). I restore it [10], with the somewhat, er, testy comment: “restore item for discussion whose deletion by Threeafterthree is unwarranted, unmerited and in breach of WP article talk page policy”. Now Killer (1) reverts my restoration of the section [11] and (2) leaves a template warning on my talk page (unconstructive comment, use sandbox, read welcome page, learn more about contributing constructively). Next Killer changes Threeafterthree’s section heading at SP Talk (noted above) from “Talk Page” to “Talk page vandalism” and posts [12]: Start quote > I will continue to remove the POV pushing essay crap which is being posted here as vandalism, and will start blocking vandals if you do not cease. Puppy has spoken; puppy is in no mood to tolerate this crap. < End quote Surely this is totally unacceptable behaviour by a sysop? Not only is Killer already involved in editing the article. Her summary dismissal (without summary explanation) of a critique of the BLP’s subject by a serious, world-renowned author as “essay crap” is inflammatory, disruptive, unworthy, and really just the kind of puerile behaviour we expect from vandals, not sysops. To then cite this abusive, groundless and personally prejudiced characterization as the basis for threats to block good-faith editors is unacceptable. It’s not clear whether Killer's “POV pushing” qualifier refers to the “essay” or myself (for reinstating the “essay”). If she means the Raban piece itself, she shows ignorance of WP:NPOV: NPOV does not exclude from discussion the factual content of RS source material simply because it is written from a particular point of view. If she means I am a vandal, this personal attack is totally unwarranted and unacceptable: restoring to an article discussion page a serious critique taken from a scholarly and totally RS source, in order for its contents to be discussed with a view to improving the article, is not vandalism. Quite the opposite. Discussion of such material is just the kind of use that article talk pages are intended for. Also incidentally there is not one instance of vandalism in my edit history. I don’t know what action is appropriate where a sysop gets abusive and makes lousy and repressive decisions based on personal prejudices such as in this case. I can only hope that there are admins who are willing and able to take appropriate action rather than just close ranks. For a start I would like this sysop to remove the unmerited warning she placed on my talk page. How do I go about trying to achieve that?

Anyone there? No! You're all drunk as skunks at Christmas parties! — Writegeist (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm rather hoping for responses from admins with normal reading skills and adult attention spans. But thank you for your helpful contribution. — Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, there have been roughly a gazillion opinion pieces written about Sarah Palin in the past few months. This is one more. My sense (from when I valued my sanity so lightly as to edit that article) is that opinion pieces in general, even those appearing in august publications, are generally denigrated as sources there. Posting snippets of opinion pieces with no suggestions about how or why they should be incorporated into the article verges on violating the talk page guidelines. Here's my suggestion: everyone chill out and drink some eggnog. If you reinsert the piece, don't excerpt it, but instead make a clear case for why this particular opinion piece belongs in the article, as opposed to any of the other gazillion pro/con opinion pieces published about Palin - preferably with some proposed text that you'd like to incorporate into the article. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. In most instances, people seem to have abandoned the 2008 Presidential campaign rhetoric - I know that I have. Barack Obama won the election fair-and-square and I wish him the best. But some people just can't let it go...people are still ranting at Sarah Palin about silly stuff like rape kits and book burning. Let it go, people. Kelly ^hi! 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if admins and editors of unimpeachable neutrality were to contribute. — Writegeist (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget the part about greeting reporters in her hotel room wearing only a towel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if admins and editors of unimpeachable neutrality were to contribute. — Writegeist (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep talking that that and you'll make me wish I was a reporter. :) But it would be great if we could approach Sarah Palin from a neutral point of view - can't understand why it's so much of a problem. It's not like people are attacking John McCain with POV wars. Kelly ^hi! 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Left out of that towel rumor was that she was wearing the Andre the Giant model, so it wasn't especially revealing. The curious thing about McCain is how his own party has turned on him - like it's his fault that Bush preceded him in office. The most effective campaign ad I saw was simply Bush and McCain standing next to each other and smiling, with McCain's voice saying he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. All they had to do was run that ad, and McCain was cooked. The biggest complaint of the GOP seems to be about that 10 percent that he didn't vote with Bush. Yeh, that would have helped. "Hi, I'm John McCain, and I voted with Bush every time! I'm a clone of the most unpopular President in 30 years! And I'm counting on you to keep that streak going!" No, I don't think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Palin has been off my watch list for awhile, but maybe it's time to add it back. Palin, McCain, Obama... so how come nobody picks on Joe Biden? Doesn't he deserved some (dis)respect too? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As a McCain/Palin voter, I look at Biden as something like a consolation prize. He seems to be a good guy at heart, and nobody will ever accuse him of being the evil genius behind the throne like Cheney was. If you look at the news sources, Palin and Biden apparently even like each other, based on their post-election comments. Kelly ^hi! 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Biden is really more like a traditional VP, just a placeholder. Cheney was an exceptional VP, very active and involved, much more than most VP's. Bush Jr. knew he could count on him for seasoned-veteran advice. In contrast, I don't recall hearing that Clinton asked for all that much input from Gore, for example; and certain not Bush Sr. from Danny Boy Quayle. I would guess Reagan listened to Bush Sr. from time to time, given his worldly experience, but it was very much a Reagan Presidency. As far as liking or disliking, keep in mind that there's a lot of public posturing. Obama and McCain apparently get along pretty well. I recall that Humphrey and Goldwater, whom you'd think would mix like fire and gasoline, were good friends. Ted Kennedy is known to have friends on the right. The Senate is a small body that has to be able to work together. It's not so much the free-for-all that the House can be. If the Palin article is still being assaulted nearly 2 months after the election, though, then something's out of whack. I'll add it to my watch list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See my remark above — Writegeist (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And the sysop's behaviour, which is really of prime concern here? — Writegeist (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of changes to be made to an article..this appears to be a discussion of changes to be made to an article. Troll or not, the publication seems legitimate enough to have a wikipedia page, and has an article written about the subject. If you don't want to include the source, leave a message saying "I don't like this source or I don't think its necessary" and move on. Fighting over the comment is pointless and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist's dismissive comment to all who have read through his report does nothing for me but show him to be a troll about this situation; uninterested in any resolution but that which gives him all he wants. He doesn't seem interested in hearing any contrary opinions, and saying "Youre' all drunk as skunks", that one of us lacks literacy because we don't lionize him and give him all he wants, and then "It would be helpful if admins and editors of unimpeachable neutrality were to contribute." are all obviously personal insults to every editor to whom he has given such replies. As such, and given his combative (read:Tendentious) attitude in this matter, I wouldn't mind seeing him blocked for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so, ThuranX. I was hoping for input about the behaviour of a sysop who, it seems to me, went bandit at a talk page where nerves are already jangled and some of us are still trying to do a responsible job in dicussing possible additions to the equally sensitive article. Instead, editors with whom I have had several disagreements over the article are simply pissing about here. All I want is for someone who is capable of neutrality to investigate the sysop as per my concerns, and give an opinion, and if necessary take action. I wasn't aware I had accused anyone of "lacking literacy" because they "don't lionize" me. If you point out where I have done so I shall of course delete the offending remark(s). It sounds very unlike me. "Drunk as skunks" was just a bit of light-hearted banter about people getting drunk at office Christmas parties. Perhaps my mischievous Palestinianesque humour is a little too skewed for a Christian holiday (no offence was intended). At WP it seems 'tis the season for making merry with threats and suggestions of blocks! Gosh.

Oh well it's early days. Some more editors of the calibre of MastCell and Crossmr will turn up eventually to add their 2c to his/her incisive observations. (Thank you MC and Crossmr.)— Writegeist (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Yes I'm rather hoping for responses from admins with normal reading skills and adult attention spans. But thank you for your helpful contribution." That's where you insult literacy. As for 'Palestinianesque humor being to advanced to comprehend' during a 'christian holiday', that's more of the same backhanded comments that insult everyone and paint them with one brush. either address this with civility and maturity, or go find a new hobby. ThuranX (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to discuss this on the talk page (certainly more reasonable than it is here). My money is with MastCell. Opinion pieces (even from august publications such as the LRB) are a dime a dozen. There is absolutely no shortage of opinion about sarah palin. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of room in the various "Sarah Palin" articles where summaries of these pieces can be deposited without running into WP:UNDUE or WP:SIZE issues. This is especially so when the opinion piece quoted doesn't give a 'neutral' look at the subject (this is also true for glowing hagiographies). I think it was inappropriate for the comments to be removed from the talk page w/ little discussion and regrettable that once one person "tagged" it as a "general comment", other users were happy to revert its inclusion without thinking about it (We see this all the time in recent change patrol). To the person raising this report, you will find that it does you no good whatsoever to impugn the neutrality or competence of your audience when seeking some review. Admins are supposed to be as neutral as possible; in theory you could be spitting vitriol at me and I would be inclined to give a dispassionate reading of your case. In practice you will find that comments like yours in this thread tend to leave people with the impression that you aren't here to get something accomplished for the good of the 'pedia.
• So the long and short of it is: you can remove the warning yourself from your talk page yourself, your should probably seek to add a section on the talk page of the article noting explicitly where a summary of the material would go, what it would be and why it meets WP:UNDUE (and why the opinion of the speaker is important regardless). Other than that I have little advice. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Protonk. I see you recently made a successful application for adminship. Yet you have not commented on the behaviour of admin KillerChihuahua. I was at great pains to set out her behaviour accurately above, and I fully explained why I think he behaviour is unacceptable. Do you have anything to add? — Writegeist (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, please explain your reasons for your very hasty response to a complex and very serious issue to do with admin behaviour which has had a mere two hours' airing here.

Am I to understand that your decision confirms that it is acceptable for an administrator to make what appears to me to be a totally unwarranted accusation of vandalism against me? Y/N? If so, what exactly have I done that constitutes vandalism? As you saying it's acceptable for this admin to threaten blocks on anyone who attempts to introduce material for discussion which, as I have shown, is RS? Y/N? And for her to describe this material, from a scholarly source and a globally respected author, as "POV pushing essay crap"? Y/N? My primary concern, as I thought I had made clear, is with the behaviour of the administrator in question. This is a serious matter and for you to step in and shut it down when it has only been published at ANI for two hours during which time, understandably (on Christmas Eve!) it has received very little cogent response, seems, IMO, shall we say, odd. — Writegeist (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, do you make any significant contributions to Wikipedia? That is, aside from warning American of the Hitlerian danger that is Sarah Palin? It's old, the election is over, give it a rest. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion following archiving

I got shut out at the last minute with an edit conflict. I hope this doesn't end up in the wrong place.

Okay, first of all, the source had facts that so far are unique to it. It deserves further attention. My initial assessment of it is that it won't pass muster as a source, but we don't even know that yet. All we have is an excerpt; do you notice that it is pages 7-10? Hardly the meat of the book. This is the introduction. For all we know, 'after that, the style settles down considerably, and it starts telling you things you actually need to know', to quote from H2G2. To say nothing of the fact that the material can lead us to references elsewhere that we -can- use.

And there seems to be a misconception. This material was never inserted into the article. Although it was suggested by its contributor that it be inserted into the article in its current form, I never took that even slightly seriously. Neither, I imagine, did Writegeist. The material can and should be used as a starting point; it should be examined for its possibilities.

'Verges'. Not violates, verges on violating. That is what is at issue here. Something that almost was a violation. And yet it was deleted. And yet Writegeist is getting all bent about its deletion. I don't think what Write has done here is helpful, but I don't think deleting it was, either, and I most certainly don't think the comments of 'why don't we all just have some eggnog and get along' are helping. I have restored the link to the material in Discussion, written to KC, requesting that KC remain on track, and written to Write and asked him to chill. Let us leave this incident behind as unfortunate and irrelevant to the task at hand, and a terrible example of what I know to actually be the considerable capabilities of both KC and Write. Anarchangel (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tavix

Tavix (talk · contribs · logs) is again actively moving some 200 articles in the last 90 minutes which he knows and has been asked numerous times to stop and for which there is a previous ANI thread. It centres on the use of the dab (Canadian football) primarily because he knows that I have clearly expressed that I find this is almost never a suitable disambiguator for biographies of football players. The user is clearly being disruptive in trying to antagonise me. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCP and specifically WP:QUALIFIER. (football player) is the preferred dab when there are no other football players with the same name as these players often play more than one code of football and there is no need for further and more specific disambiguation. The dab "Canadian football" is also a poor choice because it is not an adjective describing the person as is preferred and is often misleading as the player may be American as well as having played other codes of football. I would like to see User:Tavix clearly asked to stop these kind of disruptive moves and if continued, short blocks and requirements to discuss and gain consensus for any page move. It can be seen from his talk history and previous ANI thread that the user has often moved articles without understanding of the guidelines and styleguides. It would also be useful for an admin to mass-revert his moves of today. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in the previous thread was it established he was incorrect? Naming conventions are supposed to be simple, but they are not supposed to be incorrect. Are these players football players or American football and Canadian football players? --Smashville^talk 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• They didn't get anywhere in the other one, just one admin and DoubleBlue saying that there should be a consensus. Tavix (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice in moves, grammatically horrible, confusing, and what do we do with Jeff Garcia and Doug Flutie (to name just a couple) ♪BMWΔ 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• May I ask, how is it grammatically horrible? It is simply the name of the sport that the person played. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie was the first one I checked out. He doesn't even have a parenthetic qualifier, as there is presumably only one notable Doug Flutie. But it does raise an important question, about anyone who might be on a disambig page and has played in both CFL and NFL. I would think they should only say American football or Canadian football when there's one in each. Usually you want to keep the qualifiers as general as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there is a person who played both American football and Canadian football, you would look for whichever sport they were most notable for playing. That is usually equivalent to the number of years they played the sport. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie (dropkicker)? --Smashville^talk 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)]

• The position the person played is only to be used when there is two players who played the same sport becuase you want the more general disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem...it was a joke in reference to the one time Flutie kicked an XP... --Smashville^talk 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Zealots and ignoranimuses seldom have a sense of humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Everybody, There is nothing incorrect with what I am doing. The reason "football player" isn't a good disambiguation because it could get confused with Association football, which is known as football in the majority of the countries. If you ask anybody from Europe, Asia, or Latin America, "football" is Soccer. So "football player" is incorrect and misleading. It is also for consistency with those people who play "American football" because the people who play American football use "American football" as the disambiguation already. If there really is that big of a deal about it, get a consensus together, but at the moment, I am doing nothing wrong. Another note, a person who played baseball uses the (baseball) disambiguation. It is never (baseball player). A person who played hockey uses the (ice hockey) disambiguation, it is never (hockey player). There is a general consensus (but not official) that in the world of sports, you use the name of the sport to describe the person. Tavix (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One flaw in your thinking is that the specific players are likely to be only on American or Canadian football teams anyway, so a soccer fan is not likely to be looking for them. Another is that what if some guy actually did play for both a soccer team and an American or Canadian football team? What would you do then? Worse still, though, is that your own comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football, which I can assure you with a complete lack of bias are much more interesting games than soccer is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anyone that would play (professionally) both American/Canadian football and Soccer, so I don't think we would ever need to figure that out. If that happens though, (football player) or (footballer) is probably best as it covers both sports. "your comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football." I'm completely sorry if I seem biased, I'm really not biased whatsoever against the sport. I am a huge football fan, and more in generally a lot of sports. I also enjoy soccer and I used to play it way back when as well. So sorry if I seem biased. Tavix (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your previous move of a player of both Australian and American football to (American football). DoubleBlue (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills there. =) However, I say that between soccer and a type of football, not two different types of football. Tavix (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Above you correctly state that more general disambiguations are desirable but then you contradict yourself and say that (football player) is not specific enough. It is precisely that the general dab football player is preferable since many players play in more than one code of football. It is only desirable to be more precise when there is more than one football player with the same name. Baseball and hockey are the only exceptions to the WP:NCP guidelines and I frankly think they are misguided. Nonetheless, football is what is under discussion at the moment and football players are far more likely to be notable for more than one code of football than baseball players are to be for more than one code of baseball. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, actually the thing is that (football player) is highly too general, with my reasons stated above. It's almost like saying John Doe (sports player) because football refers to about 10 different sports. Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here would be that it's a change that's not necessary. It amounts to "busy work". There are plenty of articles that need actual improvements. This effort improves nothing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain to whom this is directed. Clearly the moves Tavix has done from (football player) to (Canadian football) and (American football) are not only unnecessary but harmful. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, you hard headed DoubleBlue, why do you always have to go out and say these moves are harmful when in fact, neither of the moves are actually harmful. People will find the article just as fine wheather it says (football player) or (American football). Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. Hence there is no reason to have changed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear - the changes he's making are pointless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's basically for consistency. It's not like it is harmful or anything. Tavix (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is harmful to unnecessarily dab a person with an overly-specific dab that makes it misleading. If John Doe is the only John Doe notable for playing football but he's an American who has played both American and Canadian football, then surely the best dab is (football player). To move to John Doe (Canadian football) is misleading and unnecessarily violates the general guideline for dabs to describe the person rather than the sport. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• So it violates guidelines, and is pointless busy work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• And there's another flaw in his argument. This is the English wikipedia, and in the English-speaking world, it's called soccer primarily. So if he's going to say "American football", he needs to change all the soccer players from "football" to "soccer". For "consistency". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pssst. // roux   20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't violate any guidelines. There is an exception in the third paragraph in WP:QUALIFIER that allows my moves. I don't see what Baseball Bugs is referring to by moving "footballer" to "soccer" for consistency. It already has a consensus that anyone who plays "soccer" is known as "footballer". Tavix (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The common sense exception is for "awkward or overly-long disambiguations". How does (Canadian football) fit that exception over (football player)? DoubleBlue (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) Indeed there is such a consensus. Just as there is a consensus that we use the least-specific meaningful dab available. // roux   20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which consensus is that? Please bear in mind I am using the least specific dab available. It is the same reasons for the ice hockey people to use (ice hockey) and not (hockey). Ice hockey is the name of the sport, not hockey. Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:NCDAB: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)"." // roux   21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No need to copy the mistakes of others and they have much less likelihood of hockey players playing multiple codes of hockey. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Who said those are mistakes? "Ice hockey" is the name of the sport. Tavix (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that Tavix continues these moves unabated. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills. =) Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you start noting the genuine lack of consensus for your moves and stop? Hmmm? ♪BMWΔ 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no lack of consensus whatsoever. Sorry, but no. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "No lack of consensus?" Who, besides you, wants this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's what he seems to be missing...every single editor on this page says "stop". That's apparently a consensus. ♪BMWΔ 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have to support DoubleBlue entirely in this matter. Tavix has a long history of disputed page moves (in reviewing the entire history of his talk page, I can find only a single favorable comment about his often massive page moves, and over a dozen requests that he stop, with explanations of why he is violating the naming conventions, the disambig guidelines, or just plain common sense). And not just with sports articles. Tavix's moves in this case do violate the naming conventions, this has been explained to him by at least 3 parties that I'm aware of, also violate the disambiguation guidelines by overdisambiguating (we don't have articles like "Claire Voyant (particle physicist)" unless we have to physicists named Claire Voyant to disambiguate), and this has also been explained to him several times. He's simply recalcitrant, unwilling to discuss and seek consensus anywhere, and self-righteous. He has also stated clearly on his own talk page that he will not stop these disruptive page moves until he is "banned" (I think he meant blocked). So block him, and we can all go back to business as usual, and when the block expires maybe he'll find something more constructive to do instead of starting pointless fights by moving hundreds of articles at a time to unhelpful names without consensus to do so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, what's the solution, at this point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The solution is for Tavix to desist. I don't know how he is measuring 'consensus', but his meter is surely broken. Just about everyone in this thread has argued against this happening, and I don't know how he can't see that. Consensus can change. — neuro^(talk) 11:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, except he's already said he won't desist. So, what's the solution, at this point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the first thing to ask him is to link us to evidence of this ever elusive consensus... :S — neuro^(talk) 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He already said "NO", that he was going to do what he was going to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not like I'm hard headed or anything, but I just don't see any consensus against it. If you look at the disambiguations of just about any sportsperson, you see the name of the sport they played and not XXX player. Ice hockey is the biggest example because they use (ice hockey) [the offical name of the sport] and not (hockey). American football is the offical name of the sport. Also, we shouldn't use (American football player) per paragraph three of WP:QUALIFIER, which says that a disambiguation can break "rules" if it is too long, in this case. All in all, I am done now anyway so I will stop. Thank you all for your help. Tavix (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, he says he's done, and he obviously considers the comments here to have nothing to do with "consensus". So, should we start systematically undoing his efforts? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

...and based on his snotty comments on my talk page simply because he doesn't like the project's definition of WP:Consensus ... I'm prepared to start undoing his make-work-for-others project. Any way we can remove "move" rights from his account? ♪BMWΔ 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Football project somewhere, where some other heads can be brought into this discussion? I think that guy is being disruptive and taking ownership, but the admins aren't seeing this as being a big enough thing to take any action on, so far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if it seems like I am taking ownership, I'm really not. In addition, there is nothing disruptive about it. People can find their way to an article wheather it says (Canadian football) or (football player). The problem is (football player) doesn't describe them. The name of the sport is American football or Canadian football (where applicable). Tavix (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, Tavix, is a player with the (Canadian football) or (Canadian football player) disambiguator a player of Canadian football, a football player of Canadian origin or a soccer player of Canadian origin? The (ice hockey) example you like to use doesn't fit this argument, since there is no ambiguity surrounding what ice hockey means. Your moves in this case create unnecessary confusion. Resolute 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• (Canadian football) is actually pretty general as it can refer to anyone who is involved in the sport of Canadian football. It is the name of the sport, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the name of the sport is football. We describe it as Canadian when the context is ambiguous. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the vast majority of native English speakers, when they say "football", mean games like American and Canadian football, not soccer. Tavix's changes are pretentious, and are only valid if he's also going to change soccer players to say "Association football" (or "soccer"). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No dog in this fight, but his changes look disruptive and confusing to me. For instance he takes a guy whose described as a "running back" and then changes it to his NFL team (i.e. San diego chargers) -- but that means team changes have to be kept up with AND in the event there are other NFL guys with the same name (now, in the past, or in the future) there's a greater likelihood for confusion (which one is the running back, which one the linebacker? Fred Smith the linebacker played 2 seasons for the chargers, but fred smith the running back is the one playing for them now, etc...) Why not just topic ban Tavix from these sorts of changes? He's already indicated he has no interest in seeking -- or abiing by -- consensus.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• That is a totally different issue. There were 4 running backs in the NFL with the name of "Clarence Williams" who all played in the same era, and were going by birthday. I moved them to the team name because people are going to know the team they played for more than their birthday. Also, none of them are active anymore so there is no need to update. I have already taken up with the NFL wikiproject as well. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, except that would require someone with some authority taking some interest in this. So far, it's his way or the highway. And it would probably also require a block for a day or two, to undo his "work". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that there is no official consensus on this matter. I have already stopped my actions and blocking me will do no good as I am no longer moving pages on this subject. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I take that as a green light to change them back to what they were, with the expectation that you will not interfere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone makes any changes, please read WP:FBNC. It is my essay which basically sums up my reasonings. Tavix (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Read it. Vastly inferior to current conventions, your argument is not persuasive, in practice the changes you've made have generated confusion, not reduced it. I posted this to your essay as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) Take the conversation here. This proposal is basically where this conversation is going. Tavix (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice feint, but what is WP going to do about your willful selective blindness to long-accepted guidelines (the "consensus" you keep claiming does not exist), your unwillingness to discuss, compromise or work toward consensus until threatened with being blocked, your intransigence in the face of over 90% of commentary on your page moves (on all topics, not just this one) being negative, and vocally negative at that, and your refusals to stop doing whatever the heck you feel like until "I am banned" (your words)? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, the "consensus" is currently a draft proposal. Good luck getting that thing passed. I'm up for discussion, but I haven't found anything policy wise that specifically says what I am doing is wrong. See paragraph 3 of WP:QUALIFIER and WP:FBNC for more information. Tavix (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• The consensus is the WP:NCP guideline. The draft has nothing to do with this besides attempting to avoid further misinterpretations of the guideline by clarifying with examples how it applies to sportspeople. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban request

Given the above conversation, Tavix' assertion that he will continue what he is doing (he says he has stopped, but has given no indication that he will not restart his pagemoves), Tavix' refusal to accept or understand consensus, I suggest that he be topic-banned by the community from any page moves (other than to fix spelling or camelcase issues) without gaining consensus at the page of the appropriate parent Wikiproject. // roux   06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• endorse for whatever it's worth (is this typically done here? At any rate, i think it's a good idea).Bali ultimate (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support page-move ban without consensus at the appropriate parent Wikiproject, with a warning for the first offense, to be escalated appropriately if it so continues. seicer | talk | contribs 06:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose What Tavix is doing is completely within past practice of what is done at WP:NFL.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reichstag Climbing underway on Aang - assistance needed

Morning all, and happy christmas! Just thought I'd drop by and let you know of a case of Reichstag climbing at Aang between Sesshomaru, NuclearWarfare, Dylan0513 and Ghostexorcist. It all seems to be getting a little out of hand. Thought you might like to know so it can be stepped on :) Take care. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks quite calm to me, they are discussing on NWF's talk page and have not edited further. Let's just wait and see what happens, I recommend trouts for everyone if they continue ;-) SoWhy 10:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved

 – IP blocked.

User talk:64.183.194.82 seems to be a vandalism-only account. All of his edits and edit summaries are filled with personal attacks towards different users [13]. Judging from his userpage, he has been warned multiple times but continues to vandalize and make attacks. I noticed him when he called wikipedians "idiots" on The Undertaker talkpage. Anyways, Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

IPs usually cannot be vandalism-only accounts as they may be used by different people. If you notice vandalism, you should just make a report at WP:AIV after the user has been warned sufficiently. I blocked the user for now as they are clearly willing to vandalize further. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh! My bad! I'll make sure to take it there from now in. Anyways, thank you for addressing the issue. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso canvassing

Resolved

 – Not canvassing, no admin action needed. --Smashville^talk 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blatantly canvassing (as first noted by DoubleBlue[14]) in WikiProjects against a draft proposal, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) that he does not like (and, from the discussion so far, appears to be opposing because it naturally agrees with WP:DAB and WT:NCP, which he would like to change).

Specific incidents so far:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Naming standards: [15]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Just a note [16] which would have been okay by itself, but was modified by [17]

I have addressed misrepresentations in these posts, here, and here.

The goofy thing about this is that it isn't even a proposal, just a draft, and won't be proceeding as a proposal without WP:RFCs, so this canvassing panic is rather "extra overboard". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notified user on talk. — neuro^(talk) 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad! I was tied up on the phone and then had to rush to the grocery store before it closed, and forgot to notify. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals such as this but such requests should be in a neutral tone simply inviting participation not with such unfair and untrue characterisations of the motives of the proposal and editors involoved. I'm disappointed in Djsasso's approach here as I've long seen him as a positive contributor and hope that a single clear caution from here will remind him to keep his cool. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's great to ask WikiProjects to participate in the development of proposals, why didn't you notify the related projects? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The parent WikiProject Sports was notified as was WT:NCP. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well since baseball and ice hockey were primarily discussed don't you think their respective WikiProjects should have been notified? Since this draft much affected them maybe Djsasso felt you were sneaking behind his back and he got upset, thus the biased notifications left by him. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

These seem to be directed at me but I'm not sure why it's my or anyones responsibility to notify anyone of a draft in progress. I did not say it was necessary, I said I think it's great. SMcCandlish responds best below but I'll just reiterate that it's only in the draft stage and premature for a site wide RFC, WP:CANVASS is pretty clear that the posts in question were campaigning by calling in the troops to defeat the evil forces who were working on the draft. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from WT:SPORT, WT:NCP and WT:WPMOS being notified (neutrally and consistently):

1. There are literally hundreds of sports and games projects. Everyone doing anything related to sports cannot be expected to notify every single one of them.
2. This is not a proposal, it's a draft proposal, and will not move to proposal stage without RfCs or a similar level of WP-wide input, including from the two projects in question and anyone else interested.
3. The content of the draft (what Djsasso canvassed about) and (some of) the topics on the draft's talk page about applicability of the draft and WikiProject consistency problems in the implementation of its recommendations, are independent issues. The draft's contents are an interpretation of WP:NCP as applied to sports, in a manner consistent with WP:DAB, plus some additional clarifications. The talk page threads (which is not what Djsasso notified the projects about) are examinations of the rationales for not doing things the way two projects are doing them, because they already conflict with WP:DAB. Djsasso may well feel he and others in his projects who side with him on the issue (which is not everyone!) is being debated against by those posts (he and they are, on those minor points, which have nothing at all really to do with the legitimate scope of the projects and their activities), but this is no excuse to canvass for an attack against the draft proposal. Clearer? That's the canvassing issue here. (N.b.: I agree with DoubleBlue above that simply an ANI agreement that it was canvassing and shouldn't happen again is sufficient.)
4. That they are the two projects presently being most discussed in relation to the guideline is simply incidental; someone's pointed out a third with NC/DAB issues, and there are many sports pages with badly-DABed names that are not part of any sort of project-generated issue. WP:ENGVAR issues, and User:Tavix's WP:DAB/WP:NCP/WP:CONSENSUS/WP:DE-transgressive mass-article-moving activities (see two previous ANIs), are also topics there. So, really, the two projects are only relevant to half of the topics, not "most". Further, the topics are general, and use those projects as examples, on the presumption (shown true already) that there are others exhibiting the same problems. Does a project have to be notified every time someone mentions a problem with how it is going about things?
5. An attempt to resolve these problems many months ago was completely derailed by differentially notifying these two groups (my own mistake), who showed up in force to prematurely dominate the debate at WT:NCP, preferring their own alternative naming scheme to consistency, and refusing to acknowledge any issues with their "special" variants. Some of them have also made it clear that they want to undo parts of WP:DAB and WP:NCP entirely, with arguments (so far) at WT:NCSP that have been largely in this vein (i.e., attempting to use the new draft proposal to put forth changes that are off-topic there and which would be strongly resisted at the appropriate forums). I see no need to pre-load the debate on a day-old draft with out-of-band noise like that, on top of the effect of pre-seeding it with a small but vocal number of people who automatically oppose the draft just because it doesn't match their insular, in-group preferences on a matter that is outside their scope anyway, and who have already demonstrated that they will not seek compromise or work toward consensus, but only insist on their special way.
6. The draft does not "much affect them"; the only person it affects is whoever does the AWB run to fix the disambiguations. It does not rename any articles in the usual sense (e.g. from "Joe Bloggs (whatever)" to "Joseph Bloggs (whatever)"). It requires no article content edits of any kind (other than eventual, low-priority, bot-doable cleanup of redirects). It has no effect on these projects at all. Another way of looking at it: Nothing within the scope of WP:BASEBALL or WP:ICEHOCKEY is in any way affected, since the proper means of disambiguation between articles is a WP-wide consistency issue controlled by WP:DAB, WP:NC and subpages thereof like WP:NCP and eventually maybe WP:NCSP – not by random topical projects on baseball or salamanders or New Mexico.
7. "Sneaking behind his back"? This was done in WP-space, not user-space, and was very visibly announced in the three overarching relevant projectpages. He obviously reads at least one of them. What back am I "sneaking" behind? The only difference in my approach this time has been to notify broadly, not just to two projects that I already know have issues with the ideas (or more accurately, have a handful of irritable participants who appear not to understand the ideas and oppose them reflexively, but have other participants who feel otherwise). Why on earth would I make that same mistake twice?

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Informing a Wikiproject in neutral wording of a discussion affecting the Wikiproject is not canvassing. I suggest you actually read WP:CANVASS before making accusations. This report reeks of bad faith assumptions. --Smashville^talk 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Right back atcha. Try reading ANI's before responding to them. As others besides me have noted, his notifications were not neutrally-worded at all. Your comment reeks of not paying attention. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much to say on this because its rediculous. Nowhere in the notices did I tell people which way they should comment which is a key component of WP:CANVAS. The reason I may have sounded less than neutral is that your original draft pretty much said that the hockey and baseball projects were idiots and that tje community needed to agree on it "immediately" which indicates you were trying to sneak it through without our notice. Which was then bolstered by the fact that you didn't notify the projects you were slamming quite heavily in your proposal. Failing to notify the two projects that you were pretty much aiming at was extremely bad faith. And then to attack me on ANI because the discussion isn't going the way you wanted it to is only making things worse. If this isn't forum shopping to try an get "votes" in your favour I don't know what is. I would say this notice is closer to canvassing than what I did. And in response to your reply to smashville the only one who agreed I was canvassing in this thread was you and doubleblue who just happen to be the people who have the opposite opinion from mine. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chad Dukes (Radio Personality) -- unnecessary reverting and deletion of discussion page by editor with possible issues (trying to be nice)

This hurts to read. seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This may not be the right place for this, but Wikipedia's strength is not end-user documentation, so I'm putting it here. What's the dispute? Editor named NeutralHomer reverts my comments and claims vandalism, which is not true. Today (12/24/2008)I saw that at 5:30 am 12/22/2008 NeutralHomer removed the ENTIRE discussion from the Discussion page, including the following: "Don't jump to delete. You waited, what, 30 seconds before tagging the stub for deletion? I was still working out the disambiguation during that half-minute. Allow me to continue with the article before considering for deletion. Thank you! --Tischlerpaul 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)" which was posted by someone other than me. This NeutralHomer fellow is out of control. Please fix.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinityAsianCoed (talk • contribs) Looks like he removed vandalism and non-constructive comments. No problem here. Grsz11 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC) -- The deletion of the entire DISCUSSION page is itself non-constructive, and included deletion of signed posts that I did not make. (ec) Those comments were removed becuase they were reinserted repeatedly by IP editor(s). They don't make any sense, as the article in question (Chad Dukes (radio personality) (talk) is not listed for deletion (but it has been discussed two times). Any comments not geared to improving the article can be removed. Reinserting those comments was not helpfull, therefor they were removed. — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that's either a deliberate mistake or a lie. The following text was removed by NeutralHomer: Hangon! Don't jump to delete. You waited, what, 30 seconds before tagging the stub for deletion? I was still working out the disambiguation during that half-minute. Allow me to continue with the article before considering for deletion. Thank you! --Tischlerpaul 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC) If "is not listed for deletion" is important, why didn't NeutralHomer remove the history of nominations for deletion and their decisions? The comment quoted above was submitted by someone with an account, and was only deleted once, by NeutralHomer, and never reinserted, so at best you are misstating the facts. Please learn to spell "helpful". First off, thanks for the heads up on this Grsz11, I appreciate it. Secondly, like you said, I seen the whole thing by the anon user as vandalism and non-constructive and removed it. The anon user has a history of adding posts like those to Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman, along with claiming that "Grease" was dead loooong after he released an audio statement saying he wasn't. Another user, Loaves asked for my help in keeping the vandalism and non-constructive statements to a minimum. Loaves has also been reverting the anon's vandalism in the past as well. -- Sorry, I never said that the Greaseman was dead, just that he had been REPORTED as dead. It was clear at the time, and I reiterated it, but you chose to ignore the plain facts. Unless you've obliterated the edit trail, the evidence is there for anyone to see. Why did you remove the ENTIRE Chad Dukes DISCUSSION page, including the very reasonable post from another user that I referred to in my complaint? Do you have some issue, or is there something I am missing? Personally, I see this as a vandal just plain angry that his "statements" are being deleted and his "fun" being stopped. I am not sure if it is possible, but since User:151.200.31.230, User:151.200.32.170, and User:151.200.35.192 are the main anon vandals, probably a final warning should be issued by an uninvolved editor or admin and then a range block to stop the vandalism altogether. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:45 --There it is: "PERSONALLY". This amazingly productive user (see his user page for the number of radio-oriented pages he has created under his current name) takes edits to a DISCUSSION page PERSONALLY. And yes I know everyone thinks of all-caps as shouting. When I use all-caps I'm lowering my voice and my Ray-Bans. It's a cultural thing. --The issue is that it's not vandalism and my changes have been almost obsessively reverted, by you. Changes to a DISCUSSION page, where one would think discussion would take place. A new user, User:TrinityAsianCoed (who also started this thread), created a MedCab on me about this very article. Please see here> Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Chad Dukes (radio personality). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 24, 2008 @ 23:47 --Yes, I did, before I found, as I noted, that Mediation wasn't the appropriate venue for this sort of complaint. You have to create an account to complain about obsessive reversion, as you no doubt know, given your apparent expertise on Wikipedia rules and procedures. Hence the new user. I hope that doesn't trouble you. Final word on this, because I am not going to give a vandal the attention he/she seeks, especially on Christmas Eve.....posting on 3 seperate anon accounts and now a brand spanking new non-anon account, that is Sockpuppetry. Also, "personally" means that is how I "personally..." (me, myself, and I) "...see it". I take nothing on Wikipedia personally, because if you do, you go crazy. Take Care...and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 01:46 No, it's not. It's using a standard internet connection from a standard internet provider without paying extra for a static IP address, then establishing an account so I can complain about your bad behavior. And it's not anonymous. I CLAIM THOSE POSTS AS MINE. Well, it is anonymous to the extent that your driver's license probably doesn't say "NeutralHomer". Any high-school student would understand this. I am not seeking attention, simply asking that your behavior be corrected. Have you nothing better to do on Christmas Eve? Please learn to spell "separate". By the way, "final word" in internet speak means "look out for my next post because there is no way I'm going to let this go." I look forward to your next post and a speedy resolution from responsible adults. Left a note on TrinityAsianCoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Speaking of sockpuppetry, what was the point of this note?: "Refrain from unnecessary combative commentary and incivil dialogue in communications with others, as you demonstrated here. While the usage of multiple IP addresses and then a new account, whose sole agenda is to escalate non-issues, is frowned upon, this is a legitimate account -- as long as it stays within the bounds of civility and good faith discourse. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (TrinityAsianCoed (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)) so that it identifies your comments with this account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)"? And what is this about? I found it further down on this page: "I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had) on in content disputes. But as an editor, I am at a disadvantage to the vandals when I can't properly revert. I ask that I be given a second chance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40 8 (UTC) Yes, I am trying to undo edits, by reverting vandalism. In the edit in question above, I copied the entire page (before the vandalism) and pasted it over the vandalized page. What was the reason for disallowing you to use WP:TW? — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I got into a content dispute with User:Betacommand and used TWINKLE to revert him a couple times. Which was wrong, I let my temper get the best of me, I paid the price for it by losing TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:17 " I believe "I...[w]hich was wrong" and "I let my temper get the best of me" and "I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had)" is probative and speaks to a pattern of behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinityAsianCoed (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not even for sure how to respond to this because I cannot seem to follow it. I do not believe you are assuming good faith towards the comments I left at your talk page, in regards towards your conduct here. I do believe, however, that TrinityAsianCoed is a single purpose account whose sole agenda is to either defame or otherwise mark the actions and comments of NeutralHomer, per this and this. Please don't insert off-topic commentary in other threads. seicer | talk | contribs 07:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC) If I didn't have to complain about someone's bad behavior (someone who according to his own words above lets his temper get the best of him and violate rules applying to editors) I would never have created an account. But you have to have an account to complain. What is your interest in this? Do you have skin in the game? Because I do not have answers to those questions, it would be irrational to assume anything in regard to your comments. If you can't follow what NeutralHomer wrote (the quoted material is from him further down on this page, as I said (please try to follow along)) that is not my problem, that is a reading problem on your end. To spell it out, the overzealous editor named NeutralHomer apparently has a history of problems with following the rules. And who are you and what is your interest in this? Are you perhaps a NeutralHomer sockpuppet? Taking offense at people who disagree with you isn't really a good way to encourage discussion and neither is accusing a longterm editor like Seicer of being a sockpuppet. For some friendly advice, I'd stop making accusations like that if I were you, and you really want to discuss the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not taking offense, that's your incorrect interpretation. I give "longterm editor" the same creedence I give "Senior Member" on www.usasexguide.info, in other words, none, since this person just popped up for no apparent reason. And I ask you the same sockpuppet question. What say you? A question is not an accusation. Thanks for the advice, Friend-o. "Taking offense at people who disagree with you isn't really a good way to encourage discussion" Perhaps you could mention that to NeutralHomer. Please read WP:TALK to learn how to respond to comments. It's almost impossible to follow what you're saying and when. Please also read WP:SIGN to learn how to sign your posts. // roux   08:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC) NeutralHomer (hereinafter "He" or "he" or "him" or "his" as needed) has a unique take on vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." I'm guessing that his deletion of the entire Discussion page would qualify as "page-blanking." Now here is a demonstration of how NeutralHomer does not accurately perceive things: "A Note About ANI Post It appears that User:TrinityAsianCoed thinks that this message from you is actually from me, according to this message on ANI. He added some other stuff after that post but I am not going to give him a response. That is what he wants and he ain't getting it, but since your name is being dragged around and sockpuppetry is being accused, I thought you should know about it. Take Care and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:09 Bah, I just got done reading the post and was left scratching my head too! Have a festive Festivus! seicer | talk | contribs 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Give me a good laugh as well. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:11 This new post from User:TrinityAsianCoed says specifically "Are you perhaps a NeutralHomer sockpuppet?". I don't think we are socks....are we? *shifty eyes* *dramatic music* I will let you handle that one, I have no intention of answering any of his "concerns". Still funny though. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 08:13 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seicer" " No, I didn't think it was from you, but the sock puppetry accusation is obligatory since seicer popped up with no prior history in this discussion. I notice that you, NeutralHomer, made 4 edits in 4 minutes on November 29, 2008 to the TV3 Winchester page. That speaks to your obsessiveness. I make no allowances.

User:Tmatsu

Could an admin please have a look through this guy's contributions? All of his contributions appear to be entirely in Japanese, and consist of minor variations of a poem in blank verse that is posted under the names of various female Japanese media personalities. I'm sending all of his work through AfD, as I don't believe it meets any speedy criterion, but he's creating them as fast as I can nominate them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped creating articles now. Still, please have a look at his contribs; I don't know why he's doing what he's doing, but the account appears to be used for an entirely unconstructive purpose. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I analyzed the edits of Tmatsu, and it doesn't seems to be constructive. AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems at Pedophilia article, perhaps

Resolved

 – User indef-blocked by ArbCom

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

This has been referred to is being discussed dealt with by ArbCom. Nothing more to see/say. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (altered by Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC) amended again by LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

---

Extended content

Well I'm about to log off and disappear to drink and eat. However, check out this edit by User:ForesticPig [[18]]. He removed a "sexual violence" infobox with the following edit summary -- "act of pedophilia is definitionally not sexual abuse; don't add tag again." Any Moslems, Jews, atheists, or simply christmas haters out here, please keep an eye on this. Full disclosure -- I earlier today reverted an act of uncontroversial vandalism at this article (an insertion of a photo of santa with a little girl on his lap).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC) !!!! Some people claim feelings of pedophilia are not abusive, but acts of pedophilia definitely are IMHO (though of course some WP:POV pushers on those articles have denied that too.) Sticky Parkin 23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC) A very repellent subject, and I had no idea there were so many articles about it here. ForesticPig seems to be on a crusade of some kind, and unfortunately he has no concept of what "violence" actually consists of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC) That ForesticPig is the sockpuppet of an administrative account is known, that ForesticPig is editing in a disruptive manner is known, the identity of the administrative account is not known, the checkusers have been advised of this situation for sometime as has arbcom, but nothing has been done, which I take to be tacit approval of the status quo and with which I strongly disagree. MBisanz talk 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Whoa, hold on. WP:SOCK says it's okay to use a sock to edit in controversial areas, not as a licence to cause disruption. Do you have proof of this? If so, a CU should be filed and it should be run, and the admin involved should be desysopped. That is an absolute not okay violation of the very policies that an admin is meant to support. Not acceptable in any way. // roux   07:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Roux: The userpage for the pig does indeed say he's an admin who uses this doppelganger to edit in "controversial" areas. I'm not wiki lawyer enough to know how close this is sailing to the wind (nor do i care enough to investigate), but as a layperson i dislike it. If the claim is true it appears to say "don't mess with me, I'm an undercover admin and you can't touch me." If the claim is false, well, it says the same thing, but with no way to determine which is which. I really don't see any compelling reason to ever have a second ID; it's always about avoiding accountability.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I had looked at the diff, not the upage. That is so totally not acceptable. 'Editing in controversial areas' is one thing. 'Pushing a pro-pedophilia POV' is something completely other. I suggest that this sock be sent to the washing machine, permanently, and the admin involved be severely admonished against socking ever again. I am okay with this being done privately, but I would like a CU to confirm that it is indeed the sock of an admin acting disruptively and an uninvolved admin to give it a permanent vacation. // roux   07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Fairly disheartening, but at least it gives us a bunch of articles to watch and revert if things get a little dull. Now, about that Santa Claus photo... they were right to remove that, as the guy is a dirty old man. Just today I heard him call a girl, not once, but three times, a "ho". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC) There has been an edit war going on with that article all day, with multiple users involved, inserting and removing the infobox (which was not there at the beginning of the edit war). Perhaps a period of protection will force everyone onto the talk page? Risker (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC) If they want to have a content dispute, fair enough, but what I object to is his edit summary, I assume he didn't mean to write that way. If he thinks acts of pedophilia are not abusive, he's not someone we want here IMHO, and plenty of people have been blocked for pro paedo-pov pushing, such as some of those involved with the many incarnations of the adult-child sex article. Sticky Parkin 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Wait a second, I see two things wrong with this: 1.) an admin would be familiar enough with policy to know that sock-puppeting to push a pov is out of line and also that a checkuser would most likely lead right back to the main account, and 2.) why would he advertise that he's an admin socking? If he's really an admin that would be incredibly stupid, whereas if he's not really an admin he might see it as giving him credence, even a permission of sorts to behave badly. The TL:DR of this is, what proof do we really have that this guy is the bad hand of an admin account and not just your garden variety troll who realized that he could forstall getting the ban-hammer by masquerading as an admin? (I read his userpage and it says that his identity has been confirmed by another admin but neglects to mention which admin this is) Either way, the behavior is inexcusable and the account needs a block. If he's an admin, it will probably force his hand and if he's not... have we really lost anything? Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to go propose Everybody Lies as a new policy. l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC) See here for the message I left on his talk page. I'm going to bed now, I'll check in on this when I wake up. l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) He's claiming (sort of [19]) to be an admin, as a way of intimidating others. Ignore that claim, and nullify his edits as needed. He either has no clue about what "violence" means, or else just plain doesn't care. Either way, he's pushing a pro-pedophile agenda. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC) He's refusing to reveal himself to another admin below, as copied from his talk page. There might very well be a good reason for his total secrecy, but this makes me very nervous. It's almost the equivalent of using admin status as a legal threat. It's a posting that has the effect of giving more weight to an opinion, and discourage dissent. Dayewalker (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Again, I have repeatedly offered to withdraw the comment about adminship, and this has never been taken up. The original purpose of the comment was to assert good-faith in the event of me being questioned in relation to the (valid) unidirectionality of my editing pattern and related issues. The only intimidatory behaviour here is that of editors who would rather operate from their preconcieved bias than work with me. forestPIG(grunt) 10:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) And my identity has been disclosed to a trusted admin, as shown in my comment below. The sexual violence edit will be reverted by multiple editors over the coming months, as *philia is not a form of violence. What understanding do you have of the clinical writings regarding pedophilia? forestPIG(grunt) 10:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Sexual activity against children is a form of violence. If you don't understand that, you have no business going anywhere near those articles. Nor children, for that matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC) "Pedophilia", as demonstrated by the wikipedia article on the subject is not "Sexual activity against children". Child sexual abuse is the clinical term that involves both violent (minority) and nonviolent (majority) sexual activity between adults and minors. Conflating pedophilic feelings with sexual activity effectively rules out the possibility of individuals with such feelings not acting, and is therefore a dangerous idea and a discredited and fringe one at that. Stating that Child sexual abuse is a form of violence effectively disqualifies the vast majority of CSA from the concept, thus undermining the prevalence of Child grooming etc as a precedent to abuse. This is also a fringe, discredited theory opposed by a vast consensus of CSA theorists, anthropologists and survivors groups. Please do your studies before making these snide ad-hominem attacks again. forestPIG(grunt) 11:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Don't lecture me about "studies". Sexual activity towards children is violence. If you don't understand that, then you are part of the problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Reply from ForesticPig Copied from my Talk page: There is nothing such as an "act of pedophilia". My edit summary was a slightly (but badly) modified cut and paste intended to expose the absurdity of labeling pedophilia as a behaviour at all [One diagnostic system uses behaviour (not necessarily violent) as a potential indicator of pedophilia]. forestPIG(grunt) 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Thus, whether this has any bearing on my editing or not, I do not believe that this "act[sic] of pedophilia" (Child sexual abuse) is a non-abusive act. However, I am among many other editors who believe that the encyclopedia is showing an ethnocentric/psychiatric realist and even revsionist bias in some areas. You are not going to rid this encyclopedia of the counter-lobby, as the professional writings (if you care to read them) would tend to confirm my contention, and we already have policy (WP:NPOV) in place to legitimise such an editing pattern. This has been discussed before, and demonstrated by another administrator [20]. I will mention again that I am not willing to expose my other identity (WP:SOCK#LEGIT) as this would defeat the purpose of [my] account. I have repeatedly offered to remove this disclosure from my page, only to find that other users are more concerned with attacking me than working with me to modify my account into something they feel comfortable with. forestPIG(grunt) 09:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I do frequently gravitate towards controversial articles which lack objectivity, as this focus is central to an account such as mine. Naturally, this leads me to sexology articles that are falling prey to misconceptions, endorsement of media hysteria and the agendas of editors who have a vested interest in maintaining often esoteric and unsupported theoretical foundations for their own personal gain. One recent example of these misconceptions was the insertion of the Sexual Violence infobox into the leads of articles on *philia (a patent and self-explanatory absurdity) and articles on forms of Child sexual abuse, which gives credence to the fringe/discredited and dangerous notion that such abuse tends to be violent, as opposed to being related to sociological models such as rationalisation or Child grooming. Lastly, it should be mentioned that the unidirectional NPOVing of articles that contain these misconceptions and claims-to-objectivity based on subjective, inconclusive or otherwise insufficient sources does not equate to a "pro-pedophilia" point of view. Other editors are going to have to produce diffs that demonstrate the integrity of their claims against me. forestPIG(grunt) 09:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Motive and benefits The motive for establishing this account (and the benefits of such accounts for the encyclopedia) have been explained here. forestPIG(grunt) 10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Rather than get involved in the principles here, I would just like to add that peodophilia is not violence, in the same way that hate is not violence. They both usually cause violence though.--16:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Your motive is to conceal your other identity. The rest is window-dressing/obfuscation. There is no compelling reason that you (whoever "you" are) should be allowed to operate under different rules than the rest of us. If you believe you're making constructive, useful edits, why not stand up and be counted for them behind one unifed account (the admin one) instead of hiding in the shadows? Oh, because you fear potential blowback from other editors... well, i occsionally edit controversial articles. Can I make a sock account so I, too, can make my important, constructive edits to controversial topics without fear of blowback or accountability? Can i have one of your "get out of socking free" cards? Can everybody else? I know there are admins that feel passionately about scientology, pseudo-science, pro-pedophilia pushers, etc... Are they allowed socks when they edit in "controversial areas?" What's your argument for why you are owed a privilege the rest of us peons would be blocked for? If anyone is listening, I think this is illogical and bad for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I probably shouldn't post again, but i read that link to your special pleading about why NOT allowing you to sock would have a chilling effect on Wikipedia and hurt the project because of, you know, all the great work you get done by skulking in the shadows (without the courage to use your real wiki identity) and preventing too much anti-pedophilia slant from getting into articles about sex and kids. Wow.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC) As already explained, my account is legitimate under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I am not concerned with escaping accountability on wiki, as explained numerous times before. There are legitimate personal integrity, safety and anonymity reasons for running an account such as this, and they apply to any editor. Considering the untamed hysteria and tendency towards personal attacks (as demonstrated above) that runs through the subjects I edit on, an account such as ForesticPig has significant potential to increase objectivity in editing controversial articles. forestPIG(grunt) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Arbcom are looking into this (now). Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) I seem to recall that all paedophile related editing issues are to be passed (uncommented, I think) to ArbCom. Can we then mark this as resolved, and collapse the entire discourse? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Please do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Monobook Page UnBlock Request/TWINKLE Request

Resolved

 – Access to Twinkle restored. Inappropriate use of it will result in permanent removal of the tool. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple minutes ago User:Word73 (a sock of blocked User:Dingbat2007) vandalized the WHAG-TV page (see here). Normally I could easily revert this kind of vandalism but without a tool, like TWINKLE, to do so, it is virtually impossible to revert multiple edits like those. I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again and will not use it against BetaCommand (as I previously had) on in content disputes. But as an editor, I am at a disadvantage to the vandals when I can't properly revert. I ask that I be given a second chance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40

You don't need a tool to revert multiple edits of this type. Simply go to the version before the edits [21] and click "edit this page" - you can then save as the current version the last good version before the vandalism. Exxolon (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally I get the "this edit can't happen because of" (insert reason here). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:52

Are you trying to 'undo' edits? You may get the 'conflicting intermediate edits' warning in that case. However you should always be able to revert back to good versions by visiting them in the history, then clicking edit and saving that page which makes it the new current version. Exxolon (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to undo edits, by reverting vandalism. In the edit in question above, I copied the entire page (before the vandalism) and pasted it over the vandalized page. Not the best way, but it got the job done. But when a vandal is hitting many pages like User:Dingbat2007 does, it is difficult to use that approach. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 03:14

I'm not privy to why your Twinkle priviliges were revoked so will not comment on this. However since these edits can be undone without the tool (albeit not as easily or quickly) it's unlikely your request for re-instatement will be granted. Exxolon (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I don't think it will either....but I thought I would give it a shot. If it doesn't, no harm in trying. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 03:21

What was the reason for disallowing you to use WP:TW? — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I got into a content dispute with User:Betacommand and used TWINKLE to revert him a couple times. Which was wrong, I let my temper get the best of me, I paid the price for it by losing TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:17

Note: I have informed User:Rjd0060 about this, as he protected your monobook.js back then. — Aitias // discussion 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I won't hold my breath in a quick response from User:Rjd0060, it be Christmas Eve and all :)...but I don't mind you letting him know. Take Care and Merry Christmas to you...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:29

Your ability to use Twinkle was removed nearly two months ago (see the relevant discussion here). I'd be fine with removing the restriction assuming you agree to not use Twinkle to revert anything except for blatant vandalism, as outlined here. I think this is fair. Sort of an unofficial "probation" with twinkle use. Thoughts from anybody else? I'll also note that I wasn't involved in the discussion to remove Twinkle from you - I only protected your monobook and prevented you from being able to use it via Special:Preferences. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. — Aitias // discussion 04:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've had a few more minutes to look at this, it would seem that this wasn't the first time that you lost Twinkle. It happened a couple more times prior to that, as evident from your deleted monobook.js revisions. This of course makes me more hesitant, however, it was nearly a year since the last time you had it removed. Are you willing to agree that if any administrator feels that you've inappropriately used it again, that you should lose Twinkle access for an extended period of time? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response, was raiding the Christmas cookies. I would be fine with that and would do my very best to only use it for vandalism and only vandalism and not for disputes of any kind. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 05:39

I would support this, if 'should lose Twinkle access for an extended period of time' is changed to 'permanently,' given the number of chances that have already been given. // roux   07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cool with that as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 07:56

Per apparent consensus here I have just Unprotected your monobook.js. — Aitias // discussion 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I'm marking this as resolved. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging user pages G11

Looks like User:Calton has G11 tagged multiple user pages. I'm uncomfortable speedily deleting a bunch of content from user space under WP:UP#NOT #6, even though a cursory inspection shows that most would be eligible for G11 or G7 if in mainspace. Am I being overly cautious? Jclemens (talk)

• Did a spot check and each one seemed good to go. Remember, G11 is for everywhere. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• From the looks of the tagged pages, it appears as if a lot of garage bands have mistaken Wikipedia for MySpace. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need another CSD? {{db-u4}} or {{db-yamb}} (Yet Another Myspace Band)? ;)// roux   06:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From personal experience, I can say that usually Calton is correct about these things. A lot of people come to Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising their non-notable companies/bands/myspace, and Calton is useful at helping us find these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you need a good chuckle, take a look at WP:GARAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted about 60-70% of them and noindexed/{{userpage}}'d the rest. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerned about unresponsive admin and mass deletions

Moved to WP:AN. There's absolutely no urgency here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Abusive use of talk page

User:RamboKadyrov has been banned as a confirmed sock of User:HanzoHattori, and is using the talk page User talk:RamboKadyrov for yet more foul-mouthed tirades (something which was instrumental in the banning of HH). Shouldn't this talk page be locked? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian irredentism everywhere

Resolved

 – Nationalistic editor complaining about nationalism other than his own; subsequently blocked for 3 weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How many times should I complain abut this problem? How many times? How many times wikipedia administrators will CONNIVE or at least IGNORE Persian irredentism destroying the historical articles? I have complained about the issue many many times at different levels, in different places here in wikipedia. But nothing happened. "THEY" continue their plan. But nothing definitely nothing has been done against this PROBLEM.

Nevertheless, I will report the problem here once more.

Extended content

Methodology of Persian Irredentism Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. And without any discussion or any kind of action in book, they just BLANK it and write "Persian". They are like as if in some kind of viral illness. They do not respect anyone here. They don't care if that "idedntity" (Turkish) is referenced or not. Even though you reference with multiple academic, peer reviewed sources, they just BLANK it. And write Persian. They change other words in terms of Persian point of view such as city names, spelling of the person names, etc. Without contributing anything just BLANK the idedntity of the people and places and MAKE IT PERSSIAN. 1. They search the article. if they can (this is the most of cases) they just swap "Turkish" with "Persian". 2. If they can't accomplish "Persian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Persianated". 3. If they can't accomplish "Persianated" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Iranian". 4. If they can't accomplish "Iranian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Shi'ite". 5. If they can't accomplish "Shi'ite" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Khorasanian". 6. If they can't accomplish "Khorasanian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Transoxianan". 7. If they can't accomplish "Transoxianan" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Timurid". 8. If they can't accomplish "Timurid" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Asian" or "Central Asian". 9. If they can't accomplish "Asian" or "Central Asian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "... disputed. Persian or ...". 10. If they can't accomplish "... disputed. Persian or ..." thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Turkic". For them, It's not important if it's Persiaan or Persianated, or IRanian or whatever. It's just removing the word "Turk" from the article. Since Iran was administered by Turks for a thousand of years by Turks, notably Great Seljuq Empire, Atabeqs, Qajars, Akkoyunlular, etc. They have a hatered against Turks and try to revenge in that way. Just a few minitues ago an obviously Persian wiki user wrote down on my talk page that there is no such a thing called "Turkish Civilisation"! Sources of Persian Irredentism They have a set of books to use for referencing their "Persianating" actions: Books from Columbia University Press Encyclopedia Iranica ( a Columbia University project) Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge University Press) You can find millions of references to these sources. Obviously those three sources are BIASED and most probably commisioned to those universities by Iran nationalists for a good prise. What is the Result Result of this "plan" is that many notably personalities of Turkish history are now not Turkish. Most of them are PErsian, IRanian, etc. Isn't there any Turkish man on the history? am I the only Turk on the earth since the beginning of times? No! It's not only personalities. Also empires, states, beyliks, geographical places.... All now gone. We have a Persian world from Marathron to Yellow Sea. We have Persian history from Mete to Mustafa Kemal. All not Turkish. All are PErsian. LEt the universe be PERSIAN! A public awareness about the "condition of" English wikipedia will end the interest of millions of people in wikipedia. This Persian irredentism is threatening the legitimacy of entire encyclopedia. Someone should be responsible for this. Infected Articles Al-Taftazani (They have already noticed this.) Abu Mansur Al Maturidi Ulugh Beg Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni Al-Farabi Sebük Tigin Alp Tigin Toğrül Great Seljuq Empire Khwarezmian Empire Seljuq dynasty Oghuz Turks Kara-Khanid Khanate Atabeg Atabegs of Azerbaijan Sultanate of Rûm Danishmends Ghaznavid Empire i can write down a hundered. What is the Quid Pro Quo I am not threatening, try to understand me, but if wikipedia administrators go on IGNORING Persian irredentism, Turkish people (however you define it) and also Tajiks, peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan, will start perceiving that wikipedia has a secret agenda. A secret deal with Iran Secret Service or any other agents working for Persian Propaganda. Is wikipedia for everyone but Turks? Is wikipedia the bakyard garden of Persians? Decide. --Polysynaptic (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What is all of this nonsense? If there actually is an issue here, is there anyway you can sum it up in an intelligible manner without random capitalization and ranting? John Reaves 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you condense your complaint in a few paragraphs? What administrator intervention is required here? Is this a content dispute that requires dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious once you display it like this...

Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. They just BLANK it and write "Persian".

He's auditioning to be the next Time Cube guy, spouting wisdom like a never-ending upside-down waterfall.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you... l'aquatique |✡| talk 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's complaining about a concerted effort to expunge the descriptor "Turk", "Turkish" from articles by a group of anti-turk POV editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Exxolon is correct. I would point the OP in the direction of Wikipedia's reminder to assume good faith about other editors. If you have concerns, let's discuss them calmly and rationally. Maybe there is something we can do to help. TN‑X-Man 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wall. Of. Text. Was gonna TL:DR this, but I read it. I wish I'd TL:DR'ed this. Paranoia strikes deep, I guess. nothing to see here, but I know where the first block should go when it's time to hand them out. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Polysynaptic's conduct

He is a highly problematic user and unfortunately removes sources from the top universities in the world, sources that meet WP:RS, replacing them many times with non-English nationalist fringe sources that do not meet WP:RS. He has also been blocked once for nationalistic attacks for one week [22][23], and he continues to make personal attacks with racist overtones:[24]

Note the comment came after I challenged his source: [25]. His response to a source from Cambridge University which challegned his fringe source was: "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap."!!

He was blocked once for these type of edits for one week:[26]. Basically the user summarized it well, he thinks Cambridge University and Columbia University are bought out by “Iranian nationalists” and are "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap"(quoting his own word)! and that he can use non-English and homegrown fringe sources(that do not meet WP:RS ) to replace them. This is not a dispute of the article, but one can not even have a conductive atmosphere with such a conduct. And if other users use sources published by Cambridge University and Columbia University from the top experts in the world, then they should be deleted and stopped. Although he himself summarizes it well: You can find millions of references to these sources. (mentioning cambridge and columbia universities), not understanding that the reference to such sources rather than nationalist rants as above are due to their credibility. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Blocked for 3 weeks. The "mentally damaged Persians" comment was particularly nasty. Moreschi (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Q: What is one clue that an editor is a kook?

A: Claiming that publication by Columbia University Press & Cambridge University Press makes a book unreliable. (Not that they haven't published unreliable books, but unless otherwise shown it's a safe bet that a book they publish is a reliable source.) Other publishers this applies to include Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, University of Chicago Press -- practically any university or college with a national or international reputation for excellence. YMMV. -- llywrch (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, all around! ... well, not him, but yeah, the reast of everyone. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why we need this guy back when he makes edits like this [27]? He doesn't even understand the scholarly term "Turkic". Plus he changed the common English spelling of Samarkand to "Semerkand" [28]. If he behaves like this on his return he should be given a permanent holiday from Wikipedia.en. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No arguments with that last sentence. He'll go if he fools around any more. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The user (and any user) should be banned for racist rants. But okay, what I found out was somewhat worst. I obtained one of the sources he used and it did not have claimed info. The user alleged something in the source [29] that did not exist. I'll be happy to provide scanned copies.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do. If we really have source falsification here that merits an instant permaban. Moreschi (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I emailed the evidence to you. You can decide.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Username: Sven70, IP address: 219.70.20.52, Block ID: 38095

Resolved

 – Nothing we can do about something that happens on another project. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ivbeen blokdINDEFINATELY onWktnry[herzWp ino-buticandoNOTHINGovertheranimore,notevenEDITINMYTALKPAGEoread other'sposts orcontact any1!!

IV1.nevabeenwarnd2didnotdisrupt,butafirstimeuser[a.here,plc myuser pg]3nocommun.,letalone conflictresolution occured-plluk in2this--Sven70 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

timedurationvblok'dbe said 2upplDONTALKonWiktnry 3ONCEBLOKD,the recours-links'ltel1:urblokd[nemailinks dontshow,abug? 4plfokesonCONTENT,doPARTSEVSPEECHasanauxiliary[aswelaslinguistik stuf-justdontletitblokLAYMENPPL'SUSEpl 5ithought'bout quitin'2,butWktnry is2NEEDED4that[esp w/chin,vvhard2findcoloquialisms:( 6canupl nothavaMODICUMEVPATIENSpl? 7notmorethan1/7'dbe avandal,whypourout dababy w/dabathin'water??uplrealineedmorecontributions,fe onli800Thaiwordsthere,canotbe!{nifthedef.is'broken'sb els'lfixit,wotdabigdeal?! 8havupl noempathy4howitfeels2getblokd?[iltelu-aslapin1sface-igivmyTIMEnEXPERIENS4FREE,nluk athe apreciation:( 9emailda gen.Wktnaryakount[onliresoursleft]-noreply,realyratherude.. 10imspendin'dalil'typinreserv ivleftinmearms onthis,'dinotbe beta givin'inMandarintermsthisvmoment?? idont cu assili/mean/gossipi/hevi'n'hi-handed asmani[inspaitev altheyno,sadbutso] onWktnry,nhopesthCONSTRUCTIVkumsoutevit-en.wktnry needsit!--S ： —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please rewrite the above in English and maybe we can help you out. Wow. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:25

He's been blocked indef on wiktionary. Can't imagine why. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, stupidity is a blockable offense there. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the account block log. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You got that from that? Nicely done, I had nothing. Nothing we can do for him here, is there? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 04:40

hsbeen blokdINDEFINATELY onWkpdia also. Hey, I'm starting to get it. It's kind of a mixture of English and Klingon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Without the English. Or, for that matter, the Klingon. LISP might be closer. --Rodhullandemu 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

kmon urjs nhevi'n'hi-handedINSENSITIVE pwrtrpnppl, uwnt gvehim ne SLACK! (I don't know what the worst part is - his writing, or the fact that I spent any time trying to decipher it.) Hermione1980 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of medical and legitimate reasons that the user could be writing like that, so I would suggest that mocking the user is completely out of order. — neuro^(talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, on his user page, he explains that he suffers from RSI and so writes in a form of shorthand to avoid typing too much. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good--in fact, I also suffer from RSI(probably because I'm so damn verbose)--but one of the main tenets of communication is that you have to communicate using a language that ALL parties understand. That message--written as it was for whatever reason--unfortunately is illegible to all but the most-persistent reader. Normally I do try to fit that description, but I've just been Christmassed within an inch of my life and must spend several hours Wikipediating to recover. Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to hack it, I don't know. GJC 04:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon reverting my comments on talk pages

Hi, I need help for dealing with KoshVorlon. He insists on removing my comments from Dwight Lauderdale talk page [30] [31] [32], using abusive edit summaries. He also reverted me on the article with such as hostile edit summaries [33] [34] [35] (and I'm avoiding joining this edit war) and had left an aggressive message on my talk page [36].

Even after I tried to communicate with him he posted on more aggressive message to my talk[37]. --Damiens.rf 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have had a stern word with him on his talk page. If he does it again I suggest a block. Really, his conduct here was just ridiculous.--Patton123 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Bstone (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, your'e supposed to alert the other party if you post an incident... Regardless, Damiens.rf has repeatedly trolled the article. His first act was to stubby the article NPOV, V, Weasel Words, Reliable source when, in fact, reliable sources were in the article, ever claim was sourced to the article it came from by number, and each number when to a reference at the bottom of the article. I placed a note on his page asking to refrain from blanking the page as that's vandalism, instead I asked him to describe any problem he had with the article so that it could be directed, [but firmly]. He reponded with long list of problems and I answered point by point (again, nearly all complaints were baseless)

I then asked for editorial assistance recieved it from BradV he and a few others changed the article and made it more ship shape and in-line with wiki's guidelines. Everything was pretty smooth up untill I removed the tag on the article stating what problems existed a note that this could be reverted if it was disagreed with. Damiens came right back and inserted some of the same claims as before this as OR when it was already referenced and language directly from the article this time stating it was improper language.

Again, these items are all referenced. During the article re-build, spearheaded by BradV, Damiens did nothing. Bottom line, he's trolling the article, and yes, I got upset, and yes, I told him to stay off the page. Yes it was incivil, and yes I know my reputation is shit here right now (with reason) However, if you have a need to warm me, then you need to do the same for Damiens as well.

Thank you

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this an encyclopedic article. Much of the sources are unreliable and there's a whole section there that shouldn't appear in any article – "Things you may not know about Dwight Lauderdale". Daniel took out most of the bad content. After you reverted his removal of most of the articles content – though some of it was, admitedly, ok – he took it to the talk page. He provided a long list of things he thought were wrong with the article and wanted to fix them, but you labelled him a troll and ignored [38]. After that you just reverted every attempt at communication he made. You eventually gave him a rather incivil warning on his own talk page. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.--Patton123 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Patton, that's not accurate. He posted a list of things wrong with the article and I responded point by point [39]. Both there and on his talk page. He did not respond further, the editorial assistance that I recieved addressed the real issues of the article (with no response either on my talk page or on the article's talk page from damien. That's why they were reverted the first time. Yes, I reverte him again because the article was cleaned up and the complaints were not valid.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Patton, NONE of the sources are un-reliable. Local newspapers,(Not tabloids) local news websites, even an interview with him on a website sponsored by a reputable newspaper association are reliable. There were no blogs, no youtube, no myspace junk. SO, kindly explain what you belive was un-reliable there ? Yes, the original article had a broken link (was active but no longer is, and that got fixed!) The "Things you might not know about Dwight" was per WP:IAR. It did get removed per consensus and it never got reverted. BTW - he made no attempt to communicate except to restore his original gripe list Please go back and look at the history on that page, his page and mine. You're pretty innacurate here

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses like "BULL #!@&!@%^#&!@^%&#^@!@&#%&!@%#&!@^%#&!@^% " and "READ THE DAMN REFERENCES" are hardly civil.--Patton123 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

.....You DID see that I went back and changed that to with an edit summary "Reverting my stupditiy" in like 10 seconds, right ? (Just so were totally clear, that edit DID happen, and NO it was not civil, that;s why I reverted it.) BTW - you never answered the question about what was un-reliable.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{resolved}}, seems a little premature. — neuro^(talk) 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done. The {{resolved}} template was actually added by KoshVorlon himself [40]. --Damiens.rf 06:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my other reason. :) — neuro^(talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some help is still needed here. I'm being "invited" to edit war on Dwight Lauderdale (the article KoshVorlon believes he owns). He keeps reverting any edit I do to this article with abusive edit summaries (like calling my work "bullshit"[41] and "DISRUPTIVE"[42]) and he just posted one more aggressive message on my talk page [43]. --Damiens.rf 14:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn! I just spit up my coffee!! You're a funny guy Damiens. I templated your page for wrecking the article again. I added no additional text into that template, just presented it as it was.

— Kosh^jumpgate 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
_{PS: Crying to AI everytime you get reverted doesn't help, you know that, don't you ?}

Anime/MGM vandal back yet again

The user from the 118.137.x.x range who adds misinformation to anime and movie studio articles is back again, this time on another range of IPs, this time striking from multiple IPs in a few hours. Of the ones I've collected so far:

• 125.161.69.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.66.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.51.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.58.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All four of these IPs sit on the range 125.161.64.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) or 125.161.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). This user has previously vandalized from these ranges:

• 118.137.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (which was blocked for three months by User:Nihonjoe back in October)
• 125.160.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (which hasn't been blocked despite the user editing from multiple IPs on this range)

This user is really persistent, as there has been at least three previous AN/I reports about this user - see here, here and here. His editing pattern is to strike multiple articles in a short time frame, lie low for about a week or so, then do it again frm a different IP on the same range. Common targets include Sunrise (company), TMS Entertainment, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Bandai and List of MGM Television shows. It's been really hard to keep track of this user thanks to him hopping of various dynamic IPs on different ranges, so I'd really like to request some administrator assistance to help deal with this user. (Longer) blocks of the various ranges he edits on (all of which trace back to an Indonesian ISP), long-term semi-protection of his common targets (as this user pops up each week under a new dynamic IP to do his damage again, so week or even one month long protection isn't going to deter him) - please, do anything to slow him down as his constant drive-by editing is driving me up the wall. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 07:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First things first, please don't allow this vandal to irritate you. I have blocked the specific accounts given above, but would need more information regarding range blocks or article semi-protection regarding the number of other ip address editors may be effected. I have previously dealt with the "Disney vandal", and if it helps you can report any bad edit directly to my talkpage as well as AIV (mention "Disney vandal") for swifter response, as well as here. If there are any other admins familiar with or wanting to help combat this particular vandal, it may be useful if they could make themselves known so this and other editors know who to nudge when required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal inserting Nazi racism into templates

69.64.32.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and my talk page, which now needs to be deleted to remove it from the history. 98.210.221.180 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note that the IP used is from a range 69.64.32.0/19 assigned to a hosting company, so I've applied a long-term block to this /32. Could this be from a proxy service, as the vandal's edit comments claim? Can someone investigate? -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, /32 is effectively 1 IP right?... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • One IP address, yes. ("IP" stands for Internet Protocol.) And that's only because the Wikimedia Foundation's servers don't speak IPv6. ☺ (MediaWiki speaks it. The problem is the squid caches, apparently) Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for a couple of days now (so it is not just someone grumpy about getting a lump of coal in their stocking). Most of the IPs used have been open proxies. See the thread on AN for more info. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OUTING by User:Avraham

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

this ... is a dead parrot

---

Resolved

 – I know it's the pantomime season, but this is nonsense --Rodhullandemu 17:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am writing here as User:Avraham has violated WP:OUTING against me. In this comment Avraham uses my private name. I have never posted this on Wikipedia. WP:OUTING says,

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves.

(emphasis mine)

I am rather upset about this and I ask that the community please- quickly- remedy this. Can someone with oversight ability please remove this post? I also ask that Avraham be severely reprimanded. Bstone (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is easy enough to request an edit be oversighted. It is my finding that the statement by Avraham was not intended to harass you, per assumption of good faith, given that there is no evidence presented which would overcome that assumption. The fact that you come here and draw attention to this incident rather than quetly requesting oversight suggests that your purpose is not to hide the information, but rather to put Avraham into some difficulties. If you'd like to request oversight, visit Wikipedia:Oversight and follow the directions, and blank this thread to protect your privacy. Further hondling here will indicate that you do not desire oversight.Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're turning this against me now? Not at all. I would like that edit oversighted with all possible speed. I would also like the community to discuss what to do about this utter violation of my privacy rights. Bstone (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another ridiculous overreaction by Bstone. Like Jehochman said, now we all know your name. If you were indeed so adamant about keeping this private, you would not have stormed in here, posted the diff, and called for his head. Tan | 39 17:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this is being turned against me instead of dealing with the utterly clear violation in policy? Bstone (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(2ec) That is part of the e-mail address listed on your user page. WODUP 17:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when does someone's email address indicate their name? Bstone (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Avraham made a lucky guess and happended to get it right? You have nothing to complain about. --Rodhullandemu 17:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be marked resolved. There is zero basis for complaint by bstone. Tan | 39 17:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas, knock it off. You're baiting now. Baiting redacted, thanks. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's like me listing my e-mail address as william45@example.org and getting upset when someone calls me William. Your username is Bstone, you list your name as Stone, and your first name was in the e-mail address that was listed. It's not that difficult. And for anyone who reports an attempted outing, please report it as such :an attempted outing. You don't want to let them know that they're right, do you? WODUP 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I said my name was Stone. It's a nickname of mine that almost all my friends use. Thus I decided to use it here. Why would Avraham use another name than the one I posted? Bstone (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You also posted your email address. Most people--especially @mac--use some variation of either firstname or lastname as their email address. Since you give your username here as bstone, long internet convention uses InitialLastname as a construction, and the proper name given in the email address that you yourself posted starts with a b, it hardly takes a towering intellect to put two and two together and get four. You can't snap on someone for WP:OUTING when you posted the information yourself. // roux   18:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This has gone far enough here. Before you restore the {{unresolved}}-template, rest assured that I am completely unbiased, I did not even know you until this post. That said, there is absolutely nothing that can be done here and no policy forbids lucky guesses by other users. IF you want those edits gone, WP:Oversight is the correct venue. Regards SoWhy 18:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know these people, don't have a dog in this fight, but had i an interest in bstone before and visited his userpag, my assumption would have been that email address was his first name. I would have further assumed he wasn't particularly sensitive about protecting his anon status, given he was posting his email for the whole world to see. Doesn't look like an "attempted outing" to me, and the claim that he never used his first name on wikipedia is kind of debatable, given his old userpage.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your {{unresolved}} above, I think I'm an unbiased admin. Really, I had already figured out which revisions of the talk page I would have to delete, how I would refactor Avraham's statement to exclude the name, and determined that all subsequent comments were signed, so there would be no problems there. Then I went to your userpage to see if you have ever posted it on Wikipedia, and you have. I don't mind deleting all revisions of your userpage and restoring only the most recent version to hide that information, and I'm not opposed to the deletion of the revisions from the talk page, but no outing has occurred. WODUP 18:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. bstone, does this essentially resolve the actual privacy issue? The consensus right now seems to be that Avruch's edit was not outing. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Users have a right to expect to be addressed by their user name. They have a right to expect that other people do not address them by their first name, or real name, or any other name unless they are given permission. Wikipedia is also not a guessing game of real names based on email addresses, screen names, or other such information. Avraham should know this, and should know better. There is nothing serious to cause any worry right now, and hopefully this will be oversited before this mess is expounded. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I got his name from his e-mail address on his page which he subsequently removed. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABstone&diff=260066774&oldid=259311553>. It isn't outing to use information that is on a user page, last I checked . -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Due to the utter disrespect, lack of tact and civility I have decided to retire from the project. You can read more on my userpage. Good bye. Bstone (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, you weren't outed. You published the information yourself. Should Avraham have shown more tact? Probably. Were you outed? Absolutely not. Please redact that from your userpage, as it is untrue. // roux   21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, User:Law Lord's "bad manners" comment does seem kind of tame. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, personal attacks are not allowed on userpages. I'm not certain this qualifies as a personal attack, even if the accusation is false. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts? "He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands" (English legal maxim). Let it be, please. --Rodhullandemu 22:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have put it quoting Psalms 24:3–4, but I see your point . If no one else is bothered by it, so be it. Anyway, he does feel hurt and I guess that's his catharsis. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Completed - the edit in question has now been oversighted. Let's call a halt to the drahmaz - Alison ^❤ 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ma'am! -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Userpage Soapbox

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

it has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible…

---

Hello. There is soapboxing on this user page. Please take a look. I've already tried to correct the issue, but I won't revert the partial restoration. I bring it to the community here. Personally, the userpage is not here for this, most especially if it brings other editors into disrepute. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Let's leave this alone, shall we? // roux   23:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See this section above for more information. Hermione1980 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the resolution. If you don't want to be involved in the drama, Roux, don't be involved. As I see it, this userpage is unconstructive to the project and totally unnecessary. Tan | 39 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Find me a better resolution roux. Particularly a consensus that this is or is not an issue. I will not stand while certain editors are directly or indirectly sullied on a public site with only a few minutes of discussion. We are not here to sully any editors good name. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dig in the recent archives for the back-and-forth over User:Law Lord's userpage for an apposite example of the consensus around userpages. Bstone is acting poorly, yes. The misrepresentation of WP:OUTING on his page should be redacted, in my opinion. It's not worth the inevitable drama which will ensue. Enjoy. // roux   23:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no direct personal attack on that page, unless you know the story. Unconstructive? Yes. Worth it to mess with? (sigh) To what end? Hermione1980 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so there's maybe what, ten or twelve of us that know the story? Personal attacks on those editors don't matter? Just because an attack is veiled doesn't make it any less of an attack. As one of the admins who is attacked on that page, I see no reason why Bstone should be allowed to keep his grandstand. Saying something in passing is one thing; making your attack a permanent part of your userpage when you "retire" is another. Tan | 39 23:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially the part where "permanence and retire" is used". I move we redact all negative references to our editors still in good standing form that userpage. The editors whom are referred to did nothing to deserve that. The editor sullying their good name is retired (semi) and the sullied editors are very active. No, this is not correct on an academic project such as this. Let us redact it from this userpage. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why on earth are we still raking over the ashes of a long-dead fire? All that this user complained about was publicly visible on-Wiki, and I see no breach of any policy whatsoever. There was no "outing". If the user wants to continue the drama long beyond what it is worth, that is his affair, but anyone who has seen the facts knows how ludicrous this whole thing is getting. My view is that his userpage comments do him no favours. Anyone is free to differ, of course, but whereas comedy relies on inversion and extension to a large extent, this is jejune, vapid, vacant, pointless, unconstructive, and negative. --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my opinion in case someone wants to close this based on consensus - I consider the user page to be acceptable. — neuro^(talk) 00:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If y'all can just accept the bad faith on that userpage... I'm disappointed. Sometimes it takes effort to clean the cess. But one must first be willing. I'm sorry I did not really find that willingness here. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As the largest target of his ire, personally, I'd like the text removed (at least the part that seems to target me - yes, I'm selfish :( ). Yes, anyone who actually takes the time to look at what happens sees that Bstone's accusations are unfounded, so if there is a way we can link the discussion above to his user page, showing that the accusations are false, I'd appreciate that as well. Otherwise, I guess I'll just have to permalink somewhere to the above discussion and if it is brought up, I can say that Bstone's userpage is an expression of catharsis of some nature, but unfounded, incorrect, and, in my opinion, of poor judgment and taste. -- Avi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My honest impressions are that not only does nobody care, but also that nobody should care. BStone feels slighted and his complaints unanswered; but on that, the facts, and the policies, are against him. His email was on his user page, and you used it to address him personally; I think I've been here long enough to realise there's no breach of protocol in that beyond that if he really didn't want to be addressed in such a manner, he could have told you so privately, and none of this would have happened. However, he falsely assumed that he'd been outed, and as already pointed out, his talk page may be cathartic, but it's also cranking up the drama to a point beyond which it should not reasonably be cranked without looking like a crank. That's his choice. --Rodhullandemu 00:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Outing someone is a serious offence and can get you blocked at the very least. He wasn't outed, so why should we let him make the claim on his userpage? dougweller (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with you. I just don't see anything but drama coming from this. // roux   06:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As I just read it now, it's nothing to flip out about. Certainly nothing to get drastic about. At most, simply approach him with the concern, and that's that. Beam 06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

this is just childish drama. BStone made deduction of his name a challenge an internet savvy 9 year old could deduce. That someone did just that is not somethign to leave Wikipedia over, and we're the worse for that. Should Avraham so casually have dropped the name, other than to be snarky or some such? Dunno. Let's close this out, leave BStone alone to cool off, and go edit something, eh? ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI MFD. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Contributions of Wikipopa; feedback requested

The contributions of Wikipopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also deleted contribs) appear to be limited to creating articles that are bad machine translations of Russian Wikipedia articles, or copyvios. They all need deletion or a total rewrite. He seems to mean well, but he's ignored a request to please stop doing this. I'd appreciate some feedback from other administrator whether such conduct warrants a block.  Sandstein  14:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block's needed just yet--he's only started today. However, if he creates another article in the similar vein, I'd block.Blueboy96 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really guessing here, but I suspect that his English is too poor to realize how bad the translations are. Given that, he may not have understood your request for him to cease creating these pages. I would suggest we attempt to communicate with him in Russian before we consider blocking. CIreland (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No objection to that, but meanwhile he's continuing with Petrenko Vladimir Vladimirovich.  Sandstein  15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If he creates any more articles (esp. ones that could be worthy of inclusion) tell me and I'll clean them up. That said, don't encourage it. — neuro^(talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get a Russian friend of mine to help out, as the translation was so poor that it was partially unintelligible, so I feel I may have misinterpreted some parts. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest informing him about Wikipedia:Translation, so that he can have help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:News4a2#Hounding_by_ZimZalaBim

News4a2 (talk · contribs) is accusing me of hounding. Could someone please assess my edits (mostly my participation at Physician assistant and my revert and discussion at Industrial espionage) and his complaint(s), to perhaps put an end to the issue. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of hounding. Replied on News4a2's talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania

A user changed the intro at the article Transylvania which had been based on the Britannica article without adding new citations. I don't want to edit war over it (as the user reverted me), so I'm asking an administrator to change it back to the wording that is based on the actual reference. The user referred to "common sense" while he changed the Britannica material. Squash Racket (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention. — neuro^(talk) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove my earlier comment as the user made another revert changing the Britannica material without adding reliable citations. Squash Racket (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation

Resolved

 – WP:AN3 is down the hall

// roux   22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Discospinster has reverted my edits more than three times in the following article, despite warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S&action=history

KR, --82.5.174.194 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To add, the proper course of action would be to find someone else to revert the edit(s) if it/they were so wrong, to achieve consensus.--82.5.174.194 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take editwarring reports here. Cheers. // roux   22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Iross1000

I have unblocked Iross1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the user has promised not to repeated the problem edits, the blocking admin, user:Khoikhoi, has not responded to a request after 48 hours, several users in good standing request unblock, and it's the season of goodwill. Posted here for review, normally I would not revoke another admin's block but I don't think this one should be contentious, looking at the talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Knotslanding

Resolved

 – Sock of HeadMouse (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Knotslanding pointing out that his behaviour can not be tolerated. His reaction was to call me “either ways little pimp”. I may highly recommend an indefinite block. — Aitias // discussion 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kralizec! just indefinitely blocked the account as a sockpuppet of User:HeadMouse. I was beginning to wonder that myself, either way (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And his unblock request was declined. seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am kind of embarassed it took me this long to connect the dots. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

His second one is also declined. Now he's threatening to "call Wikipedia". --Smashville^talk 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He can definitely call us. Tell him our number is 1. It might take a while to connect. He should be patient. --Deskana (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have someone to run a quick checkuser? --Smashville^talk 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need, really. — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do, but for what? Doesn't seem to be any point. --Deskana (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

bias

I consider the biography of Andrew Vachss, a living person, to be biased. Vachss is a controversial figure. I have attempted to insert a neutral description of the views of his critics. These have been repeatedly deleted. I am, by the way, a former journalist and am quite certain that the material I have included, although critical of Vachss, is neither libelous nor irrelevant. I would lie the situation reviewed. At the very least, if my actions are truly out of line then I need a better understanding of the Wikipedia policies. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(added section header) He's referring to Andrew Vachss. 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro^(talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227,[44] [45] I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.

Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy[46] when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.

1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:[47]

a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: "Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, 'I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change.'"

Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Wikipedia article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.

b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP:[48] The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: "Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible."

The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV.

2) Deletion of link to personal website: [49]

Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page.

3) Deletion of material on Talk page: [50]

Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Wikipedia to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg, satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.

Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page.[51] I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.

For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not at the moment have as much time as I would like, but appreciate the chance to air my views and sort this matter out.

Starting with:

" Just to clarify (as I don't see any edits with your username on), are you 65.110.137.227? — neuro(talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

No, that is not me. I have made several informal edits to Wikipedia in the past. As this is the first time there has been a controversy surrounding my edits, this is the first time I have felt the need to formally sign up as a Wikipedia editor. I am, however, a former journalist with some experience with libel laws and deny that my edits were libelous, particularly since Vachss is not only a public figure, being both a well-known author and an outspoken advocate of his views, views that are often controversial.

If you are not 65.110.137.227, then why did you claim to be her on Talk:Andrew Vachss?[52] Golemarch (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I, plh25.0, did not knowingly claim to be someone else. I assure you I am not the person you seem to think I am. Nor am I familiar with that person or any actions they may have done. user: plh25.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.227 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez, can I get a witness? Plh25.0 has now provided further proof, not merely that she is in fact 65.110.137.227, but also that she is willing to lie about that fact in order to distance herself from the disruptive activities I detailed above. Plh25.0's AN/I complaint sprouts from animus, after reverts of unsourced, defamatory material the user had repeatedly attempted to add to Andrew Vachss and Talk:Andrew Vachss, in violation of WP:BLP. Lying about her identity on this very page,[53][54] in an attempt to suggest that more than one user objects to the reverts, signals that she seeks to continue the disruptive behaviors I described above. Consequently, I now request that the reviewing admin block Plh25.0/65.110.137.227. Golemarch (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If not a witness, perhaps a higher authority might be useful? Clearly, as I am not "Neuro," Golemarch is somehow confused, dear editor. Furthermore could he or she please explain the relevance of this odd and false assertion and how it relates to the issue of allegations of bias in the article? I think this entire issue distracts from my purpose in being here, which is to provide a more balanced biography of an out-spoken and controversial public figure. As I said, I think it's obvious that through these attacks, Golemarch is clearly trying to stifle debate over the issue of whether or not the biography of this well-known, controversial figure is biased and trying to prevent creation of a more balanced article. This is a violation of both the spirit and intent of wikipedia editing as well as several wikipedia procedures. What I'd like to see is a more balanced, truthful description of Andrew Vachss and his controversial activities including Oprah appearances. Many charge that though the inclusion of disproven phenomena in his books, Vachss has hurt many innocent people. Many charge that his media-grandstanding often is used to advocate policies that actually hurt children and disrupt healthy families. Some charge he bullies his critics and encourages others to do so too. Of course, we all know that unless these allegations can be proven they have no place being included in wikipedia, but a biased article should acknowledge these controversies. I think it's clear that golemarch does not wish these allegations mentioned, much less examined and discussed fairly on the wikipedia page of this celebrity. As stated I am perfectly willing to work carefully within wikipedia guidelines to properly source any and all statements included in the biography of any living person, but do not wish to do so if the carefully done edits will be removed out of hand by persons who wish to stifle debate rather than examine the truth of the issues at hand. plh25.0 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.227 (talk)

Kindly refrain from claiming that I have asserted something I have not, Plh25.0, aka 65.110.137.227. [55] I at no point suggested, and could never, in life, be led to think that you are the excellent Neuro. Above, I have documented your actions in violation of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:SPS. In addition, you lied in this very thread about your identity in an attempt to deny your having performed those disruptive actions.[56] On the basis of this record, I maintain my request that the reviewing admin block Plh25.0/65.110.137.227. Golemarch (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If the edits did not conform to Wikipedia policy then I am quite willing to work with Wikipedia to improve them, just as soon as I have some guarantee that they will not be deleted out of hand by persons who wish to deny that Vachss holds views that are both controversial and disputed by others.

"I performed some of the reverts in question, and append a history of them here. Because Plh25.0 has stated she is also 65.110.137.227,[111] I will refer to actions performed by either user as those of Plh25.0.

Plh25.0's edits to article Andrew Vachss had already been reverted once by Katharineamy when I noted that Plh25.0 had begun restoring the reverted material, and further had added a link to a personal website. Following policies stated in WP:BLP, I immediately deleted the user's material, the link to the personal website, and a comment by the user on Talk:Andrew Vachss. I then placed warnings on the user's talk page. The rationale for each of my actions follows.

1) Deletion of user's material on Main page:[112]

a) Copyright Violation: The following material, which I deleted, was copied by the user in its entirety from http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/vachss-andrew: Although Vachss's novels are praised by fans, critical reviews of his work have been mixed. David Morrell of the Washington Post praised Vachss's writing, "the words leap off the page …, and the style is as clean as haiku." Others credit him with the creation of an original protagonist and supporting cast. Some reviewers, however, criticize Vachss for repetitive plot elements and as lacking character development in the lengthy Burke series. The harshest criticism of his work has come, however, from people who claim Vachss himself is guilty of exploiting children when he makes them the focus of his novels. To these critics, Vachss responded, "I'm curious to know how you could bring about social change without acknowledging the existence of that you wish to change."

This not correct. Although the addition was done quickly, the sentences do not violate copyright law. They were each rewritten before being inserted. A comparison of the original source and the inserted materials will show that although they are quite similar they are not the same.

Additionally, the "enotes" website is itself a questionable source, as it exists as an online compendium without discernible authorship and, even more importantly, without citations for any of its quotations or propositions. The "enotes" website therefore is not verifiable or useful as a citation in a Wikipedia article, although the user cited to it in after adding the above material.

If this is the case, then I am perfectly willing to seek a better source. As stated, I am new to Wikipedia.

" b) Multiple violations of WP:BLP: The following material, which I deleted, is entirely unsourced: Others have criticized Vachss and his work for containing frequent uncritical references to controversial or disproven claims relating to child abuse such as repressed and recovered memories, Satanic ritual abuse and multiple personality disorder. These are presented in an uncritical manner as fact, which critics consider sensationalized and irresponsible."

I am perfectly willing to cite sources for the above. Please note that although the first part of the statement, that some criticize Vachss is unsourced, I am amazed that anyone considers he second part, that Vachss includes these things in his novels, to be the least part controversial. The third part of the statement, that these things are controversial was cited with links to other wikipedia pages where a balanced view of the claims is included.

"The user cites nothing at all in support of the above. In addition, the embedded statements in the above are not truthful. For example, Vachss specifically *critiques* "satanic ritual abuse" in his book Sacrifice (see, eg, pages 204-205) and devotes an entire book, False Allegations, to critiquing the multiple, conflicting theories concerning recovered memories. Finally, the user's edit suggests that multiple personality disorder is a "controversial or disproven claim" that Vachss irresponsibly presents as fact; however, the existence of the disorder, more accurately termed dissociative identity disorder, is fully recognized by the American Psychiatric Association; this fact may be easily confirmed by its description and classification in the DSM-IV."

These statements are simply not correct.

1) In the novel, "Sacrifice," the author presents Satanic Ritual Abuse, a controversial subject questioned by the FBI, as fact but then quibbles over the motivations of those who allegedly performs it.

2) Many people feel that "False Allegations" does not cover these claims in a fair and balanced manner. Many argue it's just another tool that Vachss uses to slam people who disagree with him.

3) Although the DSM-IV does include this disorder, it is still a highly controversial disorder. At best it has been overdiagnosed, at worst it is non-existent.

As this paragraph shows, rather than present the controversies surrounding Vachss and his work in a balanced manner, this page has been edited by persons who wish to deny these controversies exist. Rightly or wrongly, controversies surrounding Vachss do exist. The man is, rightly or wrongly, a celebrity who has appeared on Oprah and in many other prominent forums. Therefore to present a biography of him without even acknowledging these controversies is not a public service.

"2) Deletion of link to personal website: [113]

Violation of WP:SPS: The link to the website "Lifting the Veil," I deleted per policy: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, and added Warning Template:uw-spam3 to the user's talk page."

Again, I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not the best source, but I think a look at the source will prove that Vachss is controversial and does have critics. I felt the linked piece had some fair and even-handed criticisms of Vachss' views.

"3) Deletion of material on Talk page: [114]

Multiple violations of WP:BLP: I deleted the user's comment because it opens up Wikipedia to a potential claim for libel. The statement was that Vachss holds beliefs in, eg satanic abuse. As discussed above, Vachss debunks satanic ritual abuse in his book Sacrifice. Further, the user cites no source at all for the proposition that Vachss personally believes in satanic abuse, but nevertheless claims that Vachss does so. The user's statement that Vachss "deserves some criticism" for "his beliefs about Satanic Ritual Abuse" constitutes nothing less than an attempt to reify the existence of such a belief on Vachss' part. Vachss is a living person known, inter alia, for his expertise in child protection; it is frankly libelous to attribute such an outlandish belief to him with no source for the comment whatsoever. I added Warning Template:uw-biog3 to the user's talk page.

Later the same day Plh25.0 restored the comment on the Talk page.[115] I again deleted it immediately, per policy: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I added Warning Template:uw-biog4 to the Talk page for the article and to the user's talk page.

For the foregoing reasons, I request administrative intervention in this matter if Plh25.0 continues to perform in the same manner as discussed here. Golemarch (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)"

I consider this last portion, quite frankly, to be nonsense. This person, in my opinion, is trying to stifle debate and hide criticism of not just an out-spoken celebrity and well-known novelist who holds controversial views, but also those views themselves.

I would like to see a more fair and balanced Wikipedia page that acknowledges the controversies surrounding this well-known public figure and his often extreme and controversial views.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plh25.0 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You said in part of your reply above: "Many people feel that "False Allegations" does not cover these claims in a fair and balanced manner. Many argue it's just another tool that Vachss uses to slam people who disagree with him." - who are these many, and where are they published? Otherwise this is simply original research. Orderinchaos 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When I find these statements in a source that follows wikipedia guidelines will I be allowed to post them on the biography?plh25.020:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion to topic ban this disruptive troll

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of coolness--Patton123 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a motion presented for the purpose of topic banning Damiens.rf from posting on The Dwight Lauderdale article. The reasons are outlined below: 1.) Initial page as posted the page 2.) After which I asked for both a peer review after which Damiens dropped the following item on the page in which he sites NPOV, V, AWW & RS all of which are ALREADY addressed 3.) I reverted his change as uneccesary which it was. 4.) Damiens.rf responded within less than a minute by re-tagging with the same nonsense, none of which is true. 5.) I reverted yet again. After which, I requested editorial assistance due to his trollingshown here. 6.) At which time the article was worked on by [57], twice, [58]. 7.) I removed a redlink out of the article [59] At this time, all editing is harmonious, no arguments, nothing. May I also point out the the article, at that point was now very different from what I'd originally posted (No WP:OWN here!  :) ) 8.)Damiens.rf returned again and basically reposted his same erroneous statement. 9.) Yes, he and I reverted each other. 10.) He then accused me (falsely) of WP:OWN (evidence above shows to the contrary) and of not "Allowing him to fix the article" (He had plenty of time to fix it and did not, never mind how ludicrous that statement is, in and of itself shown here. 11.) Four changes in a row by BradV followed with no problems. 12.) A bad link was found and brought to my attention which I corrected . 13.) Heatfan1, Ukexpat, Toby Ornott made further updates and corrections, again, with no problems or complaining on my end. We did have a discussion about italics on quotes, consensus was they shouldn't be italicized, and so, the italics were removed. 14.) This article was edited and changed harmoniously up to December 13. The last edit being Woohookitty. 15.) The tag at the top of the page was left alone, and no other editing changes were made until I reverted the tag itself on December 23 With an explicit note stating that this could be reverted if there was a disagreement that the issues were really fixed. 16.) Damiens returns, on the same day and while he doesn't revert the template, essentially, adds back in the same set of non-existant "problems" he's been harping on since the beginning Under the heading of "Pointing out some problems", His next change, fouls up a sentance, rendering it totally not understandable under the heading of "Better tone" . He added in wikilinks (good faith, I admitt). One of which was not valid the "Monovision" link was red-linked and reverted for that reason. Next up he reverted sourced information as "this is just press mumbo-jumbo" . Very early on, I requested that Damiens respond with his specific complaints on the talk page here, he did, infact respond on the same day. I responded also on the same day both on the talk page and on HIS talk page here. He never responded to this and in fact, just simply blanked it off his page (His right, I admitt!). His only response thus far has been to keep re-introducting his "fix" into the article, which really isn't a fix at all. Most recently, he took the unusual step of filing an ANI here . Have I been incivil, sure I have. I won't deny it, heck it's on record (my page, his page, my contributions) has he been uncivil as well. Sure he has, infact here | he advises me to leave the project. SO as a matter of fact, both sides have been incivil to each other. Damiens.rf still persitss in trolling the article STILL. He has no support for his changes, he has no grounds for his changes (i.e, demanding sources where they already exist...etc..) He shows no willingness to discuss his changes, he only makes them and then cries to AI when I revert him. As such, I request a topic ban be placed on him whereby he can make no further edits to the Dwight Lauderdale article.

— Kosh^jumpgate 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: please see here, which is highly related. — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are blatantly provoking him in your edit summaries? --Smashville^talk 17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I warned the user for personal attacks and name-calling, and agree with Smash's assessment of his summaries as provocative - there is not really any other way to describe them. — neuro^(talk) 17:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you have behaved particularly well here, but I see no reason for a topic ban. Some of his complaints about the tone of the article are valid: it does read like a press release in places, and not a very good one. On the other hand, in his haste to fix the tone issues he mangled at least one sentence. This is a primarily a content dispute, but your edit summaries are a problem that might need some administrative action if you don't cut it out. AniMate 19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thespis (opera) - vandalism spree

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is being repeatedly vandalized today. [60]. The log shows it's protected,[61] but most of the vandalism is from anonymous IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WP:RFPP. — neuro^(talk) 18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Request at RFPP declined, per WP:TFAP. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch the thing. Dlohcierekim 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lyle123 just doesn't know when to quit

I've been told that a block on this little fool's IP range would block out half of Australia. At this point, perhaps it's best. If someone on that network wants to create an account, they should be alerted to the problem and be given the opportunity to request one. Case in point: User:RareBigPartyVideoGame2009 taking up the time of a lot of good users. This sock has been blocked, but not before a user or two took the time to try and verify his latest hoax. This has been going on for two years now. Please, can we just pull the plug on him once and for all? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking half of Australia is not an appropriate solution in any circumstance. This is a highly inconsiderate request to make, both as it goes against Wikipedia's ethos, and is circumventable anyway. — neuro^(talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy you gave me at least the benefit of the doubt here. Good eye! MuZemike (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is the least bit inconsiderate and my comment about "half of Australia" was an exaggeration. There has to come a time when ethos has to take a slight back seat to the wanton disruption of the site by a determined individual who's spent two years doing so. Furthermore, I believe that the collateral damage will be minimal if there's any at all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that the collateral damage will be minimal if there's any at all" Collateral damage is not a problem. It's the intended damage that is inconsiderate. — neuro^(talk) 21:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Luckily we have people who do nothing but look over edits reverting vandalism and blocking the purpetrators, and they're very good at it. So I don't think blocking a couple of thousand people just to lessen their workload by a unnoticable amount would be a good idea.--Patton123 21:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd pretty much ignore the "half of Australia" thing. As an Australian user and admin I block vandals here fairly regularly with few or no consequences to other users - the great majority of users here are on DSL providers which assign unique IP addresses. Historically, one or two badly configured ISPs were piping everyone through one proxy server address, but those sort of issues got fixed back in 2006. Orderinchaos 06:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered Wikipedia:Abuse reports? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchful eyes needed

A few days ago I wrote of a disruptive IP, in the 98.28.xxx.xxx range. He/she has continued the same pattern of disruption, and as a result I have blocked 98.28.222.38 for 2 weeks. Here's where I need help. If you see an anon editor from the 98.28.xxx.xxx range editing kids' shows or PBS articles, adding specious or unreferenced "funding" sections, removing or reorganizing content without talk-page discussion (as all his changes have been made), please block them on sight. A rangeblock, I've been told, would bring too much collateral damage--as I suspected it would--but I would greatly appreciate assistance in my solitary game of Whack-a-Troll. (Note: if you're experiencing "blocker's guilt" because the edits the IP is making are not BLATANTLY "disruptive", please keep in mind that the IPs are now being used for block evasion, which makes them blockable on sight. These are largely-stable articles in no need of major overhaul (with a few exceptions) and in any case, the changes being made are patently unnecessary.) I thank all of you in advance for your assistance! GJC 03:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please fix this page

Resolved

Just hit this article to get shocked. The article seems to have been hacked and is currently being use to display some racist message. I don't know how to fix the page as the edit links are not working, please help fix the page. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's template vandalism. See WP:AN#Something seriously wrong with Alaska Airlines for more info.--Patton123 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it was probably due to vandalism to {{As of}}. Please bypass your cache if you're still seeing the vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added this article to the list there to get help in fixing. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Still shows the same after bypassing the cache. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have purged the article and the template; everything should be back to normal now (or in a few minutes), though this is quite odd; it's been eleven hours since the vandalism was reverted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else see overlapping coordinates in the title bar of this article? – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the vandalism is gone now. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm filled with self-doubt.

Thousand Foot Krutch is a Christian rock band, for Pete's sake. So when I came upon User:Prophaniti, blocked for edit-warring to keep that genre in the article's infobox, while I declined his request (after all, he was indeed edit-warring), I also read the talk page, semiprotected the article, and asked a few of the people on the wrong side of the dispute to knock it off. Now User:Landon1980 is telling me that there's no such clear verdict, and that I'm undoing a stable version of the article. I've made two or three wrong decisions today under the influence of Christmas ham, and am filled with self-doubt and annoyance, and also, I have a strong desire not to get involved with a music genre dispute, second only to the Republic of Ireland on my list of annoying perpetual editing disputes. Anyone else want to have an opinion? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, what do I see here?

1. Not-so-slow-brewing revert war. I wouldn't have semi-protected here, but then again I think semi-protection is rarely (if ever) appropriate for edit warring; it tends to send the wrong message and leaves the door open for registered users who may have a dog in the fight.
2. I really don't see consensus for anything on the Talk page. I see a lingering dispute obscured by long periods of inactivity.
3. The page has not "been stable for months", e.g. [62] and [63].
4. As for the dispute itself, several sources refer to Thousand Foot Krutch as a "Christian something" band, but there is quite a bit of variation on what the "something" is. NME says "Christian heavy metal", the sole source describing them as rapcore actually calls one song "witty rapcore", while the album is characterized as "solid rock"; and the band describe themselves as follows (the dealbreaker): "As their fans know, the members of Thousand Foot Krutch address such matters from a spiritual perspective, singing to and about God in a way that doesn't intimidate anyone who might not think exactly like them."

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't fighting to keep Christian rock he was fighting to add Christian rock. Fisherqueen semi-protected the article without so much as informing the IP of the WP:3RR. Prophaniti was the only person wishing to add Christian rock, he was reverting the edits of 3 or 4 people. So seeing that Prophaniti is already blocked, and the IP had quit reverting why was the semi-protection necessary? Does anyone else think the article needs semi-protected right now? Also is it appropriate for an administrator to protect the article then jump in the edit war themselves by repeatedly reverting back to the new version of the article? I encourage everyone to read the talk page, there is no consensus like Fisherqueen is claiming. Even if there were consensus for Christian rock being added to the infobox reverting to consensus is not an exception to the three revert rule. She told the blocked user to seek dispute resolution, yet there she is reverting edits without discussing on talk, when she herself protected the article to get the upper hand. I've seen a couple admins that think adminship comes with an immunity to the 3RR, and tend to think they can treat their personal opinion as fact. Bottom line, the article has not been seeing hardly any vandalism if any and protection is inappropriate. Landon1980 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not think that 3RR does not apply to admins, nor that I can treat my personal opinion as fact. Notice that I am nowhere near 3RR on that article, and that I have asked other administrators to review my actions and weigh in with their opinions. I'll be busy for the next 24 hours with a family holiday thing; other admins may feel free to undo any of my actions without my accusing them of wheel-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

@FisherQueen: The Wikipedia:Protection policy states (Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes): “When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons”. Therefore I would not have done this revert. — Aitias // discussion 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fisherqueen, the only thing semi protection did was stop the one IP that had not so much as received a warning for edit warring. The other three of us are registered users. Do you still honestly think the article needs to be protected? How is it appropriate for you to protect the article and then jump into the dispute reverting edits? The article could use a lot of work and the semi-protection potentially stops some constructive contributions. You do not protect an article because of one IP making a few good faith edits, that is not what semi protection is for. Landon1980 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As FisherQueen agreed that other admins can undo her actions, I placed the article under full protection for now, as described in the protection policy in cases of content disputes. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuing incivility.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nothing actionable, but anyone who wants to bang heads together is more than welcome. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to you to investigate the behaviour of Dapi89. He tends to smuggle an insult in far too many of his edit tags, despite having been blocked twice for the same.

Take a look at these edits in the recent pastt, which shows the general attitude strongly concentrating on the other editor's personality, rather than their edits. This editor is quite incapable of working together with others, any difference in opinion of the contents of edits is 'nonsense' at the very least, while disagreement itself is being handled as crime against his person, usually resulting in reverts without any discussion attempted, or waging prolonged edit wars, characterized by 'stalking' the 'enemy', reverting edits for little else than considering the other editor as an 'enemy'.

"text was already cited, as you well know, so cut the crap" and removing request for cite tag...

Feuding: repeatedly reverting of throughly sourced information, against community consensus

"Idiotic comments are obviously your forte. Reported."

"Its cited you idiot."

"Yes it was Dennis. He was romving information from a cited passage without reason."

"Kurfürst's reasons for disagreement with me are as obvious as the dogs proverbials."

"So why don't you stop spending all your time on wikipedia reverting, and being my arch irritation?"

"Are you being disagreeable just for the sake of it?"

"reverting more nonsense from this guy."

I have been overlooking these violations for the sake of peace in the past, but it only seems to lead to an automatism of reverting/abusing other editors incl. me who he disagrees with.

Kurfürst (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• First up, this is the wrong venue. Second, having looked into this it seems to me that you are trying to assert the views of a single author, whose works you appear to admire, but whose opinions appear to me to be somewhat out of line with mainstream thought. To repeatedly insert {{fact}} after a statement that German losses in the Battle of Britain had become unsupportable is simply disruptive - this claim is included in several of the references already cited and as far as I am aware is not seriously disputed by most students of the conflict. So: you are being irritating, and then running to the admins when your irritating behaviour irritates someone. This does not excuse their irritable behaviour, but you need to look long and hard at your own contribution to the dispute. I don't think their behaviour is any different in character to edit summaries like this: (Undid revision 226548857 by Minorhistorian (talk) Unsupported wishful claims reverted again.). You appear to have engaged in edit warring for some considerable time, and you come across as a bearer of WP:TRUTH, whereas Wikipedia works by what is verifiable and reflects the dominant view first and foremost, with conflicting views covered according to their significance. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  (ec)WP:PAIN was abolished, so what is the right venue? Wikietiquette says to come here if admin intervention might be needed. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the person making a post here has their own issues it doesn't automatically invalidate their complaint. Far too many times I've seen people trying to excuse uncivil behaviour and personal attacks on here simply because the person was a little irritated, or someone was making an edit that person didn't like, etc "This does not excuse their irritable behaviour, but "..there is no "but" there. There might be an "and", but there is no "but". Saying "but" only further enables people to think its okay to attack other users and create hostile editing environments simply because they think the other person is wrong and annoying..and oh boy.. watch out if they're actually proven right, its like carte blanche for verbal diarrhea from there on out. If Kurfurst has issues, address those, but frankly some of the reported diffs appear to be a problem regardless of the circumstances. People need to separate the individual from the dispute on the talk pages (article, policy, whatever, but not complaint pages that is where you're supposed to go if someone's behaviour is an issue) if they can't do that they need to be reminded of it, if they can't seem to remember it after several reminders than the community needs to deal with them.--Crossmr (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• In this case I'd say the right venue is dispute resolution, but we have WP:WQA as well. It's a content dispute, and in the matter of content there is right on both sides. I for one am not going to block someone for reverting uncited text or disruptively added maintenance tags, even if the edit summary is a bit tetchy, and honestly I don't see those summaries as anything beyond exasperation, certainly not actionable personal attacks. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'To repeatedly insert {{fact}} after a statement that German losses in the Battle of Britain had become unsupportable is simply disruptive' - as much as this claim is simply untrue and being made up, as there was no 'repeated' insert of any kind. Dismissing 'views of a single author' and deciding what is the 'mainstream thought' that is not seriously disputed by 'most students' of the conflict, while other views are implied to be insignificant, ironically in the name of NPOV - yes the the 'bearer of WP:TRUTH' seems very fitting here, but I don't think it is fitting for me. And I do wonder, what do errors made in the past five months ago, which have been already adequately dealt with, have to do with the breeching of civility by others, other than relativizing the recent incivility of some who's views you might be sharing, and is supportive of? Kurfürst (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)\

• Another 'auto-revert' in progess... Kurfürst (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• You, too, have engaged in revert-warring. I suggest you look for a mediator or a third opinion. This stuff is simply not actionable, or at least not against one of the pair of warring parties. I could block you both for 24 hours if you think that would help everyone cool off, but I don't see a lot of point. The diff you cite above has the summary (Undid revision 260304039 by Kurfürst (talk) rev fact tags and tampering with cited material. Remove uncited technical data.) The material is covered within the cited sources, I think, and there is no dispute that the material you added was uncuted - sauce for the goose, really; you can't demand citations for every sentence and then go adding stuff you know but without a citation. Anyway, this needs dispute resolution not admin intervention. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resoultion has been attempted before between the same parties, refer Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Is it just me or does today's complainant seem to be the obdurate one in that mediation? I see some productive comments from Dapi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Minorhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), against whom this complaint appears to be directed, and both seem to me to be providing sources. This looks to me awfully like a case of WP:TRUTH or maybe just m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• • 'You, too, have engaged in revert-warring.' - This is just as untrue as the earlier that I have 'repeatedly' added a cite tag. Please stop these untrue accusations.. The very reason I come here with problems with personal attacks is that I seek to avoid an edit war. In any case, the problem is the re-occuring and constant personal remarks by Dapi89, and the fact that he is systematically auto-reverting edits without any try to discuss the matter - it is hard not to see the personal side of these actions... This is harassment and feuding, and as I see it other admins have no problems recognizing what it is. Content disputes (I don't see much) are one thing, harassment and personal attacks are another, and which needs to be addressed - unconditionally. Kurfürst (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• You have, it shows in your edit history. So, rather than asking us to take sides, go to dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are talking again about events many months ago... relevance? I am not asking you to take sides - you already have taken one when you have refused to address personal attacks when personal attacks occured, other editors being 'idiots' and antagonized. You are applying the 'some are more equal' as a rule here, and arguing to defend undefendable actions, but as I see there are other administrators who see things as they are. Kurfürst (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are asking us to take sides. You are asking us to restrict the actions of another editor with whom you are in dispute. In such cases it is inevitable (and right) that the spotlight shines equally on all parties; long experience indicates that taking complainant at admin noticeboards at face value without looking into the back-story is unwise, and your playing the "months ago" card does not sit well with, for example, your citing diffs from November in your complaint. The fact is, history is written by the winners, always has been. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to push back against that. I am sorry, but our canonical policies forbid that. First change the world's opinion, then come to Wikipedia. And in the mean time find a way of working with those whose views are different from yours, especially if your view is the less mainstream, because otherwise it is you and not they who will land in trouble. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Now it is threats on the menu...? All I ask is that these personal attacks and feuding by Dapi89 should cease. This is a valid request, the mentioned editor behaved uncivil against a large number of editors, not just myself, and I stand by my request that this kind of behaviour must stop - either voluntarily or enforced. Administrators are here to enforce this basic guideline - for which there are multiple other options than restricting the editor - and not to to enforce the 'winners history' as you call it, decide what is 'canonical' and what is not (apparently you believe it differently), and even less to directly threaten editors justifiably complaining about the incivility of others to 'land in trouble' but look the other way when their apparent preferees violate the very basic rules of working together, and thus enforce their own POV by threatening to (ab)use their administrative powers. I am sure other administrators have different views on this than you and will be somewhat shocked by this attitude. Kurfürst (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not threats on the menu, you requested us deal with one party in a bilateral dispute and that means the behaviour of all parties is open to scrutiny. You have yet to acknowledge that your own behaviour is in any way to blame for others becoming heated. Unless you learn that this is the case, no permanent resolution of the problem is possible; you will continue to annoy other users and they will continue to manifest that in their comments to you. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have certainly 'not annoyed others', nor is 'my own behaviour is in any way to blame for others becoming heated', nor do I need to acknowledge some accusation that I have not committed; just the same as it is not 'the wrong venue', just as {{fact}} was not 'repeatedly inserted', just as there was not 'engagement in revert-warring' as you claimed, without basis, in these articles that would prompt others become 'heated' - quite the contrary, I did not respond to these in order to keep this one from getting even more 'agitated', which invariably seems to occur when there is disagreement. Feel free to point where I have made any of these mistakes you keep relentlessly attributing to me, without any basis, as an excuse for looking the other way. And even all that would hardly explain why the incivil behaviour is also occurring towards half a dozen other 'annoying' editors, not just me, who are being called much worse than I am, 'idiots' and the like. You have brought up all manners of excuses not to take action in the matter, that is fine, but I still demand that this kind of behaviour shown by Dapi89 should cease, or dealt with if nothing else helps. If you are not ready to apply the rules where according to other administrators they need to be applied on an objective basis - and you have certainly argued long and very varied ways against applying the rules - then perhaps it takes another administrator to look at it as it is, instead of the 'but's 'you too's and making bizarre arguments that personal attacks are justified on the grounds then ones that made them felt at the time that they are well deserved, and in the end, the ones targeted are to be blamed. From which it inevitably follows that ALL personal attacks are automatically justified... save of course we have a policy that says : NO PERSONAL ATTACKs. No 'but' or 'if' mentioned. I do not wish to add more to that subject. The rules are there to be followed, for everyone, and enforced if broken. I would, of course, would be a lot more happy if these rules would be followed voluntarily, meaning: Dapi89, please stop that attitude to others. Kurfürst (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You say "I have certainly 'not annoyed others', nor is 'my own behaviour is in any way to blame for others becoming heated'". Yet it is absolutely plain from the tone of the comments you cite above that you have annoyed others. This is evident also in the mediation case. Your complete lack of self-criticism appears to me to be a major part of the problem. I'm not saying you are the sole problem, only that until you acknowledge your own fault in this matter you will never achieve a resolution - and other similar problems will dog you on Wikipedia until you do learn self-criticism, or are banned for being resistant to collaboration. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the rules are clear - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. If you are unwilling to enforce these rules, other administrators will. I also asked you for examples where I may have 'annoyed' others - you have provided none, just keep repeating that I did. Kurfürst (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, those are nto personal attacks, they are examples, many of them stale, of tetchy responses to your distinctly un-collegial editing style, which should be resolved through dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Others"? No Kurfurst, its only about you. You and you alone are the cause of the trouble. You are only interested in agenda driven editing, which is why people don't have anything to do with you. Your comments above are an indication of what type of person you are. I am glad to say this has been called by "Guy". As one user, who blocked you before [said], The "other side" were no angels, either; but I do note that their worst behaviour occurred in a direct response to yours. Dapi89 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple question to you. Are you going to stop auto-reverting other editor's post, who you disagree or seek a blood fued with, including BillCJ's, mine, Dennis, stop calling them every once in a while 'idiots', 'arch irritation', their edits 'nonsense', 'crap' 'agenda driven editing' and such? Working with them, explaining your points and disagreements, instead of posing as the ultimate argbiter of WP:TRUTH?

Yes or No? Kurfürst (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no? The tone of your interaction with others in this thread really does speak volumes and I am minded to advise your opponents to move this thread to the user RfC which I suspect is just round the corner. What you are demanding is to be allowed to WP:OWN content. The answer is: no, you may not. The onus ios firmly on you, as the editor seeking to introduce disputed content, to justify its inclusion. You do not seem to be able to do that. This thread gives a pretty good clue as to why that is; you assume that everything is motivated by bias and that your own position is the only neutral one. Well, we see a lot of editors like that on this noticeboard, and most of them don't last long. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to respond to your remarks about wife-beating or threats of abusing administrative powers. I just wish to make my position clear. I wish these personal attacks to stop, and a more collaboritive attitude from Dapi89. As how you have come to the conclusion that I am demanding to be allowed to WP:OWN content, I have no idea how you maneged to derieve this - you seem to have come up with these random accusations like this a lot - especially as it is not a dispute of content but a report on continuing personal attacks and generally the un-collegial atmosphere I see from this other editor. I would like to see this situation improve, but that requires some sort of committment from Dapi89 as well. For example, I would like to see so meritful discussion on a subject before it gets reverted with a 'nonsense!' explanation, and it is pretty clear from that these reverts are connected to the person who posted them, and not the actual content itself. I do not see why you have a problem with this - it is a wikipedia guideline to do so, is it not? Kurfürst (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can dive and dodge all you like Kurfurst. You deliberately removed cited material and added fact tags to cited material. You know it and I know it; its nonsense. If you don't want to be reverted on those grounds, stop being disruptive. The most ironic comments relate to you wanting others to collaborate! And who should I be collaborating with. You? Mr Do as I say not as I do? Dapi89 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No Dapi89, this is something you do sometimes, see this edit of yours. In any case, I welcome the change of attitude you have shown on this talk page, and putting great hopes in that this new attitude would be lasting. I am sure you would find that more rewarding in the long term, and so would I. Kurfürst (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Cast Lead

It might be beneficial if some administrators would help watch this article's page and talk page as things are getting pretty heated already (see for example, [64] and [65] for some of the incivility and edit warring (not to mention discussing the event as if it were a web forum rather than a page for discussing how to edit the article) associated with this article. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To arms, lads!--Patton123 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That would not be bad if some of us would take a look at the contributions of User:LOTRrules. He made the uncivil comments here above and performed many "poved move" in the last days. I reverted some but it seems there is much to do... Ceedjee (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Austell, Georgia

Resolved

 – User has apologised for his behaviour. Let's move on, shall we?

// roux   01:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• Marshall Williams2 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Someone please explain to this novice editor how exceedingly unlikely it is for Rambot to have created an article as false as this person claims it to be. Compare the article as it stands now with the initial Rambot version to see how drastically this article has been stripped of verifiable information. I'm a little busy with some article rescues to spend a lot of time patiently explaining things. (And according to the boilerplate vandalism warning that I was given for contesting the proposed deletion of a city covered by the U.S. census, I'm supposed to be reading the welcome message right now, anyway. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread. Very silly conduct. Rambot generates article from census data and the like, which we may well assume to be as correct as can be.  Sandstein  22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to the earlier version, and notified the user that the data was correct based on the census data provided. The only change from his insistence that I moved forward on was to note that the city is entirely within Cobb County as opposed to being partially in Douglas County (which someone erroneously posted). He is being a bit on the belligerent side, but I've been trying to assume good faith and move accordingly. --Mhking (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential WP:CHILDREN problem.

Resolved

 – False alarm

Can someone delete this edit [66] and report to WP:OVERSIGHT please, thanks. Exxolon (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? "I attended this school" doesn't mean "I am a child" – she might have been there in 1952 – and in any case there's no personal information given other than her name. – iridescent 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I misread the sentence as "I attend this school." Exxolon (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding a username

Resolved

 – There are plenty of reasons why the user could have their name styled as such, but unless they tell you themself we are merely speculating. Already rejected at UAA. — neuro^(talk) 13:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See above from Neuro. There is no need to drag it out and the further incivility has been dealt with by appropriate warnings. End of. Misarxist 10:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd like to get a couple admins opinion on whether or not they feel the username hoponpop69 "hop on pop 69" is appropriate. Landon1980 (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's a Dr. Seuss title plus the obvious. So what types of articles is it editing? Never mind, I'm posting the links. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Landon1980 (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some civility problems, Landon1980 has brought the user to ANI before. Username isn't, IMHO, an issue as Bugs pointed out. // roux   07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He's been on for about 2 1/2 years. He claims the name comes from an IMDB entry somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have somewhat of a history with the user. I just never really thought about the username until now. I've certainly seen names that are less offensive blocked. I'm not suggesting a block, just wondering if anyone else thinks it's potentially offensive. I personally am not offended, but I can see how someone could be. Landon1980 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoponpop would take it as an attack if I were to ask him to consider changing his username, so I brought it here to see what others think about it. I added the name to the usernames for administrative attention earlier and the result was no violation, so I just wanted to get a couple more opinions before I drop the matter. Landon1980 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ask him directly where the username comes from, rather than asking him to change it. Although if you've had a run-in previously, it's hard to tell how he might react. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it actually matter where the name comes from? If my cat is named "hairy pussy" and I love the cat and have the best intentions with the name that doesn't mean it can be my username does it? I thought you were supposed to avoid usernames that were potentially offensive. I don't know much about policy regarding usernames though and that is why I brought it here. Isn't it safe to say that most are going to think the obvious upon seeing the username. I can't think of too many things "hop on pop 69" could mean other than that. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to comment. Landon1980 (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Mrs. Slocombe in Are You Being Served?. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

At worst, it's a username the user will regret having registered down the line; kind of like getting a dumb tattoo just because you're in your majority. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I think it's far-fetched and rather contrieved to interpret that user name in any offensive way - so not at all "safe to say that most are going to think the obvious". Hop on Pop is the name of a book, and there are several possible reasons for having the number 69 at the end of a user name. --Bonadea (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just not the year of publication, which was '63. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, seeing as I happen to have a copy of Hop on Pop the Seuss book right here, to "Hop on Pop" can be construed as sexual to begin with, unless we're talking about the book. "69" is of course, not just a summer than Bryan Adams sings about (although an entire summer of 69??). 1 potential sexual reference + 1 potential sexual reference = sexual reference. The new combination sounds like the treat that "dad" gets from "mom" for being a good Santa Claus to his children. ♪BMWΔ 12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe also drug references. "Hop" is slang for "high", as in "getting hopped up" on something - in this case, soda pop, which is heavily laced with caffeine and sugar and other dangerous substances. For further information, see "Puff, the Magic Dragon". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this conversation is fruitless. Speculating over the name further is a ridiculous pursuit, and one which I hope people won't go through. — neuro^(talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't go bringing fruits into this. That's a whole 'nother subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you genuinely want me to elaborate, let me put it this way. There are an infinite number of reasons why he could have his username as such, but unless he tells you himself it could either be intended to be offensive or not. I would have imagined that if it were the latter the person would have made more of a serious infraction - most editors of Wikipedia (who are the people, I would imagine, are more likely to, say, look at the history pages and see his username) are not going to be offended by such a username, as on first glance it does not appear offensive, and even now with extensive discussion it appears that it is not a blatant infraction of our username policy. This speculation is just elongating AN/I, and there's not much point to it, as I've said, it doesn't gain anything. — neuro^(talk) 13:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence my earlier advice, to simply ask him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for wasting everyone's time with this. I just saw where policy said usernames that could be offensive should not be used. I have seen several usernames blocked with reference to bodily fluids, so I thought if "buttsauce" was inappropriate that surely to God a username that was a series of words telling you to hop on and let's have oral sex would be. Hop on pop in correlation with the number 69 is a very big coincidence, why the hell does it matter what the name could possibly mean? Anyone with one iota of intelligence would draw the conclusion the name was a reference to the sex position, at the very least it would cross their mind. I swear I wonder how some of you people function in real life. The policy on usernames clearly says potentially offensive names should be avoided, but a good portion of administrators are just too fucking stupid to understand that. This site needs real, paid, competent admins. As long as any idiot, given their bored enough, can become an admin this enyclopedia will never reach its potential. Landon1980 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your insulting diatribe much worse than the user name. Since you are clearly so easily offended by words, I expected you would apply more caution to your own comments.--Atlan (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

People might want to note that soon after he left that comment I warned him for defamation (wrong one, I know, hence the next bit), and then shortly after removed that and left a comment mentioning that his comments were not acceptable. Can we please leave this as the last comment, this thread doesn't need any more drama. Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 18:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't find Land1980's questioning to be insulting at all. If someone had never heard of the Dr. Seuss book and was sensitive to questionable names (and I would say I'm also in that category), then it's a reasonable question to raise. But I do agree that the subject has been sufficiently beaten up now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick reply - I believe Atlan was talking about Landon's particularly rude summary of his fellow editors. — neuro^(talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashwin K

On article Ashwin K, author is IP hopping to remove CSD tag on autobiographical vanity article. User name is User:Inkwash and involved IP's so far include: 117.196.160.97, 117.196.164.71, 117.196.163.234, and 117.196.164.22.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the editors' conduct, but in my opinion the page doesn't meed the CSD A7 requirements since it does assert notability of subject. So I will be rmoving the CSD tag; please take it to WP:AFD if you disagree. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, given that User:Inkwash has recreated the article twice and his user name is a anagram of Ashwin K, COI is perhaps likely. Anyway, any article related issues themselves can be discussed at leisure at AFD. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did just WP:AFD it. Nonetheless, is there to be no temporary ban on this fellow for his behavior?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I should hope not. Seems he was doing the right thing, if in a slightly unorthodox fashion... l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh

Skomorokh (talk · contribs) These are false accusations here and here. I consider this editors activities to be disruptive, lacking in good faith, and borderline racially based. This editor's support of whitewashing the Stormfront (website) article is not acceptable. I ask that this editor be blocked or permanently banned from the project. We don't need his type around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits, he certainly appears to be well beyond 3rr [[67]] and certainly doesn't seem interested in the fact that his POV is being soundly rejected by the other participants on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are difs from today when he undoes others work on the article. [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A pattern he apparently carried on from previus days as per [[72]] and [[73]] I don't think he can argue that he was unaware that there was, at best no-consensus on his edits and in fact an overwhelming majority opposed to them.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the diffs only [39] is a clear revert. In [40] Skomorokh moved a statement to a different place. In [41] (s)he removed a citation from the lead, because it is not necessary there. And in [42] (s)he simply merged 3 successive refs. I do not see evidence of a violation. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noting my agreement with Ruslik. 3RR appears to be intact. — neuro^(talk) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh added a "maintainer" template for himself at the top of the talk page of Stormfront (website) [74]. He seems to be behaving aggressively to other editors (warnings to Orangemarlin [75] and Verbal [76] on their talk pages about using the category "Neo-Nazi website", wikilawyering on the talk page pf the article) and adding racially sensitive material, out of context, to the mainspace article, based on newspaper reports of postings on the forums of Stormfront. He has written that on google "my method is simply to search for the word "Stormfront" and take information from the sentences in which the word appears". In view of the problem of WP:OWN shown by the maintenance template and his failure to understand the controversial nature of this article (as well as a likely COI), he should probably receive a topic ban of some sort: he does appear to be disrupting the editing of the article and causing needless offense on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Nilzy, BLP issues

User: Nilzy continues to add unsourced and controversial rumors about a living person to Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del. He is accusing someone related to the article of pedophilia and criminal acts. There are no sources to support this accusation, and yet he insists that a discussion about it be started. Myself and several other editors have asked him to stop, removed his edits, and attempted to advise him on the WP:BLP policy [77] [78]. We have also sought help from the BLP Noticeboard [79]. Not only are his accusations unsourced, and highly controversial/libelous, but the article in question is about a webcomic and not a biography on the author, about whom he continues to make the accusations. This evening I have reverted his re-addition of the unsourced rumor several times (as per WP:BLP policy to remove unsourced controversial material immediately), and he continues to re-add it. A total of four editors have removed his edits, but he continues to re-add them, despite multiple warnings.--Thrindel ^Talk 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved.--Thrindel ^Talk 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder not to edit war like you've been doing - I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure out the basis for this complaint, wading through all the various reverts you and Nilzy have undertaken. If you need help in future, could you provide a diff showing the actual content we should be looking for. Thanks anyway. Nick (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought 3RR & Edit war rules did not apply to BLP violations - anyone is allowed to revert them with extreme prejudice as often as required. Exxolon (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense dictates after one or two reverts, administrator assistance is requested (preferably here). The reason reverting BLPs is exempted from 3RR is not to give users immunity to revert each other continually, it's to stop users being blocked, on a technicality, for preventing problematic material being inserted into any article whilst they await administrator assistance, be it in the form of an administrator discussing the issue with the parties involved, page protection being instated, or a user being blocked. The policy is not intended to give users carte blanche to revert each other over a period of several hours or days; edit warring over problematic material is a course of action that does nothing to ensure problematic material is removed and remains removed from any article. The correct course of action when you see problematic material is "revert, discuss/warn" - if the material is added again without proper discussion and agreement, then it's "revert, summon administrator assistance". The other point to remember, if you were to continually revert additions to a BLP without requesting help, what happens when you go offline - if nobody else knows a problem exists, then you'll likely find the edits restored by the time you return and that's doing nothing to help the project. There's really no reason to be reverting more than a couple of times before requesting assistance from an administrator or experienced editor, if we don't know about a problematic editor or article, there's nothing we can do about it. Nick (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized too late that it had gone too far, too fast. In the future I will take care to clarify diffs. Thank you.--Thrindel ^Talk 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As a coda to the evening's events, I'm assuming a copycat of Thrindel has popped up at the page trying to get the user's attention. [80] Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Emotional Freedom Technique"

Administrative eyes would be welcome at "Emotional Freedom Technique". (See its history page first.) My own eyes are bleary as it's my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removed the OR section again, and left the editor a note. Black Kite 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See this related thread at EAR: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Edits rejected as "opinion". – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Paging SA. He'll solve this one. the new editor is clearly a biased proponent, and not any particular scientist, all her edits are to remove qualifiers which erode the positivity of the idea, and to spew caveats against negative results. SPA, topic ban her and be done.ThuranX (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm always helps, eh? In any case, this editor is proposing text which is, while written as personal opinion, a solidly mainstream personal opinion: the EFT is blatantly unscientific and credibly identified as pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) My bad, read it upside-down, as noted below. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I might've read this wrongly, but isn't the editor trying to add a section claiming not that EFT is unscientific, but the opposite - that a piece of research critical of EFT is unscientific? Black Kite 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe I am cross-eyed due to spending most of the day hanging upside down under my railway layout pinning up wiring. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You've read it correctly, Black Kite, which makes Guy a bit off in his little outburst at me. Like I said, the editor adds text discrediting scientific reports discrediting the EFT ideas. Apologies can be sent to me care of my talk page. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, that wasn't an outburst. But your comment was sarcastic, and I don't think that helps when that editor is actively being discussed on WP:RFAR. But you're free to ignore me, I am a bit sensitive about users who are pushed to the edge and beyond by relentless civil POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: more eyes would be great. Please watchlist, all of you. I've been on the case at this article for awhile, and this is hardly the first proponent of Emotional Freedom Techniques to make an appearance. While you're at it, take a look at the associated article on Thought Field Therapy. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A challenge to this whole series of articles on 'alternative' psychological treatments and similer follderoll, is that most of the editors are spa's on one side of the topic or another (except for a few fringe studies folks such as MastCell) and they really don't understand how wikipedia works very well. Some will become full fringe nutters that are impossible to work with, most will not if we educate them about how wikipedia works. The talk page of EFT is instructive, a couple of long time users have patiently tried to work with a number of spa's over the last year with moderate success in getting them to either edit to our guidelines and policies or move on and waste time somewhere else (the long soapboxing at the top of the page, goes away by the end). It does not need to be confrontational (though that is sometimes where it ends up). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block (3)?

Resolved

 – Rangeblocked again Black Kite 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• First ANI report - 2 week block.
• Second ANI report - 1 month block.

The "truth" is once again being preached from the 168.187.176.xxx range. --Onorem♠Dil 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to spouting nonsense the guy from this IP range is typing in all caps, which makes the nonsense even larger. However, he apparently lives in Kuwait. Isn't that punishment enough? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice xenophobia there. Act upon content not location, unless a desire to throw out such comments fills an empty void in your life. Minkythecat (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was beginning to think I had to evade my indefblock at ANI once more just to ask why nobody is calling Baseball Bugs on this utterly stupid and xenophobic comment. Thank you for doing so. Everybody else who read this please be appropriately ashamed that you did not challenge BB's BS for over five hours. 78.34.133.168 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

3 months this time. Doesn't seem to be much (if anything) productive from that range, so rangeblock is better than semi-ing a number of articles, I think. Black Kite 13:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Resolved

 – by Algebraist (talk · contribs) Agathoclea (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An anon editor has just nuked the page of WP:Assume good faith can someone revert it as I cant seem to find the revert button on my screen as it is covered over with hacked by china or something along those lines. Corruptcopper (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Allowing position:fixed is a bad idea. Algebraist 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Hacked by "China" seems to be in Canada. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pediapress

I stumbled upon User:Pediapress when a template I was working with was linked to a subpage User:Pediapress/TemplateBlacklist and thought it a rather strange situation. The user is advertising pediapress.com so I thought is was a promotional user and reported it to UAA, and was instructed to report it here. After looking at it closer, the WMF does appear to have a collaboration with this website, but the userpage and its monobok instructions, and the afformentioned subpage, still seem unusual. Maybe some additional eyes can take a look and see if this user, userpage and subpage are all on the up and up, or if any action should be taken. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pediapress/collection.js was deleted as G11, maybe we should notify the foundation though, as they should probably be the ones to inform the company that they are not exempt from policy just because they have an affiliation. — neuro^(talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was no cooperation between WMF and Pediapress, why should we delete a clearly opt-in extension to mediawiki user skins? -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that User:Pediapress/collection.js was ever deleted, as G11 or anything else! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is! [81]. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right (don't know why I didn't find that); thanx, Duncan! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hungupbg - Hasn't improved since last block

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Black Kite 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The above user is continuing to cause disruption by adding unreliably sourced information to articles. Despite multiple warnings he/she will not listen or communicate. The editor was blocked previously, but this had no effect. Please help. — Realist² 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• No improvement and no communication = blocked indef. If they want to communicate via unblock and explain how they are going to improve their editing, then they can. Black Kite 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Realist² 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And now Netherlands2304 (talk · contribs) has picked up Hungupbg's mantle. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gottlieb Agnethler

Resolved. AFD closed – iridescent 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gottlieb Agnethler due to my involvement, but it keeps garnering discussion even after the nominator withdrawing it. Could someone please remove the dead horse from its flogging. Agathoclea (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive comments and reverts from shifting IP user

In the last few weeks, some on my posts have been reverted with comments using unwarranted language ("stop vandalism" and implicit accusations of deceit) on the part of a couple of IP editors, all of them based at RIPE Network Coordination Centre, RIPE, P.O. Box 10096, Amsterdam. Two of these IPs are 84.139.199.8 and 84.139.198.95. There may be more; this is difficult for me to track. The coincidence seems to great to me; it is probably one editor hiding behind distinct but related IPs so as to make his edits more difficult to track (while he tracks mine; he seems to have some sort of German agenda, but the articles are unrelated).

When will a line be crossed? Can the user be convinced to adopt a consistent username? May I request that a search be done so that it can be ascertained whether this is somebody with a username who does not want his edits tracked even to his Wikipedia identity? Feketekave (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one: 84.139.235.50. Enjoy. Feketekave (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the behaviour. If you truly believe that the IP is the sockpuppet of an established user, you can visit WP:RFCU and follow the directions there. Else, provide warnings for uncivil behaviour and report to WP:AIV as necessary. Cheers. // roux   20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These IPs all have between one and three edits each, all related to the topic; diffs seem unnecessary. Here are two more IPs that are presumably the same: 84.139.243.190, 84.139.241.103. The first IP posted on the topic, the second one answered to me; neither intervention seemed wrong to me at the time (though the edits were arguably slanted), but they may be relevant.

The user seems knowledgeable of some Wikipedia-related language, though possibly not of Wikipedia's actual rules. It seems clear to me that he has spent some time here, but I cannot myself tell which established user he is likely to be. How should I proceed?

Also - if his IP keeps shifting, how can I leave him a warning? Feketekave (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other IPs that are almost certainly the same: 84.139.245.108, 84.139.205.82, 84.139.199.195. The ones that I mentioned first were the ones I felt had made uncivil remarks (to say the least). These just make this individual's agenda clearer. Feketekave (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP will only shift when it is asked to. Try whichever IP you think they last edited from. — neuro^(talk) 21:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Should I make a search request for a sockpuppet, then, or can I do that only when I have a (justifiable) suspicion of which established user he or she is? Feketekave (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I just left a warning at User:84.139.199.8. Is this fine? How can I tell whether it has been received? Feketekave (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note: These IP addresses are not "based at RIPE". RIPE is the Regional Internet Registry that assigned the 84.136.0.0 - 84.191.255.255 IP address range to Deutsche Telekom. -- The Anome (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Throwing stones in the glashouse. Feketekave called it "racialist" to add a category "French people of German descent" [[82]] for someone, who was born in Berlin as a German citizen and reverted even sourced content [[83]] by calling it a "Nazi fake"[[84]]. His last addition to Ilya Ehrenburg was a "translation" from German WP, but instead of naming the head of the soviet Secret Police (Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov), he described him as "frontline soldier", which is an euphemism, to say the least.

P.S. I don't use shifting IP's in bad faith, it works like that, I don't know why. I don't contribute a lot to the English WP, that's why I use IP's. I can't see any "aggressive comments" yet, it wasn't my intention. 84.139.209.53 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

About every single remark made by the anonymous user above is inexact. (On the issue of Ehrenburg, they are outright lies against me.) Mind you, his overall line is quite outside of the mainstream in the German wikipedia. Would he care to state the username he uses in de.wikipedia.org, if he is indeed a regular contributor there? Feketekave (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. From wikipedia.de: "Im letzten Kriegsjahr erhielt Ehrenburg kritische Briefe von Frontsoldaten, die ihm vorhielten, er habe sich gewandelt und trete nun plötzlich für Mildtätigkeit gegenüber den Deutschen ein." - This means "In the last year of the war, Ehrenburg received critical letters from front soldiers, stating, that he had changed and now suddently stood for softness towards Germans." Grothendieck, as the son of a Russian father (later killed at Auschwitz) is unlikely to have been granted German citizenship automatically at birth; German citizenship is based on descent, not place of birth (jus sanguinis). And so on, and so on. Feketekave (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also: as you can see from his diff above, both of the citations I removed were unsourced at the time, and had already been labelled as such. As for one of them: "Die Forschung ist sich seit langem einig, dass es sich um ein Gerücht der deutschen Propaganda handelt.[78] Und Lew Kopelew hat als Zeitzeuge mittlerweile vielfach bestätigt, dass ein solches Flugblatt Ehrenburgs nie existiert hat und weder sprachlich noch inhaltlich in Ehrenburgs Produktion passe. „Es scheint nur bei den deutschen Truppen bekannt gewesen zu sein und war wohl ein Versuch der Goebbels-Kader, auf diese Art den Widerstandswillen der Wehrmacht zu stärken.“[79]" - "Researchers have long agreed that this is a rumour [put around] by German propaganda. And Lev Kopoelev, as a contemporary witness, has stated numerous times that such a pamphlet of Ehrenburg's never existed and would not fit either in language or contact in Ehrenburg's work. "It seems to be known only by German troops and was most likely an attempt of the Goebbels cadres to strengthen the will to resistance on the part of the German army."[79]".

In other words: we are dealing with an anonymous user whose Teutonic agenda would be well outside the mainstream in the German wikipedia, and who attempts to change the English-language wikipedia to suit his bias. Feketekave (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You should learn something more about German law of citizenship, your statement is simply wrong. Somebody who calls a long established category "racialist nonsense" [85] shouldn't expect to be treated with kid-gloves. The Ehrenburg problem should be discussed at the proper talk page, you're mixing up the leaflet with truly existing and sourced articles in different newspapers and you reverted the whole part instead if clarifying. 84.139.211.23 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You should get a username so that you can read other people's warnings. You are obviously thinking of current German law; jus sanguinis was modified very recently - during the Schroeder government. (We were discussing the life of somebody born well before WWII.) I am mixing nothing up, your use of (ill-defined) categories follows your agenda, and you are making blatantly false statements in the Ehrenburg talk page. There, you now claim that "nobody has claimed that Ehrenburg advocated raping German women"; in fact, the diff you have given above contains exactly such a claim. Feketekave (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the diff this IP user linked to above: [[86]]. There, he complained precisely about my having removed an alleged quotation of Ehrenburg's supposedly about raping German women (and about my calling it a "Nazi fake", which is exactly what it seems to be; see above).

The point is not that he is wrong again, but that either (a) his memory of his own claims lasts only a few hours, or (b) he is making deliberately false statements about my and his edits in order to spread confusion.

The point is also not how I or anybody is not being treated with kid gloves by some abstract entity, but what this user's behaviour is towards others. Feketekave (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More to the point: what should be done? If this user does not react to further warnings, can anonymous edits from the range of IPs he uses be blocked? Feketekave (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An old conflict of personalities has been renewed

For several years a small number of editors have been editing a set of rather obscure articles revolving around the history of sects in the Baha'i Faith. Because first hand knowledge of the subject is rather limited it seems there are only a few of us who even bother to edit the content of these small groups articles. I happen to be a member of one of the small groups in question, and User:MARussellPESE belongs to the larger group of the Baha'i Faith. Over the year many edit wars have transpired between me and User:MARussellPESE, and unfortunately we've both been guilty of crossing the line of civility at one time or another. A discussion which has only just begun here which was started by User:MARussellPESE yesterday and my objection to part of his edit has elicited a hostile verbal response which seems entirely un-called for; specifically: "Oh, and thanks for being such a jerk. You have my undivided attention now. I see that you've added these filings all over the place. Time to go excise them. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)" Not only has his response been insulting and entirely uncalled for, but he has launched an array of edits which are borderline vandalism: [87], [88]. I don't believe this is the way to start a discussion, and the reaction to my objections seems way over-blown; something common to our discussions. We have a history of posting to each others talk pages, challenging each other in discussions, and reverting each others contributions. The days of constructive criticism between us appears behind us, and I believe he's simply become intolerant of my contributions. If this is attitude at the outset of a discussion, I don't believe we can be productive on the page. I would appreciate any input from this board. _Disarray^General 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's enough bad behavior to go around, it seems. I think the situation requires someone impartial. JuJube (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• I also noticed you didn't go through the trouble of notifying User:MARussellPESE so I did it for you. JuJube (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. Yes, I agree there's been " enough bad behavior to go around", and I believe I acknowledged that in my opening comments. My apologies, but I wasn't aware I was required to notify him; that kind of courtesy wasn't extended to me when he reported an incident against me here last May. That incident, btw, is still unresolved for the issue arose out of him deciding a biography written by one of Mason Remey's believers "was out" based on his own interpretations of WP:SELFPUB. Removing that well sourced biography has effectively sterilized Remey's bio to a large extent, and now MARussell has again gotten out the hatchet and culled reliably sourced information. I'm not looking to agitate anything further, but rather for resolution and progress. I don't believe name calling and threats fall into that category. We have both demonstrated our resolve to hold fast to our positions, but it's a new development for him to act maliciously at the expense of the pages we edit. He has threatened to and carried out egregious deletions of content without discussion based on me "being a jerk"; something which I believe crosses a new line. I really don't know how to even respond to these deletions which effectively blot out the existence of whole sects of believers in our mutual faith. _Disarray^General 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe your only recourse here is WP:RFC. JuJube (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but RFC's have never once elicited voluntary comments from 3rd parties to the discussions on these talk pages. I don't know if it's because the subject isn't commonly familiar to editors of religious pages, or what it is, but RFC tags just don't seem to elicit comments. _Disarray^General 02:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Um, the courtesy notice is noted in the first paragraph of this page. This isn't the place for content discussions anyway, Jeff.

Please read the whole thread. I opened with a discussion of the failings of a particular source. His response was to question my good faith and add a cheap shot at my religious community. This is a typical pattern of his. Calling that out as being a jerk isn't a personal attack as it's directed at his conduct.

Disarray used to be known as User:Jeffmichaud. Please, take at a look at our respective talk page archives (If you can find his old ones. His username usurpation has certainly cleaned that up.) and block logs to see who's more adept at the personal attacks and edit warring.

I'm not intolerant of Disarray's contributions. I'm intolerant of his contributions that don't meet WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Unfortunately, given the subject that's legion. That's a huge difference, but Disarray's been personalizing these discussions for years. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Archives of every single comment to my talk page from my old user name are available on my current talk page. There are several examples there of MARussell issuing "be civil" warnings to me, so I assumed he was familiar with the concept. I wasn't aware there was a distinction between when calling someone a jerk was and wasn't appropriate. If this is in fact justified by me allegedly "questioning his good faith", then I've apparently misunderstood the concept of "Be Civil" all along. I thought it was a unilateral expectation? I have twice acknowledged here that in the past I've contributed to the class of personalities that exists between us, but MARussell seems to honestly feel that it's been entirely my creation, and that his responses to me, no matter how demoralizing and directly personal are entirely justified?

Aren't we all expected to take ownership of our behavior on talk pages. The record shows that when I've been out of line, I've acknowledged it and tried to do right by the situation. I've more than once apologized for things I've said in heated discussions, haven't I? Yet in all of our exchanges, neither of us has ever crossed the line of making a direct derogatory attack like you have now. Yet instead of acknowledging it was inappropriate and out of line, you're here making excuses for it? And yet you wonder why our discussions always seem to bog down? There seems to be no reasoning with you, as you seem incapable of seeing any other point of view but your own (which is always the correct one). I brought this here because I new that marching forward into discussing the edits you just made there was going to be an enormous waste of time if out of the gate you're defensive and name calling. I'm afraid that this too may have been yet another colossal waste of time. If it's always you're right and I'm wrong, then maybe I shouldn't bother engaging you on the talk pages? _Disarray^General 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Vandalism of User Sgeureka

Resolved

 – Merging episodes to a List Of is hardly the stuff of ANI, closed Black Kite 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sgeureka for a last 2 months spends his time to vandalize articles of The Outer Limits TV-series episodes. First he has removed (without any discussion), all these articles, merged snippets of text in the useless List of Episodes.

When I called for his explanation, the matter was discussed here. The outcome of the discussion (8:2) was "keep" — i.e. preservation of all individual articles [89].

However, Sgeureka did not started to restore deleted articles immediately, but only after a special reminders [90], and instead to agree with the community's opinion, he immediately thereafter starts a new debate on the same topic at the (discussion page) [91]. After restoring only a small part of deleted articles, he became to wait for additional arguments to restore the remaining articles [92].

This debate once again led to the same result: community again does not agree with his insane proposal to merge all articles into single list — because it meant the removal of original articles that contain many useful information [93].

After that Sgeureka was forced to restore the remaining articles, but all the restored articles contain some additional Templates (see example) that discredits and disfigures the pages and once again questioned the relevance and notability of these articles.

Thus, Sgeureka once again destroys the consensus on the status of these articles — and is going to start a new (3rd) debate on that same theme (and he does not hide this [94] [95]). Even after my regular reminders, he every time returns these puzzling tags, accompanying his own actions by fool comments [96] [97].

This is all the more strange, given that Sgeureka himself acknowledged that he did not watched the series, and so, he is not going to work at these articles [98]. Also, the User is permanently trying to blame others for what he is doing himself — imposing his "endless" discussions [99], as well as placing misleading comments to edits (see example).

In addition, one of the unfortunate results of his actions was that the period between the removal and recovery of articles on episodes there had been deleted all images, illustrated the movies, and he had done nothing for their rehabilitation, although he was warned about it [100], and besides recently he became an administrator [101], and has the appropriate opportunities to restore the images.

Thus, this User:Sgeureka every time violates the agreements reached and undermines the Global policies and goodwill principles of Wikipedia, substituting them by some minor arguments. It seems that becoming an administrator, this User is confident that now his words (and fool comments) have more weight.

And now, I would like to know the following:

• 1. In the Russian Wikipedia (where I came from), there is a rule that after consensus it is forbidden to raise the same question for months (see the template ru:Шаблон:Оставлено). Is there any rules with the same meanings in the English wiki? All I have found here is only WP:GAME and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT:

Refusal to 'get the point'

Shortcuts:
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
WP:IDHT
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.

Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant — it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.

• 2. Where can I contact to place the issue on the Prohibition of this User to edit "The Outer Limits" tv-series episodes' articles, as well as to force him to remove all his misleading templates?

• 3. Where can I ask a question about undoing of User:Sgeureka's adminship status?

Best regards & Happy Holydays, Krasss (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the decision to force Sgeureka himself to restore any articles, nor anything preventing you from doing so.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The first point is, No, there is no period after a consensus is formed during which a proposal may be revisited. However, unless there are changes in circumstances such new proposals are often speedy closed with reference to the previous discussion. If an individual continues to raise the same questions/requests/proposals then they may be considered as being disruptive, and the various methods of dispute resolution put in place - and if it is particularly disruptive then even warnings and reporting the matter to admin noticeboards (I think this covers you point 2). Re point 3, unless the editor has been using sysop tools to further their editorial preferences there is likely no reason to attempt to remove them. Admin tools are not a reward for good editing, and are therefore not withdrawn for being in a dispute. If there is admin abuse then it can be brought to the attention again of the admin noticeboards, and if severe a request for Arbitration can be filed. Lastly, I would ask if the editor concerned has been notified of this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User has now been notified. // roux   23:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unusual Behavior by User:Matthewedwards

Resolved

 – No action needed

I want to tread lightly here, and certainly do not want to add to anymore drama that is found at AN/I. The last thing I want to do is bring an administrator to this venue. However, this edit coupled with the edit summary does not sit well with me. The discussion can be found here as well as a refactoring another user's talk page.

I understand OWN, and realize that anyone can edit my talk, but since I use my talk page openly, and freely, I do not think it is in good taste to modify another user's signature, nor claim SOAP, nor force archival on another user. On my talk, I have no problems with ideas, signatures, nor inflammatory commentary. It does not bother me. What bothers me is that as discussion or talk pages are here for a reason: to work out issues and freely communicate. This behavior is, IMHO, highly inappropriate and does not better the project. I simply ask, as a resolve, that issues like a signature, or forced archival, are taken to the appropriate forum, instead of unilateral behavior. I appreciate the anticipated time spent looking into my complaint. ^Law _shoot! 23:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Several users had let LOTR know that the sig was unacceptable, and he had shown no interest in changing it. I think this was a good move. // roux   23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this is uncontroversial. LOTR is basically soapboxing every time he posts a message, so such a move is a good thing. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, Matthewedwards notified LOTR in multiple messages on LOTR's talk page of his concern and his replacement of the sigs. LOTR responded positively. Marking this resolved; nothing to be done here. Tan | 39 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjd0060

Resolved

 – no admin action required

User:Rjd0060 just semi-protected User:X!'s user page overruling User:X!'s decision to fully protect it. User:X! obviously wants his user page to be fully protected. Today there was a request for unprotection. I declined that request. Without any previous discussion (Rjd0060 talked neither to me nor to X!) Rjd0060 overruled my decision at RFPP (and thereby of course X!'s decision to protect). Completely regardless whether the full protection was appropriate Rjd0060's behaviour was highly inappropriate here. Overruling two admins' decisions without talking to them at all is highly inappropriate. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is inappropriate at all. Please review Wikipedia:PPOL#User pages and then review the page history and you'll notice that there is no reason for protection. And then coming to AN/I? Wow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not touching on your other points but "Completely regardless whether the full protection was appropriate" seems just wrong. Nobody has shown any need to full protect the page. BJ^Talk 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note: I emphasised it already above. However, once again: Completely regardless whether the full protection was appropriate Rjd0060's course of action (overruling two admins' decisions without talking to them at all) was inappropriate here. — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your original decline reason ("Declined, Wikipedia:Point. Thanks.") is what was inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stay on-topic? If you wish to complain about my decline reason: Here you go. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no admin action required in either case, so why is this even here? If you are considering this wheel warring an RFAR is in order. BJ^Talk 01:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the complaints department Aitias. Majorly talk 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PLAXICO. --Smashville^talk 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason for this other than drama? All he did was reduce it to a semi-protect. X! doesn't own his talk page, so no, it is not his decision whether or not it is fully protected. This has already been explained to you here and here. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you have to shop around til you get one you like. Did you even bother to ask Rjd why he did it instead of chastisizing him for it and accusing him of bad faith and making pointy edits? The real questionable part of this is the bad faith response to the RFUP request here. --Smashville^talk 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c's)Agreed. I would also add that we don't look at actions in a vacuum. You can't just look at Rjd's action without evaluating the merits of the original protection and the actions of others involved. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is not the complaints department, and Aitias should know better than to come forum shopping. There's no reason for X!'s userpage to be fully protected, so rudely responding to a request with unfounded WP:POINT accusations is pretty poor. Majorly talk 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any reason to keep this open? Marking as resolved. // roux   01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smashville, that's not my point. What would have been wrong with asking X! first? User:MZMcBride's course of action seems to be far more appropriate: He tried to talk with X! first. That is my point. Why could Rjd0060 not have waited until X! would have replied? — Aitias // discussion 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What admin action are you asking for, here? Consensus is that fullprot isn't necessary, and you've been told the same thing in other venues. RJD isn't going to be blocked for this, as there's no behaviour to prevent. So what action is required? The issue may not be resolved to your satisfaction, but it is resolved. // roux   01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We've already closed this. Opening it back up is disruptive. Your complaint is predicated on bad faith and stirring up drama. You didn't even ask the other admin why he had done it, you just came out with guns-a-blazing. There will be no admin action taken here. So unless you wish to start wheel warring, I suggest you put your guns back in their holsters and walk away. --Smashville^talk 01:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes

Resolved

 – WP:RFPP is just down the hall, on the right

// roux   01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of controversial edits are being made by anonymous editors, which appears to have to do with the recent and controversial nature of the events. In order to keep vandalism away, it would be wise to semi-protect at least until this is no longer a top news item. This is separate from the move protection. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot-assisted incivility

Last month, STBotI (a bot belonging to ST47) posted a warning on my talk page regarding a non-free image that I'd uploaded without supplying a fair use rationale. The image in question was a Wikimedia project logo (which obviously didn't require a fair use rationale), so I rolled back the bot's edit and thought nothing more of it.

Earlier today (my time), an anonymous editor posted a message on my user page (and that of several other Wikipedians) informing me that my name had been listed on the page User:STBotI/BADUSER and that this was visible via search engines. Curious as to why I'd apparently been publicly labeled a "bad user," I read through STBotI's documentation to no avail.

So I headed over to ST47's talk page, where I found a couple of existing threads on the subject (including someone else's inquiry as to the page's nature). I joined the discussion, and then I noticed that DragonflySixtyseven had moved the page to User:STBotI/LEFT-NOTE-FOR-USER with the summary "as per OTRS". But because the bot's code still directed it to the old page title, the next data dump automatically restored all of the content to that location. DragonflySixtyseven rolled back the edit, and I perceived this as the beginning of a tug of war between human and script (until the latter could be updated with the new title). For this reason (and because the redirect's existence ensured that the page would remain indexed by search engines), I deleted the redirect and protected the page against re-creation. (I noted this on ST47's talk page, indicating that "if anyone feels that these actions were inappropriate for any reason, please feel free to undo them or request that they be undone.") At the time, I didn't realize that DragonflySixtyseven already had blocked the bot (so my steps made no difference).

A short time later, ST47 restored the single deleted data dump (labeling my deletion "vandalism") and merged it into the main history at the original name. He/she then updated the bot and moved the page to User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS (edit summary: "Happy?"), leaving behind the redirect at User:STBotI/BADUSER (which he/she later explained must be temporarily retained for technical reasons).

In the discussion that followed, Gwen Gale complained about an addendum, referred to by ST47 as "a nice notice on top of the new page in case someone decides to take offense." This "nice notice" was worded as follows:

---

This page is updated regularly by the bot. It's purpose is really none of your business, but some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time. One of them in particular even blocked the bot over this page. Divas.

This page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by the aforementioned exceedingly nosy users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.

---

ST47 partially reworded the message, but not in a manner that eliminated the incivility. When Gwen noted this and I expressed agreement, ST47 ignored our posts (while replying to someone else's unrelated post) and reverted to the earlier (more uncivil) text.

I don't know how to address this situation. Editing the message would be futile (because it would be reverted during the next data dump), and ST47 has withdrawn from the discussion and evidently restored the worse version out of spite. I honestly don't know why he/she has responded in this manner, and I find it quite disheartening. —David Levy 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I've directed ST47, DragonflySixtyseven and Gwen Gale to this thread via their talk pages. —David Levy 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also this on the bot's user page:

Admins: Getting to block a bot is not a trophy you get. If you block this bot, you had better have a good reason.

Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the editor hasn't been particularly responsive to queries about the page, but it seems like getting him to add {{noindex}} to the page would help? Then his bot could still keep its list and you and the other editors who've angered the bot won't have to worry about a page called 'Bad Users' (or whatever it ends up being called) turning up in web searches for their user names. -- Vary Talk 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. It was suggested to ST47, whose reply was rather unhelpful. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a threat of violence on the bot's talk page (User_talk:STBotI) - "Oh, and if you say rational instead of rationale, I am going to hit you over the head with a large fish." Exxolon (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to interpret that as facetiousness. —David Levy 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Enigma ^message 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but there seems to a problem with WP:CIVIL here too. "small-minded fool", "some people are exceedingly nosy and seem to have this innate desire to waste my time.", "Divas.", "aforementioned exceedingly nosy users," are hardly the sort of phrases an admin should be throwing around. I'm also somewhat unhappy with this statement - "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again." - does this mean the bot will revert removal of a warning template from a user's talk? Exxolon (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, are ST47 and Betacommand the same people? It sure seems like it... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Enigma ^message 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By that, ST47 means that the bot will drop the warning on the user talkpage again if the user just reverts the warning and doesn't fix the image. Which is of course correct. Black Kite 10:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I don't pretend to understand a thing about what the bot does or for that matter why, but it seems to me that the behavior displayed by the bot owner has been somewhere between stubbornly unhelpful and outrightly uncivil. WP:OWN applies to all pages on Wikipedia- even if (s)he owns the bot (s)he doesn't own the pages and this sort of snide remarkery shouldn't remain hosted on our servers. I say remove anything borderline from the bot pages, block the bot if necessary to prevent it overwriting until we can get this sorted out, and surely ST47 has something to say for him/herself? l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with L'Aquatique.  Sandstein  09:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, STBotI is an important bot that tags uploaded media with no copyright information for deletion, and also non-free images that have no valid fair-use rationale. It also informs the uploaders what is happening. Black Kite 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do important bots follow different policies than unimportant bots? rspεεr (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By "important", I was pointing out that blocking the bot would be a bad idea when the problem isn't directly related to the bot's main tasks, which it appears to be performing mostly correctly. Black Kite 10:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots is no big deal. They can catch up later and they don't have feelings to hurt, and the temporary absence of one bot will not harm Wikipedia. Blocking a bot is just something you do when it's making undesirable edits. The problem is that ST47 seems to be taking these blocks of his bot personally, and getting angry instead of addressing the problems people bring up. rspεεr (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point being that the bot's actual main task is not being affected at the moment. I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup to be honest, but yes it would be useful for ST47 to address the issues raised. Black Kite 11:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On top of the incivility, ST47 should disabuse himself of the notion that he can intentionally edit-war using his bot by acting as if it's out of his hands. It is within ST47's power, and his responsibility, to change the bot's code if it is making undesirable edits. rspεεr (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The notice needs to include {{NOINDEX}} - OTRS tickets 2008122610019734 / 2008122710016502 / 2008122710016682 for reasons why. I suspect in the end that some people will never be happy with anything other than uncritical acceptance of any unfree image however tenuous the justification, but the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page hardly helps. I would put money on the anon being the self-same user who created the three OTRS tickets listed above, all of which must be very important and serious complaints because they HAVE LOTS OF CAPITALS and inform us that the BADUSERS page is ILLEGAL. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, there were at least two or three points in there that I was actually interested in replying to. Unfortunately, it's just a jumble of text now. Good job.

1. The page was moved. The new page has a brief explanation as to what its purpose is. Far more explanation than a simple logfile should need, but heh. It was called baduser because it was the dump file for a subroutine meant to locate potential bad users. Aptly named "sub checkbaduser". Here is the current text:

   $badusertext="This page is updated regularly by the bot. There used to be an explanation here of why it was moved, but some overly sensitive users have requested that it be taken down.\n\nThis page contains a list of every user the bot has warned as part of it's live IMGBot2.pl task, along with the number of times they have been warned, since the last time the page was cleared. Probably a long time ago. When I first wrote the bot I used the terse name BADUSERS for this page, as it was the dump page for the BADUSERS sub, which reported users who had uploaded over 10 bad images to an IRC channel. Unfortunately, due to meddling by several users, it was moved to this name, which sort of screws up anyone who is trying to actually review the bot's code, since it's got a nice logfile for NFCC10C issues called NFCC10C, a logfile for notag issues called notag, etc, and now the wikipage WARNEDUSERS for the BADUSERS sub. This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption, is in no way guaranteed to be accurate, and is really best ignored - it needs to be on wiki so it is shared between STBotI's various host servers.\n\n";

2. I didn't 'revert' my change when I went from the older message to the newer one, I just hadn't let that change propagate. Now it has, and the bot has been restarted, and the notice will stay.
3. Guy: You must be behind on sleep if you think you can justify deleting this page on legal grounds, especially in its new state. I see no reason to add templates or notices or documentation or pretty colored boxes or flying ponies to what should be a simple log file.
4. If you try to move one of these pages and the bot ignores you, DO NOT block the bot. Let me know, and if you're clever enough to justify moving it, then I will shut down the bot, edit its config, force propagate the changes, and restart the bot.
5. The redirect needs to stay for now. Do not delete the redirect. The IRC portion of the bot running on some faraway server will not function without the redirect. Once everything has been updated, I will delete the redirect. If I have not done so in a week, you may remind me then. It shouldn't take any longer than that.
6. Vary: The page called Bad Users is no longer in use. It is now called Warned Users. This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary.
7. Ed Fitzgerald: What, is asking admins to think before they block such a horrible crime? What is so wrong with sanity?
8. Exxolon: Right. It's a threat because I'm actually going to find every user who misspells rationale and go to their house, break in, bring a tuna, and attack them. It's far more plausible that I didn't actually mean that.
9. Exxolon again: "Do not revert the bot's edits to your userpages or templates, because the bot will just do it again" means that if you revert the bot's removal of fair use images from your userpage, from a template, from a portal, from anywhere else, then the bot will just remove the image again on it's second pass.
10. Rspeer: At the time that I made the note saying that the bot would ignore any change to it's log file, noone had actually made a coherent case as to why. As a matter of fact, the same is true if we substitute 'now' and 'why there's still a problem now that it's at /WARNEDUSERS'. ST47 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut that message short because I was looking for an iridium flare, unfortunately it's a bit too cloudy. I first became aware that someone was complaining when that user vandalized my talk page, the bot's userpage, and the bot's logfile, all in CAPS, while logged out. Obviously a user with an account who had to log out to vandalize. He was blocked for 24 hours, the damage was reverted. When I got there, I believe I reverted one more edit to the logfile from a while ago and then I semied it. I also left a message on the IP's talk page, which I really think was rather nice of myself after he came and acted like such an ass. Anyway, I think I then received an email, let me check. No, maybe not. I heard from someone that there was a rather incoherent OTRS request up from a user who was, their words, not mine, 'mentally unstable'. Around this time the first message on my talk page was left. The user didn't justify their request, didn't ask me to add the template, didn't give any reasons, just pretty much asked what would happen if he added it to the page. The answer to that is "The bot would ignore it, and on the next update it would be removed". Then lots of stuff happened. He msged me at 5PM yesterday, my time, and told me the page would be a problem. I was at a calculus study group, away from my computer, and could not respond. Despite the fact that the page had been up for over a year, Dragonfly6-7 couldn't wait 15 minutes and moved the page at 5:10. Sometime in this period the bot probably reuploaded the log, because it's nowhere near clever enough to see what DF67 did. Less than a half hour later, he blocked the bot. He could have protected the page: the bot is not an admin, and could not have edited through protection, and would have been able to continue to run. People have this innate desire to rack up trophies or something like that by blocking the bot rather than taking the more effective, more sane, less exciting approach. When I got back, I probably shouted at people a bit, had the bot unblocked, then I histmerged the page and moved it to /WARNEDUSERS. This is a perfectly fine title. It is truthful. It is a list of users who the bot warned. The message at the top is more truthful than incivil, for sure. 'Meddling' is entirely accurate: rather than wait for me to reconfigure the bot, people had to try to do it themselves, wound up failing, then blocked the bot. ST47 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, Guy. The second half of your comment appears to be sarcasm, but you also seem to be using it to support the use of that template. Are you being sarcastic about that as well, or are you actually suggesting that since the user has used enough capital letters, we should add some random template? Also, if you do have some request to make of me, then you really need to support it with the actual tickets that explain your supposed "reasons why", rather than some arbitrary timestamps. Being that I don't have OTRS access, I can't evaluate an argument that is hidden behind a timestamp. ST47 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"...This has the benefit of being factually correct, and therefore noindex is really unnecessary" - would it hurt to add noindex, though? There's no need for the log of a bot to be publically searchable - as you yourself state, "This page is absolutely not intended for human consumption..." _TalkIslander 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for it not to be. ST47 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, but in a way you're contradicting yourself there. You can't state one minute that the page isn't for the general populus, but then the next refuse a request to hide it from search engines. Apart from all else, it's a tad stubborn. Adding it would not be at all detrimental to you or your bot, yet you refuse. Why? _TalkIslander 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

@ST47: I'm afraid your comments to me above don't actually address what I said. I did not say the page should be deleted, I said we should add {{NOINDEX}}, I think we should do that with any page where bots make records of usernames - in this case the username is the user's real name, so the fact that one of the first page of Google hits is a page about BADUSERS is a bit of an issue for him, for all of his (IMO) rather hysterical over-reaction to it. I am sure he'd have got the result he was after much more quickly and with less drama if he had left the caps lock off and just asked nicely, since I don't believe that anyone is setting out to e actively evil. But the tone of the message on the WARNEDUSERS page is pretty inflammatory, and I don't think it would hurt to tone it down a bit - do you? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no longer called BADUSER, it's called WARNEDUSERS, therefore the title is factual (list of users who have been warned) therefore it's no reason to exempt it from the whole searchable openness of knowledge thing. The message has been changed once again. Still waiting on a good reason for noindexing. ST47 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to set things straight here, I appreciate the change to use the editable header text (I assume it uses it direct, but whether it does or whther you copy-paste it periodically probably isn't relevant at this point). You've been given what several users think is a good reason to use NOINDEX, which I see you currently do. Do we still need to have any further debate about that or not? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

We seem to have consensus here that User:STBotI/WARNEDUSERS should not include the objectionable commentary directed at other users, and should include {{NOINDEX}}. I have made these changes and, according to ST47's suggestion above, protected the page to stop the bot from overwriting it. I ask all administrators to only lift that protection once the bot has been reconfigured so as not to undo these changes. Thank you.  Sandstein  13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also suggested that you first come up with a good reason why. I've made the changes to the bot to use noindex, and if you have a good reason to, I'll keep it that way. ST47 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the commentary should be neutral, and perhaps transcluded from a protected page that can be tweaked without having to get specific users to make code changes. By neutral I mean something like: "this is a list of all users warned by the bot, being listed here does not imply that there is an issue with the user, this is purely for maintenance purposes." Or something. Some of those usernames are real names. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why, apart from the fact that you do not own that page and appear to be the only user here not to want it noindexed, are our policies regarding civility, personal attacks and, as Guy points out, the biography of living persons. I strongly recommend that you follow Guy's advice with respect to transcluding the commentary.  Sandstein  13:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy: It's just a header for a logfile. It seems neutral to me. Once I finish this post, I'll even get rid of everything except the explanation. And since there will be a nice, neutral, explanation, I don't think we'll need noindex, do you agree? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. You still haven't explicitly stated why you refuse to add 'noindex' - it seems to me that you're the only one here against including it, so unfortunatly consensus is against you. I'll just add that I think the transclusion idea is a good one - as you're well aware, you don't own the page, so you shouldn't be the only one able to edit its contents (which, by having the bot overwrite it, you effectively are). _TalkIslander 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All I really want is a reason why we have to take the step of noindexing the page. Now that there's an explanation as to why the page exists and why it should not be used by anyone or anything like that, and that the title isn't inflammatory, anyone who finds it would see "oh look, a bot's log page, nothing interesting here" and move along. No reason to hide it from google. ST47 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, put it this way. If I were warned by your bot, I would be added to that list (quite legitimately). Now, it could be that I was warned for uploading a fair-use image for which I forgot to write a rational - as soon as I got your bot's warning, I'd write one (not the best example, as I never upload fair-use images without rationales, but humour me :P). I wouldn't then want a result for a google of 'Islander' to bring up a page entitled 'WarnedUsers'. Yes, it's not really inflammatory, and yes, it's miles better than 'Badusers', but still, it's a blot in my copybook. You won't find anyone that wants to be labeled a 'bad user', but equally I think you'll find very few that are quite happy being labeled a 'warned user'. Being a 'warned user' implies that you've been a bad user, and warrented a warning. In short, though the new title is much better than 'badusers', it's still not great, however factually accurate it is. _TalkIslander 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ST47/WUHead. Feel free to add a comment to the header explaining that. You can also use User:ST47/WUTitle. If you do, then please also move the existing page to the new address so as to preserve history. ST47 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - much appreciated :). _TalkIslander 14:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand: If we ignore the commentary, and assume that I make it nice and neutral. A list of users who have been warned is in no way uncivil, it's not a personal attack to say "STBotI warned you", and I don't even see where BLP comes into play. If we treat this as a mainspace article and apply that policy, then we really just need it be unbiased and sourced. If it would make you happy, I can add a link to each users' talk page history as a source? ST47 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated with a neutral explanation. ST47 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of the worries editors had about how things were worded. I don't think anyone was being nosy or untowards, although from your outlook, in the thick of things trying to run the bot, I understand how the page name seemed utterly straightforward and harmless to you, a scripting artifact and nothing more. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really would like to keep it not noindexed, and I've put the header and title into a template at User:ST47/WUHead and User:ST47/WUTitle. If you have any suggestions, feel free to update them. ST47 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about calling the dump something like TEMPLATEDUSERS or NOTIFIEDUSERS instead? I see nothing wrong with keeping the page open to SE bots if the pagename along with any header text are wholly neutral. On the Internet, it's so easy for folks to take things wrong at a quick glance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Either one of those is fine with me. Perhaps we can not make it ALLCAPS? User:STBotI/Notified users? ST47 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason I thought ALLCAPS was how you wanted it, to denote botness or whatever. I always like smallcase better. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important that a bot's logfile be indexed by search engines? DoubleBlue (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the page as it now is, but I think the NOINDEX should stay, as the page is of no use to the general public and would needlessly clutter up search engine results.  Sandstein  14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not indexed I see no meaningful worries with the name and header as they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including NOINDEX is simple: some of those are real names, and some others look like blameless users who made trivial errors in NFC rationales. There is no reason why it would ever need to be indexed, so adding NOINDEX makes good sense - it removes an identified problem without apparently creating any further problems of its own. Anyway, all sorted now, thanks. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. No matter what the page's title is, an incorrect inference can be drawn by someone who sees such a list (containing names added due to issues ranging from blatant image vandalism to "a bug in the bot's code," the latter of which resulted in my name's inclusion). The new explanatory message certainly helps to counter such misinterpretations, but I see no reason why a page of this nature should be publicly indexed.

Thanks for calming down and addressing the problem, ST47. —David Levy 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that all the operators of these copyright tagging bots always seem so grumpy? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case nobody gave him any time at the start to actually do changes. Something about an anon shouting at him, telling him to put noindex without explaining why. Then other users (including myself from my blackberry) try to put noindex on the page, and one even tried to move it. Of course it is a bot, so none of that worked as the bot was just putting the same text in the same spot every time.... overwriting whatever was there originally. I do think the whole thing could have gone better then this... but *shrug* —— nixeagle 14:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, et. al. at WT:DYK

Could some uninvolved admins please step in at WT:DYK? The constant sniping and hostile atmosphere between Ottava and other editors at DYK has driven contributors away and is a detriment to Wikipedia. Is Ottava still under mentorship? If so, could the mentors please advise him/her on disengaging? BuddingJournalist 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Until any are given, here is a stack to look through. No opinion on subject matter. [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up with the DYK issue, but my understanding is that Ottava Rima ended the mentorship a few weeks ago: [117] [118] [119] [120] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats about right, except for the mentorship actually ending here, 5 days before. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two hours and not one notification that I am put at ANI? And this is some how supposed to quell my claims that people at DYK are not following community standards anymore? >.<!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  I apologize for not informing you. I was merely trying to flag down administrators to calm the waters at WT:DYK, not start a discussion here. BuddingJournalist 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  Here is a good diff to look at. I tell Politizer to get involved with other aspects of the community: Village Pump, GA/FA, MoS, etc, in order to get a greater sense of people's opinions and issues, because DYK has been making some proposals that seem to run counter to how people outside of the rarely viewed WP:DYK talk page feel about various issues. What is the response? "You can go fuck yourself, Ottava Rima". I have a lot of DYKs. I have half of the DYK 5+ hook awards. I know about making complicated DYK, and I defended DYK for a long time at ANI. Now I am being dragged through the mud because I defended Blockquotes as counting as prose, as even MoS and WP:SIZE states it is. Then I am criticized because I stated that translations and simply taking what another wiki says and copying and pasted it into wikipedia is not new. What is this world coming to? I stated before that Village Pump or RfC should be used to get wider consensus on an issue and certain members called for me to be banned from DYK because of it. Is this really fair? Is this right? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at this from afar, all of the parties need to disengage here. I've avoided DYK while this furore is going on... Sceptre ^(talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. This is needless drama- everyone needs to put on the big girl panties and walk away. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert over protection.

Why are admins editing over protection. What I see here is a protection, then a reversion. Should pages be protected in the condition they are found? page history. The protection policy does not call for full protection at user request, but only semi after vandalism. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't protect and revert in the same edit. Please note it is the same editor who protected that reverted. --Smashville^talk 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it was at user request. NonvocalScream, may I respectfully suggest that you drop this matter? It's over, done with. // roux   19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was still very much against what we do. We don't protect a user's preferred version of disputed content. As for your suggestion -

A single title was removed from your watchlist:

* User:Bstone (Talk) I'm not watching that page anymore. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well umm... the ANI you started had a consensus to leave it alone. The MFD you started and withdrew had a clear consensus to leave it alone. So it's not about protecting the user's preferred version, it's protecting the consensus version. Cheers. // roux   20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I guess I am having a hard time with a message on a userpage that brings a user and the project into disrepute. As if the userpage belongs personally to the user. I guess I had better get over it before I start exhausting the communities patience. I, personally don't have alot of patience for troll like behaviour, but as above, the page no longer appears on my watchlist, and is also protected against my editing. I've already asked for opinions here, and subjected it to MFD. There is not anything else I can do. It saddens me a bit that the page can continue to exist in its form. It is a bad faith page, and one that would sully the project and an editor. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be, mate. This falls into the same category as uncertified RfCs. People can vent, but we are not compelled to host the venting especially if they choose to leave. Bstone's complaint was discussed and consensus was that he had outed himself; I knew his RWI already due to past comments and commentary, he was not exactly working hard to retain anonymity so it's hard to condemn Avi for what looks very much like a simple slip. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Jehochman

Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been actively advocating for a community ban/block/etc. of me for more than a month. I'm fine with this, but when he takes unilateral actions to stop my attempt to deal with problematic situations:

[121]

what am I supposed to do? This was an inappropriate close of the COI report. Similar to User:Pcarbonn whose report was closed by the same user leading indirectly to us having to escalate the condition all the way to arbitration, Jehochman is cutting off process and not letting people comment. His claim that people's "vocations" don't make for conflict-of-interests is false on the face of it. I am accusing this particular user of editing articles which have a direct financial connection to a business that he runs.

Imagine if we had a person who was selling snake oil editing the article. By Jehochman's arugment, we could say that he wouldn't have a conflict-of-interest editing that article because it was his "vocation". We could make the similar argument for nearly anybody.

As such, I submit that this early admin-close was inappropriate for two reasons:

1. It was done by an admin with a stated vendetta against my involvement at Wikipedia.
2. It was done inappropriately. The claim that you get out-of-conflict-of-interest-free simply because it is your "vocation" is false on the face of it pursuant to various rulings including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience which dealt with Eric Lerner's vocational conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion which dealt with Pcarbonn's vocational conflict of interest.

I would ask that an administrator remove the "close" remarks and simply allow discussion to occur. I think the premature closing of this discussion was rude and opposed to our desire to get consensus. Jehochman is not the be-all and end-all of conflict-of-interest discussions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably be best to leave out the vendetta bit and other accusations so the question of how best to handle the COI report can be focused on without all the other drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• SA, the complaint was closed because the editor in question is quite open about his bias and therefore it does not need to be brought to the COI noticeboard. Whether there should be a user RfC or a motion to ArbCom under the terms of the homeopathy arbitration is another matter. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Jim Butler never ever stops his advocacy, and while the direct benefits may be low, they might not be; we can't guess how often he sends people unsure about Acupuncture to the Wikipedia article as a 'good introduction to the subject', knowing that his highly biased edits populate the article. I've seen discussions of his NPOV-violating edits to scientific articles before, but note that once again, this has become about SA, not the people who constantly sell bullshit as 'essences of roses' on Wikipedia. If WP:COI isn't appropriate, then we need a WP:ADVOCACY reporting system to deal with this sort of behavior. Until then, COI makes more sense than any other location. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note: It's become apparent that ThuranX had me confused with User:Tom Butler.) --Jim Butler (t) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, we actually have had people selling snake oil editing the article on snake oil - it's a fringey mess ATM. As for COI, not sure here. I occasionally contribute to general articles involving chemistry (my academic background). I would think twice before editing articles involving my specific area of research - not sure if I could be unbiased when I've reviewed papers by the "other guy" I think are horseshit. That's a grey area. I would never edit any article involving my employer, as that would be a clear COI. So I think this is closer to the grey area than a direct violation of COI, and is probably best described as advocacy.

The closest comparison to Mr. Butler's behavior is probably, I hate to say, Dana Ullman[[122]]. I would suggest that Mr. Butler step back from active editing of acupuncture articles and restrict himself to talk pages in light of this. Arbcom has not looked kindly on dedicated advocacy.

As for Jehochman, I urge him not to bring any administrative action against SA at least until the conclusion of the impending arbitration. There's some pretty harsh rhetoric from both sides in the RfAr that makes me question if Jehochman can be impartial here. In any case, it's like dumping gasoline on the fire. Skinwalker (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree re Jehochman. He, like all admins familiar with SA's misconduct, need to bear down harder on SA, not cut him slack because of false equivalencies. That's the right thing to do with chronic problem editors. SA is the bad actor here, not the admins he complains about. There's plenty of evidence to back that up; start with SA's block log, not to mention this. --Jim Butler (t) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys complaining about my edits actually read them? I write for all sides of the argument (e.g. adding a whole "criticisms" section, or updating evidence showing less effect for osteoarthritis, or adding a source re cultural bias in studies). If I put in a "pro" position I source and weight it carefully, engage on talk pages, compromise, etc. IOW, I wear my WP editor hat first. I've been accused of this stuff before, and the evidence never backs it up; e.g. this ANI thread on another disruptive editor, Mccready (whom ScienceApologist closely resembles in his disruption). Thuranx and Skinwalker, this is the first time I've heard of you; if you have issues with my editing, why haven't you discussed it with my via usual channels (talk pages)?

You've got to show better evidence of COI or POV-pushing than merely asserting it exists because I happen to be an acupuncturist. Absent such evidence, all you're doing is violating WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." BTW, I also have a very mainstream M.A. in chemistry from Harvard; be assured that I experience no inner conflict at all from also being an acupuncturist. I just try to be as objective as I can, and skeptical type editors who actually collaborate with me, as a rule, tend to say favorable things about my editing (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). I welcome scrutiny of my edits, but let's see some diffs: otherwise, this all sounds like meritless piling-on to me: pure WP:GAME by ScienceApologist, who has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned.". What more proof of bad faith do you need? He's engaging this jihad with me and with Jehochman as well. --Jim Butler (t) 00:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, if I edited pseudonymously, this would never come up; but since I edit in good faith with my real identity, and am open about my background, I get slimed. No good deed goes unpunished. What a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler (t) 01:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about your Harvard MA. You've prattled on about it in multiple posts. Skinwalker (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind casual observers that I have one foot squarely planted in the mainstream. Look, talk is cheap. I've never interacted with you before, yet you claim to be familiar with my edits. Why do you think that the majority of skeptic type editors who do interact with me think my edits are fine? Answer that. And if you're going to criticize my editing, provide the evidence. Let's see it. Go over to the articles I edit, find my edits and line them up with discussion at the time, and come on over to my talk page and show me how biased I am. --Jim Butler (t) 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Q.E.D.. Skinwalker (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought you'd have to offer. --Jim Butler (t) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has now come to my talk page challenging me to prove my point or drop the matter. This sort of childish behavior does nothing good for my opinion of him, and he further lowered my opinion by playing strawman games and changing the goalposts when I replied. This is the sort of 'civil POV pushing' and system gaming endemic to the pseudoscience editors that SA and others work against. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the exchange, which editors can judge for themselves. ThuranX, when challenged, declined to produce a single diff to back up his accusation. And then, ironically, repeated his proven-baseless accusation. Conduct unbecoming any editor, let alone those purportedly concerned with upholding stuff like science and evidence. News flash: I'm not the bad guy here. I don't think ThuranX is either, just a little overenthusiastic. The problem is SA's outrageous gaming and attacks. --Jim Butler (t) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)No, I called you a crybaby. The fact that I've noticed your behavior over the past months is enough. 'Prove it' challenges, especially when addressing a pattern of behavior are pointless. Had I replied with two or three examples, he's had dissembled, saying that it was out of context, misinterpreted, or an odd mistake, but not admitted. Had I gone for four to six examples, he'd repeat the context challenge, complained about me not paying attention to the behavior of others in those examples, and had I gone for more, he'd have alleged I was secretly stalking him. This entire arc of behavior, as I predicted, was predicated on eliminating opposition, not about actually addressing the matters at hand. We've seen this sort of bullshit game before, and I for one am sick of being expected to jump through the hoops established by the standard handbook of POV Push tactics. The elimination of editors who participate in this shit would make Wikipedia far stronger than their persistent behaviors. Further, Butlerss above attacks and insults of me and my conduct in NOT going to his page to engage in a pattern of intimidation tactics, and instead, keeping it here where it's appropriate, need a warning, if not a block. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. actually you don't know that. You're the one making assertions about his behaviour, therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide diffs which prove that behaviour. Trust the rest of us to be smart enough to see if he's shifting the goalposts. Can you provide diffs of the behaviour or not? If you can, then please do. If it's true that he has been behaving in this way, then sanctions are appropriate. // roux   04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion. I've seen enough pseudo-science editors play this game to see it when it's being played, sorry you can't. I'm not going to indulge him, or you, on this little distraction. essentially the game ends with a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' double bind, where either the proof provided is all "wrong", or the proof you provided proves you're out to get the editor in question. It's not worth engaging in, and opting not to play so outrages the pseudoscience types that they react with this' if you're not going to play, you never had anything to show' reaction. It boils down to an infantile defensiveness, in which any attempt to oppose them is met with these games, and as I said before, I'm not playing. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No.. I believe it's generally accepted around here that making accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up tends to indicate a lack of evidence for the accusations. Either way, I don't have a dog in the pseudoscience fight; I'm just seeing you hurl a lot of invective at someone with not a single thing to back it up, as well as a whole bunch of predictions that you also can't back up. Either he did what you're saying or he didn't. If he did, show us where. // roux   07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, issue resolved: ThuranX apparently had me confused with User:Tom Butler. (duplicate note from above since thread is so long.) --Jim Butler (t) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have Jim and Tom conflated, and that's been resolved. ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the COI report closed for a correct reason?

I opened a discussion at WT:COIN: COI report when not promoting oneself? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for recusal

I would like to request, in the future, that User:Jehochman recuse himself from closing threads that I initiate as there is a fairly obvious history of bad blood between that user and myself. The person feelings that will get wrapped up whenever he takes direct administrative actions with regard to me are unavoidable at this point.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's rich. You've already stated your intention to attack editors with whom you're in conflict. So, your pattern is:

• disrupt the hell out of WP
• get sanctioned by an admin
• complain that the sanctioning admin is "in conflict" with you, and demand recusal.

That's cute, if a tad transparent and WP:SOUP-y, but it won't fly. What you should be doing, if you really feel that you're the lone defender of certain science articles, is (a) stop being so grandiose, (b) disengage. What you should not do is state the intention to rampage, and then do so. In good faith, I would recommend that you disengage; however, I must admit that part of me despairs of your ever behaving well on WP, and doesn't mind letting you keep rampaging, because then the community will be forced to act. Sorry, but you've crossed the line long ago into the realm where it's appropriate to call a spade a spade. You have become a seriously disruptive influence on WP, and need to choose between disengaging or forcing others to impose that on you. --Jim Butler (t) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As some fellow editors may have noticed at RFAR, I've become ScienceApologist's mentor. He made this request at my suggestion. He and Jehochman do have a history, and it's reasonable to at least request recusal. If anyone has an objection that pertains to ScienceApologist's interactions with Jehochman, here would be the place to raise it. Please keep the discussion topical: one's general opinion of any editor (positive or negative) is unrelated to the merits of a recusal request. Durova^Charge! 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova, for highlighting the pertinent issue, and sorry for going off track. I'm interested to know about Jehochman's and SA's past interactions; it will help me understand the RFAR better, as well as the recusal request. Could you explain this background a little? Thanks, and I sincerely wish you and SA the best outcomes with the mentoring relationship. I'm glad he undertook it, and afterward I was frankly surprised to see his gratuitous COI attacks on me[123][124]. I don't think they're a very good start for a guy ostensibly seeking wiki-rehab. (That's assuming they were meritless. Now, maybe my edits are overly biased, but it would be nice if someone who knows me and has worked with me could explain specifically how.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, am just getting up to speed on things myself. Basically it's been a tough month for Jehochman and perhaps his intuition isn't quite at its best right now. Also before I ever corresponded with SA I wasn't keen on J's handling of the Pcarbonn threads. There are 1500 other sysops and if SA starts a thread that lacks merit, someone else will close it with less controversy. This is a tough area for all concerned; one step at a time perhaps we can bring things more in line with site norms. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. I still don't understand the logic re recusal. SA has been extremely disruptive: virtually no one disputes that. If Jehochman is familiar with SA's conduct, and has sought to improve it, why would recusal be a good choice? It's better to have admins involved who are familiar with the history. Is there evidence of misconduct by Jehochman with respect to SA? That's the question. If not, and SA just feels annoyed that Jehochman has been trying to rein in his excesses, then the recusal request sounds like WP:GAME to me. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere fast. I suggest that the parties request mediation, or initiate an RfC, or similar. I do not think Jim Butler is evil, but a cursory glance at his contributions does give some weight to the idea that he is writing for advocacy rather than in a truly dispassionate way. This cannot really be resolved by an admin noticeboard discussion, and I don't think that the COI noticeboard is the right place either as I think the dispute is more nuanced than that. So, a dispute exists, impacts neutrality of content so needs to be resolved, involves some people who have personal issues witheach other so probably needs third-party involvement, and is not a simple matter of self-promotion. Let's pick a venue which supports lengthy discussion of details of content and move forward from there, shall we? Guy (Help!) 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy - Per WP:DR, probably Talk:Acupuncture would be a good place to start, where there are already editors familiar with each other's work. As a matter of fact, over the last few months there have been more skeptic-type editors than acupuncturists there (3:1) ratio, and we've been satisfied with each others' work (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). There isn't some longstanding conflict hinging on my pigheaded refusal to see the light, or something. Collaboration is the rule there, not heavy-duty conflict (the tendentious and rightly-banned User:Mccready notwithstanding). With all due respect, I don't think we need to go further up the WP:DR ladder merely on the basis of a quick glance at my edits. You're trustworthy and level-headed, Guy, but are not familiar with my contributions, or how the acupuncture article has evolved over the last couple years. regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't an ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science just started which can address at least some of these problems? Isn't that a good place to start? Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an arbitration going on right now. Why are we here? The mentor would do well to guide this matter through dispute resolution rather than encouraging disruptive excursions. I've never blocked or unblocked SA. I've only acted as a fellow editor. I happen to like them, in general, but am very disappointed that they keep pushing the envelope. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler isn't a named party in the arbitration case. So perhaps mediation would be a good idea? Please slow down a step or two, Jehochman. I didn't encourage these threads or even know about them until last night, at which point the range of potentially useful suggestions was rather narrow. Would you be willing to consent to his recusal request? Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Um, maybe the best way to deal with any perceived issues of bias on my part would be to start at the beginning of WP:DR, and just talk to me? That is, on relevant talk pages? There is a narrative developing here that I'm a POV pusher, solely because SA wrongly asserted a COI, and two other editors chimed in and then couldn't produce a single diff. (One later turned out to be a case of mistaken identity.) IOW, the idea that I'm POV-pushing happens to be incorrect and unsupportable. (BTW, I didn't read Jehochman suggesting that I get caught up in this RFAR.) --Jim Butler (t) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Move, renames, lost history

I don't know where to post this, but the moves and redirects for the Nazi philosophers article are getting out of control. I don't think there's any ill intent, but this contribution history [125] contains many of the titles and moves. The history is in one place List of Nazi philosophers and the article, with new history, is now in another Nazi Philosophers (at least last I checked) which should probably be Nazi philosophers. Thanks to anyone who wants to help sort this mess out or point me in the right direction. There's also an issue of what the article should be titled and what it should include if anyone wants to weigh in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Savabubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been renaming these articles. He also managed to get his User talk redirected to an article talk, confusingly enough. I undid this redirection and invited him to comment here. His activities suggest he may not be familiar with how article moves are usually done, or the need to get consensus. He has also started a second user talk page at User talk:Savabubbles which does not correspond to any existing user name. Once we figure out how to get a proper move discussion started, there could be a need for cut-and-paste move repair. Savabubble has been around since December 2007. He appears well-intentioned but has not been catching on to WP policy very quickly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I just warned User:Savolya about inserting copyrighted text into Wikipedia, and noticed he/she had been warned previously in September and blocked. Going through the user's most recent contributions, there are still ongoing copyright problems. For example:

• Three Godfathers (1936 film) from TCM, even with the same spelling errors (e.g. "puruse")
• White Feather (1955 film) from TCM
• Bella Darvi from NationMaster (and cited as coming from NationMaster, so it wasn't mirrored from Wikipedia)
• Virginia Mayo from the actor's website
• Virginia Leith from this website
• Bundle of Joy (1956 film) from TCM
• Susan Slept Here from TCM

I was going to wait for Savolya's reply, but the more I looked at his/her contribs, the more concerned I became because the list above is simply from the last two days. If this has been going on since September, there's going to be quite a lot of mess to clean up... Regards, Somno (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I meant to post this to WP:AN. Serves me right for having so many tabs open. Should I move it there or leave it here? Somno (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Leaving topic here, so please comment here. Thanks, Somno (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Complain about Admin Toddst1

Hello administrators, I just want to report an event :

• 19 April : Administrator Toddst1 propose to merge two articles : Everest: A Climb for Peace and Everest Peace Project.
• 5 December : then he propose the deletetion of Everest Peace Project.
• 6 December : I reply : "Anything against this article? Obsession maybe!" :-)
• 7 December : he propose related articles I've worked on (Erik Mongrain/Prophase music)
• I've decide to not react because he's an administrator and obviously looking for troubles.
• 18 december : {{uw-npa3}} is added on my talk page, saying that I'll might be blocked.

I think this is abusive. Thanks a lot and have a nice day! --Antaya (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually you also accused him of repeatedly submitting Everest Peace Project for deletion, which didn't happen. Now you've come here and rather than decide not to react, you've accused him of looking for troubles, but I don't see the evidence for that. And of course, anyone who continues to attack other editors is likely to be blocked, do you have a problem with that?

• Meanwhile I'd like to ask others here about Erik Mongrain/medias - this seems a bit unusual, is it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well maybe I didn't express myself correctlty in English, but I don't think I've attack anyone, no need to block me!!! --Antaya (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I have notified Toddst1 of this discussion, and nominated the "medias" page page for deletion. I have no opinion on the original complaint. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • {{uw-npa3}} might be a bit over the top (3 and above assume bad faith), but yes, the OP is not entirely blameless. — neuro^(talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought namespace subpages had been disabled on English Wikipedia - see WP:Subpages - or has that recently changed? – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They are discouraged by policy, but technically there is no way to prevent their creation. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a sub-page. It's simply a page in the main namespace that has a forward slash in its title. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Well Todd was completely off about Mongrain; he's highly notable - and as one would expect, others better informed were able to correct him at the Afd. (Should have at least googled, Todd.) However, this all reads a little like you're in a disagreement and want Todd censured - please show if and where he ever abused his admin tools. Otherwise, its just two editors disagreeing, and does not belong here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)