Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Al Freeman Jr.: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Unreferenced|date=January 2008}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
{{Infobox actor
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| image = Replace this image male.svg <!-- [[Freely licenced]] images only. NO SCREEN CAPTURES. Please do not put a fair-use image here, it will be deleted - see [[WP:NONFREE]] -->
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
| name = Al Freeman, Jr.
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 451
| imagesize =
| caption =
|algo = old(24h)
| birthdate = {{birth date and age|1934|3|21}}
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
| location = San Antonio, Texas, {{USA}}
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
| birthname = Albert Cornelius Freeman, Jr.
}}
| height =
<!--
| homepage =
| notable role = Ed Hall in ''One Life to Live''<br>[[Malcolm X]] in ''[[Roots: The Next Generations]]''<br>[[Elijah Muhammad]] in ''Malcolm X''<br>Deputy Commissioner James Harris in ''Homicide: Life on the Street<br>
| emmyawards = '''[[Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series|Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series - Daytime]]'''<br>1979 ''One Life to Live''
| naacpimageawards = '''[[NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture|Outstanding Supporting Actor - Motion Picture]]'''<br />1995 ''[[Malcolm X (film)|Malcolm X]]
| spouse = Sevara Clemon (1960 - present)


----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------

-->
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

== [[User:Abtract]] is stalking again ==

Abtract unblocked under agreement. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Archive top}}
Once again, {{user13|Abtract}} is stalking and harassing {{user|Sesshomaru}} and myself. See the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract|RfC/U]] for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#user:Abtract|June 2nd]] he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Abtract|AN/I]] resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=prev&oldid=213831432]. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428#User:Abtract|June 5th]], another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abtract&diff=prev&oldid=225286161], self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Abtract&diff=prev&oldid=225368842], and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&curid=18446875&diff=225875263&oldid=225824778][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&diff=prev&oldid=225998366][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=prev&oldid=225770351][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMZ_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=225684295] as well as continuing his insults of other editors[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visor&diff=prev&oldid=225770492]. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abtract/sandbox-2&oldid=210080508]

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
=== Indef blocked ===
Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract]]. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract|RFC]], which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{tlx|underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z&action=history Dragon Ball Z] shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.20.40|86.44.20.40]] ([[User talk:86.44.20.40|talk]]) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

::If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. [[User:Sesshomaru|Lord Sesshomaru]] <small>([[User talk:Sesshomaru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|edits]])</small> 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Sesshomaru|Lord Sesshomaru]] <small>([[User talk:Sesshomaru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|edits]])</small> 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. [[User:Sesshomaru|Lord Sesshomaru]] <small>([[User talk:Sesshomaru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|edits]])</small> 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abtract/archive_4#A_suggestion] You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.20.40|86.44.20.40]] ([[User talk:86.44.20.40|talk]]) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.20.40|86.44.20.40]] ([[User talk:86.44.20.40|talk]]) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
*Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on [[User talk:Abtract|Abtracts talkpage]] regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
**Looking at it as a third party now.... [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
***I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&curid=18446875&diff=225875263&oldid=225824778] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&diff=prev&oldid=225998366] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=prev&oldid=225770351] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMZ_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=225684295] did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visor&diff=prev&oldid=225770492 here] against an anon, but that’s a ''separate'' matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. '''I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered.''' If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
****There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
****Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*****Okay. I think that's best. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

===Block overturned===
Abtract's block, which was earlier reduced to two weeks, has been overturned by [[User Talk:JHunterJ]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbtract&diff=226832889&oldid=226831773], under an agreement to stop stalking placed there by Ncmvocalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abtract&diff=prev&oldid=226826595]. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Considering JHunterJ's involvement, I strongly disagree with his overturning the block (which also goes against the wording of the very agreement Abtract says he will follow, making it null and void). -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::This seems to be based on Abtract agreeing to the same kind of editing restrictions he's agreed to before and ignored. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, and all he ever seems interested in is getting restrictions on Collectonian and Sesshomaru, while completely ignoring his own behavior that's led to him being blocked six times. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Blocks are preventive, not punitive. While neither Sesshomaru and Collectonian are obligated to agree to the agreement, they are obligated not to edit-war - it's much-more blatantly unacceptable and disruptive conduct. If they're edit-warring in the manner in which they did during this incident, blocks will not be out of the question, like so far. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm well aware of what blocks are there for, but when an editor is blocked for the same thing for a sixth time and this block isn't even as long as the previous ones, I don't see it as being preventive. I hope this agreement changes things, but warnings haven't meant much in the past. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well there's at least an admin, as well as myself who'll be taking a look often enough; or we're certainly open to being contacted in the event of problems. Any necessary measures will be imposed. The issue has our attention now. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::"The proposal is for your own good if you do not want to be blocked"? "The issue has attention now"? No offense Ncm, but you seem to be having delusions of adminhood here. You're threatening the victim, and offering her the same reassurance that didn't work the last few times, and didn't even result in much of a block. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Again, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. I'm not at all surprised if yourself, C or S are still unhappy, when you have that attitude in approaching a dispute. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has basically decided that because I refuse to accept the agreement as written, I shouldn't bother asking for help dealing with Abtract. To quote "there's no point complaining in the future - there'll be little to no help" and he has advocated that I be blocked for edit warring in the future if I basically don't agree to allow Abtract free reign to be disruptive on articles I edit and to not revert any vandalistic and harassing action he takes.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=226940837&oldid=226937093][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LessHeard_vanU&action=history]. As he is not an administrator, I'm curious as to whether his seeming threats of "you will agree to what I say or you'll be punished for being stalked" will actually be enforced by an administrator. Has Wikipedia really become a place where the people who are stalked get blocked, while the one harassing them is alloewd to do whatever he wants? -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Edit warring is unacceptable (with the exception of BLP concerns), and continuing to do so will lead to blocks, period. You refuse to take responsibility for your actions, or assume good faith. In fact, you've stated that you're intent on assuming bad faith - if you expect the system to work in your favour with a tendentious argument like that, then yes, if you make a complaint like above, there will be little to no help. There is inconclusive evidence to support your claims. If he's vandalizing or edit-warring an article, he'll be blocked likewise. You or any other user has no authority to impose an agreement that resembles a restraining order - that's not the way we work here. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Again, you're lecturing the person who was edit warred against and stalked on the evils of edit warring. Collectonian, as well as anyone else who's followed Abtract's history of stalking or read his talk page, has no reason to treat this situation with good faith. We're bending over backwards to let someone who's been blocked '''six different times''' by '''six different admins''' come back without even serving a reasonable sixth block, and not even bothering to ask the people most familiar with his conduct if they think he has the slightest chance of keeping his word this time.

::Honestly, I'm afraid at some point, this will result in Abtract reverting to form and taking someone else down with him by pure frustration. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Editors are ''each'' responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. '''Edit-warring''', whether by [[Wikipedia:Reversion|reversion]] or otherwise, '''is prohibited'''; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. An editor's misconduct does not legitimize another's, when it is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. We have a rule; Bold, Revert, Discuss. If all users cannot follow this rule and choose to go with Bold, Revert, Revert, etc. then they're all under scrutiny.
:::Btw, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(OD)You've made the same statement at [[User talk:Collectonian]], and I responded there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=prev&oldid=226963706]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dayewalker|contribs]]) 09:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::::You can make yourself plain, but you're just covering yourself. All editors are always under scrutiny, that's not what I was talking about. You've taken the up defense of a '''six-time blocked editor''' and are saying the two editors he's harassed are under the same amount of scrutiny he's under. An editor blocked six times in a year for stalking and edit warring should logically be under more scrutiny than others, wouldn't you say?

:::::As for the diffs, his promises are on his talk page as everyone who's followed his history can tell you. I'll have to go back to his previous blocks later to find specific ones. Since you got defensive and didn't provide diffs of the edit warring you've accused Sess and Coll of (which should have been just a few days ago, and much easier to find), I'm going to go out on a limb and assume your characterization of them both as edit warring and deserving of blocks was just a gross overstatement. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::''Copied from [[User talk:Collectonian]]''
::::::No doubt, he is under more scrutiny for the reasons you've stated, and now because he's under an editing restriction.
::::::That doesn't change the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&diff=225922247&oldid=225890121 this] was a personally motivated bad-faith revert. No efforts to discuss the initial revert by Abtract were made. Abtract did revert again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Party_Album_%28Alexis_Korner%29&diff=225998366&oldid=225922247 here] making his conduct fall into question. Contrastingly, Abtract reverted Sesshomaru's revert, and then Sesshomaru again reverted Abtract's revert. This is not helpful conduct at all. This is compounded by the unwillingness to agree to not to revert at all, any of each other's reverts - under this scheme, if Abtract reverts, he'll be blocked - if C or S revert Abtract, then C or S will be blocked respectively, while if it's vandalism, someone else will revert it. So this problematic edit-warring has put all 3 editors under scrutiny; (it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Abtract is under more scrutiny, apparently except to Collectonian and possibly Sesshomaru and yourself who think otherwise) but this does not change the fact that S and C need to take care in their editing in the future. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also C's (and possibly S's) unwillingness to agree to only one term pertaining to them (not to revert A's edits), in stark contrast to A agreeing to the multiple terms including not to revert S and C's edits, is very convincing that edit-warring is an issue here. It's not about a 'defense' or 'prosecution' or 'attack', it's just how this is to someone else looking at it. The agreement isn't unreasonable, given it does not preclude any other agreements or remedies in the future. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained very plainly on my talk page why I refuse to agree to that "one item" but for those playing along I'll repeat it here: ''I appreciate you attempting to help, but in truth you are not an admin, and can't do anything to enforce the agreement. Abtract has violated such agreements before, and he will break this one, then claim it wasn't official or find some other excuse. I also will never agree to such terms that still gives him fair game to harass and stalk us on other articles (reverting isn't all he does, and his favorite target among articles I work on are the ''[[Meerkat Manor]]'' articles, which isn't anime nor manga. The only way I'd make any agreement at all is if his 2 week block remains in place until its done and he is banned from interacting with us at all, including not touching any article nor the talk page of articles that either of us is an editor on. I can just seem him using the loopholes to do things like tag articles for issues, attempt to get GAs or FAs we've done delisted, etc. There are lots of ways to harass us without having to revert when he's left with the options. Basically, it would have to be a virtual restraining order before I'd even consider it, and it must be backed up by an admin who isn't Abtract's defender. One willing to keep an eye on him or agree to be the one to report to if he violates.''

As long as he can continue to harass in ANY way, you're damn right I'm not going to agree not to revert it when he does. All your agreement does is deal with part of the issue, the reverting and the user talk page. It doesn't stop him from harassing on the talk pages and injecting himself into discussion we are a part of for the pure purposes of disagreeing with us, following our contribs and leaving notes on OTHER people's talk pages against us (such as people we've left warnings for our people we're in a disagreement with), and not making harassing edits (such as reverting a very valid redirect of an unnotable music album containing only a tracklist to its artist, as prescribed in [[WP:MUSIC]], or falsely filling a [[Meerkat Manor|featured article]]'s lead with {{tl|fact}} tags then feigning ignorance over why it was reverted, etc etc. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty extreme to prevent an editor from touching ANY article you or the other have touched in any way. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Have someone stalk you for two months and see if you'd want other wise. The only time he has ever touched any article I've worked on is purely to be harassing and a direct result of his self-admitted stalking. I think that's the saddest part of this all, he has fully admitted to doing it, and its still "our fault" for not letting him wreck articles because he gets off on harassing people. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::I believe you're overreacting. And I don't get stalked, I do the stalking!!! I stalk like 15 people. But not maliciously, it's friendly stalking. ;) [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Not really...he stalks, he reverts and edits to deliberately harass, and it seems like he gets away with it and his victims are instead the ones being told they will be blocked for not bending over and take it. Indeed, his actions have now pretty much been sanctioned by his block being lifted early by a non-neutral admin, and believe me he will use it as an excuse when he starts up again. Gotta love Wiki sometimes *sigh*-- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Closed. This is not a complaints department. Restrictions are preventive, not punitive, and the block has been lifted under the agreement. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, well your restriction isn't preventing anything, nor is your closing a discussion in which you are personally involved and when one of the people, Sess, hasn't even had a chance to say a damn thing because he isn't online on weekends. There is also active discussion going on. How you think this is appropriate and why you, a total non-admin, is being allowed to make such actions is beyond me.. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

I disagree with the closing of this discussion, especially by a non-admin who is heavily involved in the discussion. <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:I have discussed this with both parties, and both sysops, during this ANI report only - I am uninvolved in the dispute, so I think I'm more than qualified to notice when this discussion has outlived its usefulness - no further admin action will be taken. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undid his closing and archived it myself now. There is no further action warranted. He was unblocked and made an agreement, I highly doubt any admin would reblock without further provocation. However, if he does break this agreement, bring it back here. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

<big>'''WOW'''</big> We edited at the same exact time, with no edit conflict! THAT'S AWESOME! [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Lol, that's freaky. It wasn't just a comment you made, you'd also rearchived the whole long discussion - and it showed straight after I hit save page without a problem too! [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Beam, for somebody who isn't an admin (and I'm not one either), you sure make a lot of admin-sounding pronouncements. <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== User:JimBobUSA ==

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the ''[[London Review of Books]]'') from [[Yamashita's gold]]. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from [[Japanese war crimes]], while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:
:* [[Yamashita's gold]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yamashita%27s_gold&diff=prev&oldid=226114159] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yamashita%27s_gold&diff=prev&oldid=225194155]
:* [[Japanese war crimes]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=226116177]
:I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]? <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, [[WP:RFC]] or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support [[User:Grant65]] on this. For many, many months, [[User:JimBobUSA]] is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1#The_fleecing_of_the_Gullible]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prince_Chichibu]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1#Page_protected]]. --[[User:Flying tiger|Flying tiger]] ([[User talk:Flying tiger|talk]]) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
: There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.
: I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1#Dubious_.7C_Discuss_and_Fact_tags_have_been_prematurely_removed This thread] seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".[[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikiquette]] in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated [[wikilawyering]]. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1 on January 14]. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that [[Yamashita's gold]] is about a ''theory'' of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that [[User:JimBobUSA]] engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see [[User talk:JimBobUSA]]). [[User talk:Moondyne|Moondyne]] 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the ''Conspiracy Encyclopedia'' (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." ([http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OwlleAMmC2MC&pg=PA219&dq=&sig=jOs2H0HVZjMSocpyPyFz9xtP9eo#PPA219,M1 p. 219]). Golden Lily (''Kin no yuri'') was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold [[User:JimBobUSA|Jim]] ([[User talk:JimBobUSA|talk]]) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Which is why its being discussed here again. [[User talk:Moondyne|Moondyne]] 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

''I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that '''the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese'''.''

''Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that '''the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity'''. Johnston goes on to point out that, '''the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book'''. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards?'' [[User:JimBobUSA|Jim]] ([[User talk:JimBobUSA|talk]]) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Slander of me on the talk page of [[User:HAl|hAl]] ==

{{unresolved}}
User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his [[User_talk:HAl#AlbinoFerret |talk page]]. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHAl&diff=226524290&oldid=225428421 remove the slander] and he has not. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HAl&diff=next&oldid=226524290 He replied to the request]. User [[User:HAl|hAl]] regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that [[User:HAl|hAl]] be warned about replacing the slander. [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User [[User:HAl|hAl]] regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Nitpick: slander is verbal, libel is written. Neither of which really apply here.
:::Second, considering someone a potential sock puppet is not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], but it's not strictly against the rules either. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::The problem with that interpitation of the events is the fact that the account that started the section in question is a single edit account. This is not 2 editors discussing the possibility of someone being a sockpuppet. This is a case of someone posting lies about another editor. It is not a discussion of why they think I am someone else.
::::Are you saying that any editor can state unfounded accusations about another editor? That they can write whatever they want to, and there is nothing that can be done? [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::You're doing the exact same thing you accuse HAl of doing, by assuming the IP is ''him''. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::In my first post that may the the case, but I posted it on the administrators notice board. This is the correct place to discuss if someone is doing something against the rules. Even if the ip is not him, the section in question is not a discussion of the possibility of another editor being a sockpuppet. That would require proof of some sort. Like pointing out single edit accounts quoting rules. If you think that one instance excuses another , then please remove both. I would like for another admin to post on this subject please. [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dealing_with_bad_faith_by_User_hAl | Wikiquette alerts]] for help in dealing with this situation. One important fact that has come to light there is that the person who I am listed as being a sockpuppet of has not edited Wikipedia in 2 months. As I said above, the libel is not a discussion of a sockpuppet case. [[User:AlbinoFerret|AlbinoFerret]] ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret|talk]]) 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Unusual action by admin FCYTravis ==

Admin [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] has just deleted the article [[Historical pederastic couples]], in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that '''Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.'''
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Historical_pederastic_couples&timestamp=20080719195711&diff=prev I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Historical_pederastic_couples&timestamp=20080719200217&diff=prev User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Historical_pederastic_couples&timestamp=20080719200541&diff=prev I made a second attempt.]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Historical_pederastic_couples&timestamp=20080719201100&diff=prev User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.]
:It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?
:The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with [[WP:BLP]]. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Wikipedia. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]])
::::Excuse me. Did you not '''read the AfD closure'''? It says quite clearly, '''Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.''' I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch [[WP:POINT]]y to me. I see no need to delete the article ''in toto'' until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
**As the AfD closer said, '''Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.''' I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic couples (2nd nomination)|this AFD]] closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a [[WP:BLP]]. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, [[WP:DRV]] is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ''ultra vires'' the closing admin anyway. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an ''uninvolved'' admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called [[Bernard Montgomery]] a pederast, for God's sake. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a [[WP:BLP]] situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Wikipedia policies. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]], about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

: I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

: [[User:Dybryd|Dybryd]] ([[User talk:Dybryd|talk]]) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now ''those'' were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. [[User:Dybryd|Dybryd]] ([[User talk:Dybryd|talk]]) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::I urge [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
: Ugh. Support '''undeletion and listing at [[WP:DRV]]'''. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <nowiki><!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---></nowiki> adding {{tl|fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. [[User_talk:Benjiboi|<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u></small><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi</font></u>]] 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is ''not'' reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

::The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:: There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was ''no'' consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

[[User:Dybryd|Dybryd]] ([[User talk:Dybryd|talk]]) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. [[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the [[Talk:Historical pederastic couples|article's talk page]] about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at [[WP:DRV|DRV]] if it should have been deleted?

:::I have left a [[User talk:Sandstein#Historical pederastic couples|courtesy note]] for the closing admin, [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], informing him of this discussion. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe [[WP:V]] and [[WP:BLP]] by deleting noncompliant material (as cited variously above) to have any particular binding force above and beyond that of the policies themselves. The wholesale deletion of the article by FCYTravis and then its protection in his preferred version cannot be supported by these policies, in my opinion, and amounts to a serious misuse of the administrator tools. Protection may be used to enforce [[WP:BLP]] compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline '''at all''' for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful '''abuse''' of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

* Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Wikipedia appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::Travis has now gone on wikibreak [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FCYTravis&diff=226692056&oldid=226691903 "until the community wises up."] And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::: They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just ''yesterday'' FCYTravis got into an edit war on [[Ashley Alexandra Dupré]] with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. [[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::While I agree that one mistake is not worrisome, the refusal to admit that the action was, in fact, an error in judgment is much more troubling. From what I can tell, FCYTravis has refused to acknowledge that there was anything at all improper with his actions. That's just unacceptable, to me. -[[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]] ([[User talk:Chunky Rice|talk]]) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
===Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version===
::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=226693252&oldid=226682835 that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries.] And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. [[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

: No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::: So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:::The closing statement referred both to [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:V]]; verifiability applies across the ages. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people ''are not living''. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.[[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_couples&diff=226693314&oldid=226666698 Here] is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so. [[User_talk:Benjiboi|<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u></small><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi</font></u>]] 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content. [[User_talk:Benjiboi|<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u></small><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi</font></u>]] 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to [[WP:RFPP]] and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

* This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Wikipedia is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*:You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::*(copied from article [[Historical pederastic couples]] talk page):I wrote an article titled [[Indigenous people of the Everglades region]]. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Wikipedia. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::: I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself ''is original research and synthesis'', it ''must'' contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
*(ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as ''carte blanche''. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even [[WP:TRIVIA]] suggests moving material to the talk page of an article for discussion; I see nothing in any policy to suggest unilateral deletion of an article merely because parts of it may be unsourced. [[WP:BLP]] is largely a smokescreen here, since very much of the deleted material, even before the total deletion, was not relevant. [[WP:V]] is much more to the point. Some material was unsourced directly. Some was poorly sourced. But it could have been fixed or deleted as appropriate. There is no need to continue protection of the article, because while it's fully protected, you rely on {{tl|editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Deletion of [[User talk:FCYTravis]] ===
I see Travis [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User_talk:FCYTravis has deleted] his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -[[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]] ([[User talk:Chunky Rice|talk]]) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might ''need'' to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a [[WP:WHEEL|wheelwar]] and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of [[WP:RTV]] this shouldn't have happened. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that everyone have a nice cup of [[WP:TEA]] and re-cage the hounds. Yes, using the delete button to delete one's own talk page generally isn't "allowed by the deletion policy", but in the present case I don't see any pressing harm being done, and it seems to me that building a federal case over this is going to escalate tempers rather than calm things down. In the absence of some urgent need to see his talk page, this doesn't have to get resolved today. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Huh? What drama? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

*This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was [[WP:CSD#U1]] repealed?'. So I checked... and it hasn't been. So I wondered, 'when did the user talk page stop being a [[Wikipedia:User page|user page]]?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually '''say'''... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See [[Wikipedia:User page]], which states "''As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)''". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Perhaps I should post a proposed change to that at [[WP:USER]], as there seems to be consensus here that people may delete their talk pages. Another recent example I can think of is {{user|Spartaz}}, who also deleted his user talk page but is still editing. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not aware of any such consensus. Deleting user pages in which the user was the sole editor is diffent from deleting a talk page in which the contributions usually come from other users. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Nor have I seen any consensus for this. Waiting to see what FCYTravis will do is one thing, changing the policy is very much something else. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis deleting his talk page isn't anything new, I had to have a talk with him before about his problematic deletions of the page, which he finally did undelete. I haven't checked the history, the primary reason he did that was because of trolls commenting there, which if those revisions are the ones he is deleting, I wouldn't care, but prior experience with him was that he was deleting good intentioned revisions, and unless he is leaving Wikipedia, that shouldn't be tolerated. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="FF0000">M</font><font color="EE0000" >o</font><font color="DD0000">e</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="0000FF">ε</font>]] 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

===Calm===
(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's [[Wikipedia:User#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F|the policy]]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd wait to hear what his reason was. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does '''NOT''' say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is '''NOT''' a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting ''against'' FYC, and not <u>for</u> anything. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
*I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
**You speak for me as well. :) [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
**Yep :) [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
**Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Quick Summary ===
'''Side A:''' If I have a problem with ''one single individual'' regarding an article, making it unavailable to ''everybody'' is an acceptable response.

'''Side B:''' You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

: False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Wikipedia is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Wikipedia isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases ''pederastic couple'' or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed. [[User_talk:Benjiboi|<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u></small><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi</font></u>]] 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Nope. It's the actions of only ''one particular individual'' that are mentioned as being the problem. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::"FCYTravis is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when the community wises up." At least that is what it says on his user page template. Is this the kind of attitude that the community wants to endorse ? I sincerely hope not. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Hell yes, I endorse it. One, the article's a mess. Two, When things got to the point where Travis might flip his shit, he took a break. That's EXACTLY what we want when we talk about people needing to take Wiki-Breaks. Good on him! He needs to KEEP his mop and bucket bits, and talk of him surrendering them is absurd. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::The trouble is, he "flipped his shit" before the wikibreak, and there's a definite suggestion in this lot somewhere (I forget where or by who) that it's not his only questionable action either. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

===Update - relisted at DRV===
I have relisted it at DRV [[Wikipedia:DRV#Historical_pederastic_couples|here]] - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. {{unsigned|Casliber}}

===FCYTravis is elsewhere on the internet===
This person is elsewhere on the internet and not, in my opinion, making Wikipedia look good (but not quite BLP'ing WP if you consider WP to be a living thing). The discussion is on flyertalk.com but only established users can see his comments. In flyertalk, established users mean half a year of editing, not just 4 days as is required in Wikipedia. [[User:Presumptive|Presumptive]] ([[User talk:Presumptive|talk]]) 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== WorkerBee74 on Obama page again ==

{{User5|WorkerBee74}} has returned from a one-week block[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorkerBee74&diff=224287666&oldid=224232291] for incivility and wikigaming on [[Barack Obama]]-related articles to wikigame again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Die4Dixie&diff=prev&oldid=226652039] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226637378][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226639172][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226680234][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226682108][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226684429] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:I support Wikidemo's post here. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. [[Special:Contributions/74.94.99.17|74.94.99.17]] ([[User talk:74.94.99.17|talk]]) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP [[WP:SOCK]]s. See [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74]]. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

::::What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. [[Special:Contributions/74.94.99.17|74.94.99.17]] ([[User talk:74.94.99.17|talk]]) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the ''one month old case'' on him at [[WP:SSP]] (and if [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth]] had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=226729643&oldid=226722493] - {{unsigned|Wikidemo}}
::As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like [[Gaming the system]] and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I '''endorse''' a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:orangered">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Can we ''please'' do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226870998] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=226801634&oldid=226735866], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBill_Ayers_election_controversy&diff=226877857&oldid=226875683] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk:Floridianed|talk]]) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

* Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::The editor is continuing,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227026158&oldid=227023369] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227030534&oldid=227026158] and asked him to stop.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WorkerBee74&diff=prev&oldid=227032139] I don't know what else to do. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
=== Time out ===
I would like the opinion of ''uninvolved'' admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=WorkerBee74&site=en.wikipedia.org single-purpose agenda account], one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:WorkerBee74 blocked 4 times] in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth|strong suspicion]] that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.<p>On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] - note [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=WorkerBee74&site=en.wikipedia.org 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article]. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on [[Bill Ayers election controversy]] describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as [[George W. Bush]] (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and [[Tony Blair]] (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and '''their''' single purpose and '''their''' agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke [[WP:BOLD]] and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of [[John McCain]] in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=prev&oldid=226880941 Agenda-driven single purpose accounts] are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further ''uninvolved'' commentary is invited. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at [[John McCain]], try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in [[Barack Obama]]. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WorkerBee74|contribs]]) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't want to argue this here, but the [[Keating Five]] were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=216638657 "Obama campaign volunteers"] are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at [[Hillary Clinton]]. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky '''''scandal"''''' (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other '''''investigations"''''' (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of [[George W. Bush]]. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
<s>Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)</s> All due apologies. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit ''more'' uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Mention the article devoted to this controversy '''briefly in the body of Obama's article''', with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

===Involved commentary===
(placing comment here as involved party, to respect MastCell's request)

(ecX2) in respose to ThuranX's commentary, yes, thanks for taking a look. I notice ThuranX is not an admin, and certainly hope "tough shit" is not the official response here. If we can't enforce civility on one of the most important articles on Wikipedia, we're truly a free-for-all. Obama's biography page has plenty of derogatory information - [[Tony Rezko]], [[Jeremiah Wright]], Obama being a closet Muslim, coverage of controversial positions (with which some may or may not agree), turning down public campaign finance, a less than enthusiastic review of his latest book, controversy over race, criticism that he's more of an opportunist than a real reformer as advertised, and something he stirred up in Kenya that seemed to be important over there. Among these are the biggest negative factors for Obama in the current election, things that are discussed in much more detail in various child articles where they belong. Adding derogatory fodder from the blogosphere just because there supposedly is not enough already, as this editor is doing, is an inherently POV step. But we are not here to talk about content. This is behavior. The "approved and encouraged means" do not include edit warring, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, assuming bad faith, accusing people of lying or of being "Obama fanboys" and "obama campaign volunteers", attacking people as "whiners" for participating in discussions, blaming his misbehavior and others on people supposedly baiting and provoking him, etc. No doubt I'm forgetting a few - the record is very long. The supposed "warning" was coordinating with a sometimes meatpuppet who he has teamed with before to badmouth other editors. He's treating the talk page as a battleground and, in so doing, shutting down productive conversation on that page. True, we should take the edit war off the main page. But if you shut down the talk page with gameplaying and incivility there's no way to make any progress at all on the article. If this editor wanted to contribute by advocating his position the door has always been open to him as much as to anyone else. It would have been easy to do it without being uncivil - the incivility is utterly gratuitous. But after eight or ten AN/I reports, repeated warnings, two or more sockpuppet reports, and four blocks he just isn't getting it. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Such a huge logjam of lies, half-truths and distortions. I've never used sockpuppets or meatpuppets; otherwise, this individual would have seen to it that I was blocked for it. I've never called anyone here a "whiner." I'm not required to assume good faith when bad faith, in the form of baiting and provocation (confirmed by observations of a veteran, trusted, well-established, non-SPA editor) is clearly and continuously displayed.

:I've already paid, in the form of 12 days of blocks, for past behavior. (I don't think that was fair, but nobody can give me those 12 days back so I won't argue the point.) Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at the [[Talk:Barack Obama]] page and tell me what actual grounds this individual '''''currently''''' has for his 10th ANI thread? [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::There you have it - the problem. Apparently I am a liar, baiter, and provoker, and acting in bad faith. Who else is around today to abuse? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters I see.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=227113472&oldid=227111238] Part of the "Obama Whitewash Brigade",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=224191639] an "Obama campaign volunteer",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=223764998] and who knows what else? Sockpuppeting is likely.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/WorkerBee74&curid=18137864&diff=227101351&oldid=222200323] I didn't file 10 administrative reports - they were filed by 6-8 editors if you include the 3RR, SSP, and RfCUs. One loses track of all the insults and how many people he's insulted. When I devote several hours to a methodical answer of the content question[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama%2Fweight&diff=226898190&oldid=226885726][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226900846] and offer a "firm 'no'" based on my research as a position regarding adding the derogatory content,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227024292&oldid=227023369] he dismisses the position as "baiting and provocation" and - after waging war for more than a month and a half to get the material onto the page(a few represenative edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=216638657][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=217400137][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=219555245][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=219736468]) - accuses me of trying to shut the discussion down after 16 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227026158&oldid=227022590] The early post-block behavior is listed in my initial report above, and is ongoing. What tipped this over to an AN/I report for me was WorkerBee74's threat[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226682108] that I "had another thing coming" if I thought the discussion of adding the [[Bill Ayers]] material to the article was resolved, that my objection to his disruption was part of a "disagree/ provoke/ report" tactic (he picked that up from meatpuppeting with [[User:Die4Dixie]] and has been repeating it a lot lately as a taunt), and so on.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226684429] - but he's done far worse since. There is simply no collaboration possible with this editor. Anything we do gets turned into an uncivil attack.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is true the WorkerBee74 has primarily edited the Obama talk page rather than the main article, the manner in which he does so is aimed solely at creating conflict and disruption. Nearly every edit he makes violates [[WP:CIVIL]], and he games the system by, for example, proposing a "poll" on edit decisions, then voting with multiple socks. Those edits he does make to article space are essentially uniformly contentious additions of material rejected by other editors; these are sometimes accompanied by talk page comments that he has ''decided his arguments won'' on the talk page (not sure if putting something on the talk page for a contentions and [[WP:BLP]]-violating edit makes it better or worse). We have been through '''so many''' rounds of dealing with the disruption, then having it resume as soon as the latest block is over. I simply don't see that it is possible for discussion on the Obama talk page to function in a cooperative fashion while WorkerBee74 is permitted to edit there, a topic ban is '''long overdue'''. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:If only you had some proof that these "multiple socks" were mine. But true to form, you substitute false accusation for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees ==

{{sidebox|This is related to the AfD discussion at:<br>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations]]}}
[[User:Zero g]] keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=prev&oldid=226068309][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=prev&oldid=226070213][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=prev&oldid=226239900][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=prev&oldid=226510222][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=prev&oldid=226712640]
As per talk page at [[Richard Lynn]] (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Lynn#Merge_content_of_the_book_into_this_article actually disagreed]. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting [[Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations]] to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:: As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from [[User:Zero g]]'s talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of [[Richard Lynn]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=next&oldid=226070018] came shortly after Zero g's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=prev&oldid=226068989]. Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting [[User:Wsiegmund]], who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein&diff=prev&oldid=223573459] by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as [[WP:OR]] would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Wikipedia, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Wikipedia appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] ([[User talk:Zero g|talk]]) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::On the contrary, Wikipedia is '''based''' on consensus editing. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires an AfD to be produced ''every time'' a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple [[filibustering|red tape]]. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::On [[WP:RPP]], Zero g has written
{{quotation|Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article}}
::Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in [[Richard Lynn]]? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on [[WP:AfD]] to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.
:::They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.
:::It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.
:::When this doesn't work, Wikipedia after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] ([[User talk:Zero g|talk]]) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a ''"significant opposition"'' is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person ''can'' significantly derail Wikipedia's processes and indeed act as it they [[WP:OWN|owned]] an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections ''again'' to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Wikipedia. Just the fact that he calls such articles as [[Dysgenics]] and [[Race and Intelligence]] ''"hereditary articles"'' should give people a hint as to his leanings.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOT#DEM|democracy]]. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --<span style="color:black; background: white; border: 1.5pt dotted black; padding: 0pt 4pt;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::As per the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Lynn#Merge_content_of_the_book_into_this_article link] I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that ''more people oppose the merge than agree with it'' describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is ''really'' opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Wikipedia must strongly and decisively reject.

:::::For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have ''never'' argued on political grounds and have ''only'' argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

:::::There is at Wikipedia an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Wikipedia. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Wikipedia (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, '''this''' is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

:::::This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent [[WP:FRINGE]] violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pim_Fortuyn&diff=prev&oldid=90417750 this], incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see [[WP:AFD]], or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent)
I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed ''by the book'' (i.e., following Wikipedia processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without ''any activity''. The proposal was closed ''by the book'', returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that ''Wikipedia is not a democracy'' (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Wikipedia, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: '''one''' editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Wikipedia policy.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who ''does'' know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::: A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

:::My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 2,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=222741534&oldid=222477821] and then closed ''by the same editor'' on July 13.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lynn&diff=225417041&oldid=225415742] It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

:::I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open [[WP:RFC|RfC]], or an [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it ''looks'' like a formal RfC, is not.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Lynn#Merge_content_of_the_book_into_this_article] So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the ''opportunity'' for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&diff=226713696&oldid=226712640] file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:
::::*A merge proposal does ''not'' require anything else than the proper template being placed on the ''merge-from'' and ''merge-to'' articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does ''not'' require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
::::*As per [[WP:MERGE]], there is ''nothing'' preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of [[WP:MERGE]] seems to imply that it is indeed ''normal'' for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
::::*By allowing the strong objections of a '''single''' editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing ''him'' to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of ''be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors'', this is the case of a ''single editor'' being allowed to railroad the process.
::::*Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are '''not''' the same process, as per [[WP:RfC]] and [[WP:MERGE]].--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Ramdrake, I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of [[WP:MERGE]]. The nominator is only supposed to close their own merge discussion if there is a "clear consensus" or silence. However, if "''the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to [[Wikipedia:Proposed mergers]].''" So, was this particular controversial merge listed? Because I did not see it. Was there an RfC? I didn't see that either. If there was some discussion or notification of this merge, outside of the specific article talkpages, I would be happy to review the links, thanks. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Let's see: 5 people were in favor of the merge, 1 against and 1 neutral. At the time of closing, the merge discussion had been ''inactive'' for '''11 days'''. I do not see any signs of controversy here; there is just one editor opposing the merge, and then letting go of the situation for 11 days. This was not a controversial debate ''until Zero g started making a fuss about it and reverting the merge repeatedly several days after it had been done''. Please note that posting to [[Wikipedia:Proposed mergers]] is not a requirement, just a suggestion. There wasn't either a requirement for an RfC. As per [[WP:MERGE]], the specific requirements for a merge discussion were met, and the merge wasn't a controversial one until Zero g made it so, several days after it was done.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really [[WP:FRINGE|fringy]]. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for {{user|Zero g}}, he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits.[http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Zero+g&site=en.wikipedia.org] But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by [[WP:BITE]], meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Wikipedia [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Wikipedia. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Wikipedia. Instead, we should welcome them, ''if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion'', since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::: I was involved in a lengthy merge dispute that was quickly resolved by taking one of the articles to AfD, described in more detail at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mergers at AfD]]. The situations may or may not be comparable. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:: [[WP:TIGERS]], Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Wikipedia, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. [[WP:SPADE]]. The same holds true for our [[Hindutva]] pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann#on_the_arbcom here]. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to [[Eugenics]], even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like [[social justice]]. Again, [[WP:SPADE]] - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. [[WP:TIGERS]] points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)
For the record, I don't oppose moving this to AfD, even though I think it should have been done weeks ago, as it now looks like a violation of [[WP:PARENT]] (having been overruled in the merge discussion, Zero g seems to want a change of venue to get a second chance). I do, however, object to Zero g's repeated reversal of the merge, followed by telling the other editors to "start an AfD". If he wants an AfD, he should start one.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I have looked through Zero g's contribs, and to my knowledge he has never filed an AfD. It can be a daunting prospect for someone who has never done one, so I'd recommend that one of the more experienced editors do it. Or, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and file it, just for procedure's sake. I truly do not care if the book article exists or not, I just want to make sure that dispute resolution procedures are followed. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Great, Elonka, you have proven that ZeroG has not petitioned an AfD, as perhaps was his prerogative. Swell. But ou have also said that an alternative would be an RfC - and it has been pointed out to you several times that there was at least one RfC on the matter. Elonka, it is time for you to come clean. The integrity of Wikipedia depends on this: What is your motivation in derailing the prope following of the merge-article process? Everyone save Zero G, a single-purpose editor, supports it, and other editors have been following Wikipedia policies. Why do you want to derail wikipedia policies? What is your interest in subverting the process here? I honestly do not understand it. AGF insists I take your comments as constructive but please, can you explain to me what constructive suggestion you have forwarded here? All I see is an attempt to derail a pretty standard Wikipedia process. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I wonder whether Elonka might please stop acting as Zero g's alter ego? Her experiment in mentoring his companion editor Jagz was a signal failure. Now she seems determined to continue it with Zero g. If Elonka wants to file an AfD, please could she do it herself? It seems quite improper for Elonka to act as a behind-the-scenes advisor for other editors, suggesting the actions she would take if she were in their shoes. She says there is a dispute to be resolved. However it is in fact a careless disruptive edit of Elonka herself that has created this whole wikidrama. Could she please carefully reconsider her behaviour on WP in the future and when intervening on a page take some time to review what has been going on. That way she will not waste the time of good faith editors as she now is doing. Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Where is this RFC? This issue of whether to merge a book/author has probably been discussed hundreds of times before, so there should be plenty of good yardsticks lying around, and maybe even guidelines. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics:_Genetic_Deterioration_in_Modern_Populations&curid=18032752&diff=226903971&oldid=226713696 diff], Zero g is still unmerging the article and asking ''me'' to put it up for deletion. Can someone make him understand that if he wants to unmerge the article, this would be solely for AfD purposes, and that the onus is then ''upon him'' to put it up for Afd? Otherwise, that becomes just plain and simple POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring, and ''that'''s a blockable offense.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::That diff is not what I asked for. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, indenting error, that never was meant to be the diff in question.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Wikipedia depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty). <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why I haven't gone the AfD route myself, primarily because I believe the article is notable so putting it up for deletion would be [[WP:POINT]].

Regarding [[User talk:Moreschi|talk]] accusations, I guess he isn't well read on the subject matter, Ramdrake and Co have failed to provide notable sources that state that Dysgenics is considered a fringe science. And given there haven't been any public polls that I know of, the 'assumed' public opinion, unfortunately, cannot be added to these articles. The edit conflict actually began when Ramdrake started to remove properly sourced content from the Dysgenics article. I've never tried to '''push''' a pov on wikipedia, as an editor I've grown and learned to properly source my edits, and to respect sourced edits of other editors. Ramdrake on the other hand more than once removed sourced content, and has tried to add content that wasn't backed up by the sources he provides. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't seem motivated to improve his editing behavior.

I'm also not particularly fond of the 'hey you're a nazi! - lets ban the nazi!' thing. I'm a libertarian and I'm quite aware that many people would vehemently disagree with many of my viewpoints or motivations for my viewpoints, but I wasn't aware that people can get banned on Wikipedia for a suspected political belief. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] ([[User talk:Zero g|talk]]) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
: Per Zero g's request, I have started an AfD, which is available at: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations]]. I have also added it to two delsort categories, for "science" and "social science". I now recommen d closing this ANI thread, since the AfD should now be the primary point of discussion. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka]] 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::In response to Shell (I am on European time). I did not choose to bring this to [[WP:AN/I]]. Since my carefully sourced addition of the book reviews precipitated the forked article, it was quite normal that I should participate here. I don't quite understand why you have adopted the tone above. Certainly what you write does not seem particularly accurate (my recent participation here was concerned with now banned users [[User:Muntuwandi]] and [[User:log in, log out]]). This thread would not have come about if yet another of your friend Elonka's "experiments" hadn't gone wrong. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Regardless of who brought things here, the three of you seem to have developed a nasty habit of drama building that includes feeling personal attacks are appropriate. I believe you also seem to have a particular penchant for taking swipes at Elonka, which you've been warned for multiple times and you're here doing it yet again. Zero g has made mature and thoughtful posts to this thread, while you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein aren't holding yourselves to quite the same standard. Zero g took it upon himself to try one of the methods suggested to resolve the issue; you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein did not. I know its tough to really take a step back and look at your own actions, but when people keep saying the same things to you in multiple places, please consider that they might really have some merit - and if nothing else, please don't try to deflect concerns about your behavior with attacks on other editors. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Shell, please step back a moment. I have not been uncivil. I have merely criticized Elonka's tardiness. Moreschi is one of the few people to have recognized the problems with editor Zero g. His contributions have not been "mature" - his reference here to a "pov cabal" was unhelpful. The tone you are adopting is equally unhelpful and your observations, particularly about the belated AfD, do not seem accurate. Elonka suggested and initiated the AfD, not Zero g. Why not, like me, do something constructive and go to the AfD page where I have already expressed my thanks to Elonka for its creation? Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


:::::Honestly Mathsci, I really didn't comment just to get into another long debate with you where you feign ignorance of any of your (and your cohort's) behavior and pretend I'm being somehow rude. Your comments here have clearly not remained civil; you've managed to call Elonka an alter ego to a "bad" contributor, characterize her edits as careless, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226889601] and even accused her of being the one to create drama [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226765880]. You have been asked very politely before to stop commenting on Elonka since you've said that you're unaware that you're making personal attacks in reference to her.

:::::Aside from the "pov cabal" comment you mention by Zero g, I don't see anything of concern during this discussion. I think, give the behavior I've seen during this thread, that Zero g may have a point, even though it could have been more civilly phrased. Perhaps Zero g behaves differently elsewhere, but again there's a proper avenue to handle things if that's a concern. As far as the AfD goes, I'm going to guess that you just overlooked the "Per Zero g's request" part. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to dive into the issues surrounding the race related articles at this time. Since you appear to be content with handling things there, that should clear up the concerns for this thread then, no? <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Shell, I am the one who started this thread at ANI, based on a simple, objective set of facts: Zero g kept reverting (and edit-warring to keep the reversion) a merge which was done fully according to the rules (at [[WP:MERGE]]) several days ago. He was also the only one to object to the merge when the merge proposal was active. On top of this, after reverting, (and mostly denying the existence of a consensus even though it did exist) he kept insisting that other editors should file an AfD if they disagreed with his reversion. To me, that's not really acceptable behaviour. This situation got further inflated when Zero g started throwing around accusations of a POV cabal (or whatever) and gradually escalated from there. From what I see, your comment only further inflames the situation, even though I'm pretty sure that's really not what you intended. I would really appreciate if you would let this situation de-escalate. Thanks.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you write, "c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that?" Before you accuse me of either being defensive or offensive let me explain because I am not trying to throw out some casual insult. But you have questioned my good faith and you seem to base it on a comment I made here. Do you know that there has been a series of ongoing disputes centered on [[Race and intelligence]] and adjunct articles over the past ''two or three years''? If you want to know what kinds of comments I or others "throw out," you need to look at them in the context of the whole conversation. If you look at the talk pages ofr R&I and other articles you will see a great deal of reasonable, constructive discussion by myself, and others you have maligned. In fact, Alun in particular has added hundreds of kilobytes or more to talk pages on these subjects in which he has gone into painful detail about the current state of scientific research, detailing various sources, discussing their notability, and how they could be used in articles. Yes, you should take us very seriously, because of the valuable content we have brought into the articles and into discussions. And you should take us seriously because of our commitment to Wikipedia policies. The question you should be asking is, why do several editors who are clearly not single-purpose accounts, who have contributed to a variety of articles, who have clearly done considerable research relating to articles, disagree with an editor who apparently has no expertise in science and whose edits all have in common the pushing of a single point of view? The only way a responsible editor can answer this question is by looking at the contents and the research behind it. Zero G is promoting as mainstram science a scholar who argues that people are poor because they are less intelligent than people who are not poor, and that "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." Do you really believe these views are mainstream science? I have read through a good deal of the mainstream science on intelligence, genetics, and poverty, and I know that Ramdrake and Alun have as well; Matchsci has also demonstrated that he has very well-grounded knowledge of the sciences. This is why you should take us seriously. Now, you want us to take you seriously, I suppose. How much time have you spent researching the mainstream science concerning these topics? Have you done any research at all? Or are you just taking Zero G's side against several editors because ... well, why? Is it just that you agree with the views he is promoting? Or are you opposed to Wikipedia's FRINGE policy? Or are you opposed to mainstream science? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to. I honestly wasn't trying to take a "side" and my remarks weren't intended to lend any weight to any kind of content issues that may be underlying the posts here. My comment was only about the behavior of editors in this thread, the language used and the general incivility. You may well have been in this mess for so long that you're very frustrated and its coming out in your posts, for example, asking if I'm just "opposed to mainstream science" is actually pretty offensive - if you genuinely feel that by pointing out that you may need a breather, I'm aligning with fringe somehow, you may want to re-think they way you're handling this area right now. Your response to my comments in general underscores the point I was trying to make - you, and several other editors involved in the dispute, seem to be taking things a bit personally at this time and may not realize that you're coming off in a rather defensive and incivil manner. But hey, its my opinion, not law and didn't come with any "be nice or else" type nastiness, so if you really feel I'm off base, you can just ignore the friendly insights. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shell, I appreciate your clarification that you are not trying to take a side. I realize that this is going to sound defensive but the fact is that some people have responded to this report by disparaging my character. The facts: There was a poll taken at [[talk: Richard Lynn]] to merge the two artciels. The results were 5-1-1, the one opposid 9the only one opposed) being Zero G. Zero G and those involved in the merge got into a revert war and Ramdrake posted the notice here, which seemed to me to be appropriate. At that point Elonka characterized the opposition to the merge "significant;" on Moreschi's user talk page she characterized the dispute as a small group of editors ganging up on a "newbie" (except he has been active - as a single issue editor - for two years) and calling whatever they believe to be "consensus." Elonka is wrong to assert that there is significant opposition to the merge, and she is wrong to question the good faith of several very well-informed editors who have challenged Zero G's edits on substantive grounds. It is frankly perverse that Elonka says we should disregard [[WP:FRINGE]] in this case, and that the view of one single-purpose editor is considered "significant" and the five very well-informed editors who disagree are a cabal who are creating phony consensuses. Let's be very clear about what is going on: the biological basis for social inqualities is a controversial topic, and it is especially important that we comply with NPOV. NPOV requires that we distinguish between significant and fringe theories, and this distinction is especially important to the quality of the encyclopedia, which is the whole point. And this means taking seriously editors who are committed to serious research, and being careful that our editorial choices are well-informed. And that is exactly what happened when, after much well-informed and thoughtful discussion, five people voted for a merge and only one person opposed.

Now, Shell, you cannot step in and basically lump myself, Ramdrake, and Mathsci as some kind of gang of disruptive editors who should not be taken seriously, and then claim to be offended when I question your motives while you also admit that you have not gone over the actual content of the dispute. You write, "If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary" - huh? Please now tell me why I should take you seriously, when all you have to do is read the opening of this thread and you will see that Ramdrake DID document the crap going on factually, and with no drama whatsoever. Or are you now denying that Ramdrake presented the facts, or claiming he did so in an inappropriate way? Are your insights really friendly, and my reaction "taking things personally," when I was responding to your comment which basically was your saying: I do not take Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein seriously - especially when it is we who keep asking people to look at the facts, look at the content, look at the substance behind this edit war. No comments for Zero G? Really? Are you sure you are not taking any side? You write, "I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to." Well, it is easy to sit back and pass judgement on your fellow editors when you make it clear that you do not intend to take the time to investigate the situation. You want to know why there are a few people who pay careful attention to race-related articles and take firm positions when science is misrepresented? You will have to open your eyes and learn something about both race and science if you want to know the real answer to your question. As long as you refuse to look at the contents, of course you will misunderstand. I won't take that personally - and I am just offering you some friendly advice [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Look, Moreschi's identification of Zero g as a single-purpose agenda account was correct. But notice how easily the thread got derailed when Zero g was able to be relatively more polite here than Ramdrake, Mathsci, and Slrubinstein? I can sympathize - anyone dealing with [[User:Jagz|Jagz]] for that long is bound to get frustrated - but you have to realize that Elonka and Shell are not The Enemy. From my experience in looking in on these articles, I would support Moreschi's idea of a topic ban for Zero g, but I don't think it's going to fly - because any admin looking at this thread ''without'' a familiarity with the lengthy history on those pages is going to conclude that you guys are going overboard. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::What substance? Your only contributions seem to be to the article talk page discussions, most notably voting in "polls", and reverting. Then there is also the social networking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive446#User:Verwoerd] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimVickers&diff=227024895&oldid=226920761] --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] ([[User talk:Zero g|talk]]) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::HEY! THIS IS LEFT FIELD! The Topic is up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Kindly shut the hell up and go fight elsewhere, ALL OF YOU. You're embarrassing yourselves. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::MastCell, I hope you are not responding to me, because if you are I have been unclear and apologize. i have '''not''' called for any block or ban against Zero G. My first comment was a protest against Elonka's inappropriate re3sponse to Ramdrake's AN?I post, and subsequent posts were meant to defend myself and others from outlandish accusations of POV-pushing. I also intended to makie a more general comment that no one can adequately resolve such disoutes without an awareness of the contents itself. That's as far as my comments went.
::::I asked serious questions of Elonka and Shell, both of whom are dismissive of my views about enforcing WP;FRINGE and my commitment to research. Neither of them have responded yet. But I see no enemies: I see a typically contentious argument over a controversial issue. I am strived to explain my views clearly and do not like being told I will not be taken seriously because I care about race related articles and have given tem serious research. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Slrubenstein, one of my own concerns about your style here, is that you tend to make personal attacks at those who disagree with you, and you do this with comments that are extremely repugnant. In my own previous discussions with you, you have accused me of "tolerating trolls", of trying to delete [[WP:DNFTT]], and even of supporting racism,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein&diff=223773887&oldid=223760001][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Communication] which is simply absurd. You have made your opinion clear that you see my actions as "corrosive" to Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein&diff=223699222&oldid=223696701] and that you wonder about my "priorities as an administrator."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slrubenstein&diff=223692151&oldid=223614243] Here in this thread at ANI, you have continued with these kinds of hyperbolic accusations, implying that "the integrity of Wikipedia" depends on my motivation, and accusing me of trying to "derail the merge-article process" as well as other Wikipedia policies.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226886211] You have also effectively accused Shell Kinney of agreeing with extremist views, and being "opposed to mainstream science",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=226987771] which, again, is absurd. So, if you truly desire to be taken seriously, I recommend that you adopt a better standard of rhetoric, and get away from these kinds of bizarre accusations. Especially as you are an administrator, other editors do look to you as an example. I would be more comfortable if you were able to present your thoughts in a more measured fashion, without all the excessive accusations. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Hiya, Elonka. I hope that you might also appreciate that it was not very helpful posting remarks like this on Moreschi's talk page:
{{quotation|My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.}}
::::::Might you have privately communicated similar remarks to Shell before she appeared on this thread? Many thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Carol Spears IP edits ==

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article [[Senecio vulgaris]] to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarolSpears&diff=prev&oldid=226432209] A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senecio_vulgaris&diff=226380518&oldid=222339233] I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.


It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senecio_vulgaris&diff=189919016&oldid=158695674]


<blockquote>and one mention that perhaps it is [[distilled water]] which is harmful to [[Animal testing|laboratory animal]]s and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.<ref name='cgo'>{{cite web
| url = http://carol.gimp.org/writing/distilled_water-just_say_no.html
| title = Distilled Water, Just Say No!
| accessdate = 2008-02-05
| author = Carol Spears
| format = HTML
| quote = "All laboratory animals drink distilled water and they all die."
}}</ref></blockquote>

{{reflist}}


This nonsense edit was recently reverted by [[User:Cacycle]] as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senecio_vulgaris&diff=220880404&oldid=219410372]


I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Wikipedia or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dendrosenecio&diff=prev&oldid=223959013][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarolSpears&diff=prev&oldid=221418505] Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.


I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Wikipedia.


But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Wikipedia in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Wikipedia to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.



--[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the [[Sherzer Observatory‎]] article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the [[Annona cherimola]]. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senecio_vulgaris&diff=189919016&oldid=158695674]. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::: As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Wikipedia since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:orangered">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::As the account is indef blocked and the user talkpage is not being used to request unblock or otherwise for appropriate purposes I feel it should be protected. I was also against the community ban, but given the subsequent actions by the editor I am no longer in a position to advise that I would unblock the editor should consensus allow me to. I think that there was one other sysop who was not willing to sign up for the community ban, and if that individual were to clarify their position we might open a brief discussion to formalise a ban. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I did express a willingness to undo my block, but sadly I've seen no sign on the talk page that she's prepared to play nicely. I think Wikipedia needs protecting from this editor - endorse ban proposal. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

===Proposed community ban of [[User:CarolSpears]]===

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |


{{user5|CarolSpears}}
I propose a community ban to included blocking of her talk page. She simply wastes too much time, she has wasted enough already, and she is continuing to user her talk page to waste the community's time, with no indications that she is willing to try or is able to understand Wikipedia policies. If there is a more central place to post this, then please, someone alert me as to the proper place. Here's the RFC.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears] The last AN/I thread was archived, but I can't locate it, but here's almost to the end of it, where the notice of her sock puppet accounts was posted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=224044608#User.3BCarolSpears] Her edit history, including her most recent request to be unblocked.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CarolSpears] Her sock puppets.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_CarolSpears] --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. After the plagarism, the lying, the socking, and all the bullshit, throw her out. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support''' We've given CarolSpears enough chances, and enough opportunities to turn herself around and become a good contributor. It is detrimental to the encyclopedia to have her wasting other editors' time. [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Even most sneaky vandals are not this much hassle. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I, for one, have had enough. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Information''': I found some rather weird behaviour by CarolSpears the other day while checking her edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senecio_vulgaris&diff=189919016&oldid=158695674]. Buried in this huge rewrite is this coatrack, referencing herself:
{{quotation|1= Information about the pyrrolizidine alkaloids, the substance present in Senecio vulgaris is much less contradictory and all warn of accumulation of the alkaloid [...] and one mention that perhaps it is [[distilled water]] which is harmful to [[Animal testing|laboratory animal]]s and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.<b>[REFERENCE: {{cite web
| url = http://carol.gimp.org/writing/distilled_water-just_say_no.html
| title = Distilled Water, Just Say No!
| accessdate = 2008-02-05
| author = Carol Spears
| format = HTML
| quote = "All laboratory animals drink distilled water and they all die."
}}]</b>
}}
}}
:[[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Note that the essay's been taken down. No doubt she'll say there's some faked up conspiracy or something. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, Shoemaker, this is not the first and only instance of her referencing crap to herself. It appears that all of her edits should be simply removed from the encyclopedia. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 17:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::That's probably the best idea, though it could be annoying to check if people made changes after her. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse ban'''; time to draw a line under this. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' ban. We've wasted enough time with Carol in the sense that she will not reform, refuses to reform, and then makes comments in her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarolSpears&diff=prev&oldid=227005958 unblock statement] that may indicate use or future use of sock puppets. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at first, but I've seen enough now. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although I will miss the nonsensical ramblings on her talk page...such as the mention of Nathan Fillion in a musical in her last unblock request. Quite entertaining, but of no use to the project <font face="monospace">[[User:Legotech|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">LegoTech</span>]]&middot;([[User talk:Legotech|t]])&middot;([[Special:Contributions/Legotech|c]])</font> 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
**'''comment'''. that would be [[Dr._Horrible%27s_Sing-Along_Blog]]. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse.''' [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I guess it took the community a few weeks to see for themselves. When an established editor presents documentation of a serious problem that's been ongoing for half a year, please don't accuse that editor of being hasty or ban-happy. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' [[Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye|At the risk of being flippant]], this is a good ban for the community as a whole, and long overdue. [[User:Wildthing61476|Wildthing61476]] ([[User talk:Wildthing61476|talk]]) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per earlier section. I apologise for my part in drawing this matter out longer than it needed to be. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Positively'''. This person has proved to be more trouble than most banned users. This should have been done before. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' [[User:Darkson|Darkson]] <small>[[User_talk:Darkson|(BOOM! An ]][[Special:Contributions/Darkson|interception!)]]</small> 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse ban''' - User's productivity such as it is is evidently not sufficient counterweight to user's nonproductive, sometimes seemingly bizarre conduct. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Ya, I think there is a pretty strong agreement in this area. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 22:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per my earlier comments. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' community ban. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 23:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' community ban. Significantly, I spoke out against the last one but this has gone above and beyond - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
* I see no reason to protect her talk page - the distilled water thing above made me laugh, but is clearly way inappropriate for mainspace! The time I gave freely chatting with carol may been seen as wasted by some, but I just see it as a shame that she's now on the 'outside'. The abuse of templates is a good reason to temporarily protect a talk page, but not generic time wasting... if you feel time spent on carol's page is wasted, there's a far easier solution! cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

<!-- [[Template:hab]] -->|}

Based on the above, [[User:CarolSpears]] is banned. I will update her userpage. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Vexorg in continual removal of sourced data ==

{{resolved|[[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] blocked for 3RR by [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]. No further admin action necessary. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)}}
I absolutely hate bringing up what may be a content dispute to the administrators' attention, so this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever done it (in multiple thousands of edits). But here I must. [[User:Vexorg]], despite an RFC where he was universally told he was wrong (see [[Talk:Christianity_by_country/Archive_1#Eurobarometer_RfC]] and the rest of the talk page), continues to assert that [[CIA Factbook]] is not a reliable source for data, and to insert his own data into [[Christianity by country]] from a source which ''doesn't even mention Christianity''. I don't know where else to go at this point; I'm not sure anyone else would sign an RFC/U anyway, so I'm bringing this to administrator attention. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:There's a great thing about having consensus. He makes an edit against it, you revert him. He reverts you, another editor who agrees with consensus reverts him. He reverts that editor, a 3rd editor reverts him following consensus. He reverts that 3rd editor... you goto [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR|the 3RR noticeboard]] and the editor is blocked. See how easy that is? That's what is so great about consensus, it's not solely one person's problem. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::: It should be noted the [[WP:3RR]] and edit warring rules can apply to editors that are collaborating as well. --<span style="color:black; background: white; border: 1.5pt dotted black; padding: 0pt 4pt;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Collaborating with consensus? [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Beam this is a serious issue that we've been dealing with for months. It is not resolved; I wish nonadmins would quit marking my posts resolved when thye're not. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I've left a note on Vexorg's talk suggesting some ideas on how to resolve the issue, but unless he's edit warring or being disruptive, there's not really anything administrator intervention will do. You might want to consider trying some informal mediation or something else in the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]] if you're still not able to work things out. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to think I'm joking. I'm not. This is a content dispute. When I got my first 3rr break (and only i believe) that's what was told to me by an admin or two that I respect. I pass that advice to you. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Vexorg here. I would like it to be officially noted of the offensive remarks made by [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] where he accuses me .... "despite how much you've decided you hate America" in [[Talk:Christianity_by_country]]. This not only contravening Assume good faith., is very offensive and I don't expect this from supposedly mature Wikipedia editors.
:: Now the figures in question from the CIA factbook have no source. For example it says for Norway that 90% of the population are Christians. this is clearly way of mark and there is no source for the figure. No link to or reference to a census or poll. Nothing.
:: I am certainly NOT being disruptive, I am trying to improve the article.[[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] ([[User talk:Vexorg|talk]]) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further note, that [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] seems to be starting an edit war. He has now reverted my edits twice. Could an administrator intervene here please. thanks [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] ([[User talk:Vexorg|talk]]) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] is continuing the personal attacks towards me at [[Talk:Christianity_by_country#CIA_is_NOT_a_reliable_source]] In response to my noting of his previous comments being a personal attack against me , he remarks ''Coming from a stated atheist who dislikes organized religion, I believe this would be a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black'' --- In view of these continued attacks I am not going to communicate with this editor anymore. I am not here to be the subject of personal attacks. I am here to improve wikipedia articles. [[User:Vexorg|Vexorg]] ([[User talk:Vexorg|talk]]) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

== Hello! ==

It's me again bringing up [[User:RRaunak]] again! This user [[User:ElementR]] did the EXACT same things as RRaunak again. Look at the contribs, the signatures. They both match... I am feeling that a checkuser might be needed. I should bring up the [[WP:SOCK]]rule as a meatpuppet. Is there any possible administrative action? --<strong>[[User:Cream|<font color="blue">ɔɹǝɐ</font><font color="#000080">ɯ</font><font color= "#808000">ʎ!</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cream|Talk]]</sup></strong> 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Any editor can submit an [[WP:RFCU]]. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..<br />[[User:ElementR|<b>[+]►<span style="color:#FF3300;font-family;size=4:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ </span></b>]] [[User_talk:ElementR|<b>(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪</b>]] 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --<strong>[[User:Cream|<font color="blue">ɔɹǝɐ</font><font color="#000080">ɯ</font><font color= "#808000">ʎ!</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cream|Talk]]</sup></strong> 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. -- [[User:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. -- [[User:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::: My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak<br />[[User:ElementR|<b>[+]►<span style="color:#FF3300;font-family;size=4:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ </span></b>]] [[User_talk:ElementR|<b>(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪</b>]] 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. -- [[User:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::: I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !<br />[[User:ElementR|<b>[+]►<span style="color:#FF3300;font-family;size=4:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ </span></b>]] [[User_talk:ElementR|<b>(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪</b>]] 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Wikipedia, you don't own anything. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
*If you think that you have a sock here, open a [[WP:SSP|suspected sock case]] or as ThuranX said, file a [[WP:RFCU|request for checkuser]]. There's really nothing admin's can do here. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup></font> 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?<br />[[User:ElementR|<b>[+]►<span style="color:#FF3300;font-family;size=4:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ </span></b>]] [[User_talk:ElementR|<b>(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪</b>]] 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Of course you can keep it if you want to. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:*It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks, [[User:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Hell! I came here to check on the RRaunak thread and also to report on ElementR. Well its seems I dont have to. Isnt it so obvious that ElementR is a sock of RaunakRoy. Enven Infraud was probably a sock of Raunakroy. ElementR clearly fails the ducktest. --[[User:Deepak D'Souza|Deepak D'Souza]] ([[User talk:Deepak D'Souza|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deepak D'Souza|contribs]]) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't really understand what you all are doing here. So what if it is an alternate account? Let's assume that the two accounts belong to one person, what's he doing wrong? Someone might want to post diffs showing what the problem is because so far the only complaint I'm seeing is that they copied some code for their userpage and signature and that they make lots of edits. Neither account is blocked or banned and I'm just not seeing the problem or the reason for an ANI report. If you want to post some diffs showing that they've violated [[WP:SOCK]] by using an alternate account then I am willing to look into it but at this stage this looks like another waste of time. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::RRaunak made some rather disruptive edits and repeated them even after multiple warnings. Thjis time he is denying that ElementR is his sock. I don't think it is a good idea to wait until he repeats his disruptive patterns. --[[User:Deepak D'Souza|Deepak D'Souza]] ([[User talk:Deepak D'Souza|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deepak D'Souza|contribs]]) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, someone needs to present some evidence showing that he is doing something blockable under policy, otherwise this may as well just be archived because no one is going to block him on the basis of what has been said here so far. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Sheepnacidadegrande - request for uninvolved admin block ==

{{resolved|indef blocked. There's clueless, and there's this guy --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)}}
{{user5|Sheepnacidadegrande}} appears destined for an indefinite block but I wanted to bring here because I've already blocked him (her?) twice and thought someone might want to work with him. He has racked up fair use image violations since March 2008, for which I blocked him twice in June. He at least slowed down uploading images but also makes all sorts of unhelpful edits like:
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I15&diff=219220571&oldid=219175754 Removing AFD tag.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Erre_XI&timestamp=20080603230656&diff=prev Removing CSD tag.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminem_discography&diff=next&oldid=226262465 Removing a lot of content.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erotic_photography&diff=225521025&oldid=71634592 Blanking a redirect.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=He_Rap%2C_He_Sing&timestamp=20080705201311&diff=prev Blanking a prodded page.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year_%28soundtrack%29&diff=223736591&oldid=223731117 Blanking an established page]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Hot100Brasil&timestamp=20080705141034&diff=prev Re-creating an AFD'ed article.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Johnson&diff=212462899&oldid=212431788 Removing Persondata for no apparent reason.]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Johnson&diff=212952533&oldid=212823266 Removing Persondata ''again'' for no apparent reason.]
User needs an education, sure. Only he is 100% uncommunicative with zero edits to Talk, User talk, or Wikipedia namespaces and zero edit summaries that I can find. Good editors are getting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=226581066&oldid=226481001 quite tired] of this and there is little change in disruptive behavior. —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
: Good grief. 108 talk page comments, and 95% are article or image issues. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:This block is a wikidream coming true. Thanks! <small>[[User:Udonknome|<font color="green">'''Do U(knome)?'''</font>]]</small> <sup>[[Special:Random|<font color="red">yes...</font>]]</sup>|<sub>[[User talk:Udonknome|<font color="blue">or no</font>]]</sub> 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)



== [[Cayman Islands]] ==

Continuing deliberate efforts to misrepresent legal status of homosexuals in the Cayman Islands [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayman_Islands&diff=226163202&oldid=226162767], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayman_Islands&diff=226660499&oldid=226650556], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayman_Islands&diff=226714941&oldid=226666316], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cayman_Islands&diff=226783807&oldid=226745022], in conflict with information provided by cited sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cayman_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=226724573], [http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1030419]. No attempts made by other parties to engage in discussion or provide refs for point of view. Administrative aid is requested, so as to avoid edit war. [[Special:Contributions/99.11.4.201|99.11.4.201]] ([[User talk:99.11.4.201|talk]]) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

: Minor edit warring there resulted in unclosed REF tags. I fixed the REF tags, but many of the references are to bare URLs, so they need proper citations. Added cleanup tag. The content dispute I leave to others. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Might be a need for a sock check there too, looks like JSjnDenver and 24.9.40.52 are the same, the two defend their preferred version in fairly close concert. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== The events surrounding my block discussed above ==

With regard to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Traditional_unionist_unblock_review_request this], my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:
#Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
#ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
#I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
#I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
#Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
#The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.[[User:Traditional unionist|Traditional unionist]] ([[User talk:Traditional unionist|talk]]) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

: Not going to happen [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

: Nope. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::How are you confused? I said you'd done wrong, but were provoked, and while you shouldn't be blocked, you should be warned and put on notice. That's confusing? Really? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Perhaps I misunderstood you. What do you think of the rest?[[User:Traditional unionist|Traditional unionist]] ([[User talk:Traditional unionist|talk]]) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
: Answer to point 1 above is contained in [[WP:SYN]]. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[Play party]] ==

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article [[Play party]]. I have been asking for references for months and and prior to that an unreferenced tag had been up for years. Within minutes the unreferenced content was re-added with the explanation "References could be months, years, like all other articles". Well it already has been years... so he's basically arguing that content can never be removed due to lack of accuracy/references. This runs flatly against [[WP:V]] which puts the burden on people restoring content to find sources. I don't want to edit war over this... but surely after years and no references, we can't sanely keep in this content which I have looked for sources for repeatedly and found none. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
* About time. Well done that Rividian. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone going to ever help? Am I the only person bothered by the fact that we're providing indefinite hosting to a how-to guide just because there's a {{tl|fact}} tag slapped onto the end of the paragraph? Is it really impossible to remove unencyclopedic content so long as someone will edit war to keep it in? This is very frustrating. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Looks like a few other users have stepped in now. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on edit warring. I object to someone coming into an article that is in progress and removing anything uncited that they disagree with. The common policy is for editors to ask for citations on material they are concerned by, and give time for citations to be found. Usually information that is well known or likely to be true is left alone. I understand the need for good citations. I ask for citations from people on many articles. When an editor, such as is the case with Rividian, walks in and removed information that is well known to be true only because there is no citation yet, I have to object. It does not improve the article, it disrupts the process of gathering good information on the topic, and is generally disruptive within wikipedia. We probably have hundreds of thousands of articles with true, encyclopedic content that do not have citations yet.

Additionally some topics are not popular topics for sociologic research, and although the facts are well known by people within a subculture or community, journal papers, magazine articles and books are sparse. Such is the case with this particular topic, [[play party]].

Although I understand the well meaning intentions of editor Revidian, and indeed, hope that some editor will seek out good citations for the material they put in the article, as an third party observer, I think that removing material that is obviously true is not beneficial to the article. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:You have been given ''years'' to find sources... to say that's not enough time is just absurd. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Well, I did not originate the article, sorry. From the time you added a fact tag (April 2008) on some of the material until now has only been a few months. I noticed and responded, in July of 2008, this month. It looks like a variety of other editors objected to your approach in the interim, including [[user:simonxag | Simonxag]], [[user:Prosfilaes | Prosfilaes ]], and [[user:Mdwh | Mdwh]]. So, although it does sometimes take years for an article to become well cited, you have hardly given years in this particular case. [[User:Atomaton|Atom]] ([[User talk:Atomaton|talk]]) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The unreferenced tag had been on the article for 2 years when I got started... still, even 3 months is more than a reasonable amount of time to provide. My "approach" is just applying what a core policy, WP:V says... honestly, if people object so strongly to what is supposed to be one of our founding policies, this might not be such a good project for them. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Black Waves]] as suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked [[User:Rollosmokes]] ==

{{resolved|Indefblocked as admitted sock/meatpuppet. —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)}}
Edit pattern is the same as recently indef-blocked [[special:contributions/rollosmokes|user]]; entire history under this new ID consists of reinstating edits related to US TV stations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WVUE&diff=prev&oldid=226751944 WVUE] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WNAC-TV&diff=prev&oldid=226750732 WNAC] which were made before [[user talk:Rollosmokes|Rollosmokes]] was indef-blocked for ongoing revert wars on US digital TV broadcasters such as [[The CW]]. Here we go again, I think this is the seventh [[WP:ANI]] incident for this user, although I've lost count ages ago. Block log is:

* 03:31, 18 July 2008 [[user:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: "The CW" --> "CW" again after a block)
* 08:01, 15 July 2008 [[user:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Per email discussion and third party representations)
* 12:53, 10 July 2008 [[user:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Editor appears unconcerned with the collaborative & consensual aspect of contributing)
* 22:18, 28 December 2007 [[user:Sandstein|Sandstein]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and violation of WP:3RR on Queens)
* 21:28, 9 March 2007 [[user:Sandstein|Sandstein]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (editwarring on Metromedia again)
* 15:32, 27 February 2007 [[user:Firsfron|Firsfron]] (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metromedia&action=history) --[[Special:Contributions/66.102.80.212|66.102.80.212]] ([[User talk:66.102.80.212|talk]]) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::{{user|Black Waves}} has made only three edits so far, and none of them has been reverted. Not clear yet if there are any bad edits. I have posted at [[User talk:66.102.80.212]] asking the submitter of this report for more data. So far I don't see enough information for a sockpuppet case. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:::But I'd watch this closely. Black Waves found the {{tl|fact}} tag awfully quickly. It's Rollosmokes. —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm continually amazed by the number of Wiki0editors who find it so fun, or so terribly important, that they must keep editing against allt he rules after a banning. The psychological implications of such deep rooted need to be right... amazing. Rollo's not the only one, there are a couple other such reports up here now, and there are a few every day, it seems.[[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::"I'm not Rollosmokes -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Waves&diff=prev&oldid=226941231 I'm his cousin!] Which of course explains why our interests and agenda are identical, and why we are using the same IP address." Oh dear, oh dear. You're right, ThuranX, disturbing to the extreme. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::[[The Patty Duke Show|"Cousins! Identical cousins! They walk alike, they talk alike..."]] [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sheesh. I indefblocked the admitted meatpuppet and will revert all edits. Keep eyes open for more. —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== WP:ANI does not show on mly watchlist anymore ==

Since the flurry of protections, WP:ANI does not show on my watchlist anymore? Is it just me, or are others having the same problem? If it,s just me, what can be done?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Never mind, the problem spontaneously went away the moment I posted something on the page. Blame it on gremlins. :) --[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:: It's probably related to the recent protection. For some reason, when a page is protected, it vanishes from a watchlist until the next time an actual edit is made. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::It is. I reported this as a bug; it was closed as "not a bug". --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, now someone tell me why I nearly checked to see if I was suffering the same problem, even though I was alterted to this thread by my watchlist...[[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the system counts protection changes as an edit, and since watchlists only count the most recent edit to page, you are only seeing the many protection changes? At least that's what's happening to me. [[User:L'Aquatique|<font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">'''L'Aquatique'''</font></font>]]<font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/L'Aquatique|<font color="#838B8B">review</font>]]</font>]</font></font> 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:I observed the same phenomenon as originally reported. It's a quirk in the system. Similar to, though not maybe the same cause, as when you upload a photo and it doesn't show in your watch list until you edit it once. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Incidentally, I've been talking with another user for some time about articles disappearing from watchlists. 2/3 of Perth suburbs (which I'd meticulously watchlisted as soon as the "raw watchlist" feature became available) disappeared from mine and in his case, many Australian politicians disappeared. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions ==

I've been looking at some articles by [[User:Wilhelmina Will]] who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than [[User:CarolSpears|a recently indeffed editor]], New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Wikipedia.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Wikipedia, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Wikipedia: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Wikipedia copyright it as Wikipedia material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle ''not'' being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are ''all'' bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you did[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Dice_Clay&diff=226237099&oldid=225069133 this] - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Her list of created articles is [[User:Wilhelmina Will/Creations|here]]. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll start at the bottom of the list. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


:: (Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, [[Ctenochelys]], she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Messinger&diff=prev&oldid=226876635] Nothing about the one reference in [[Jerry Pilato|this article]] says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Holdridge] It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

::Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think [[Ctenochelys]] should just be deleted. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Right, I got up as far as [[Morawanocetus]] from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Does anyone remember the [[User:Orbicle]] case? [[User:Gmaxwell/orbicle|This]] is how we handled it, with [[User:Gmaxwell]]'s help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.
:::Wilhelmina gets her articles from [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- ''but I haven't checked her work'' for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oaaa&oldid=225313312 Oaaa], where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad too - articles like [[Issie]], [[Cressie]] and [[Batsquatch]] sourced from various personal and non-scholarly websites that well fail [[WP:V]] standards. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, she is a AFC regular. A bit of good faith is required here - she AGFed on the IPs being able to not copyvio or use unreliable sources. When I accept articles at AFC, I rarely deviate from the IP's submission. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure it's a good faith issue. I helped there for a while, and even assuming good faith all round, the practicality is that many (most, even) AFC proposals are by newcomers who've not gone through the small print of ''Unregistered users: Submitting an article'', so it's wise to check the sources for copyright/reliability issues. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::You really can't afford to blindly accept AFC submissions. When I was helping out there I found that the largest majority of articles posted there were copyvios. I always double checked every article before I posted it and I would encourage others to do likewise - it only takes a couple of minutes to Google a couple of choice sentences. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Has she been notified of these proceedings? [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, by a couple of editors on her talk page.
*{{user5|Wilhelmina Will}}
:--[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted her to the exact problem with copyvio as well as the issue of writing poor articles? [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Having worked with/pseudo-mentored [[User:Wilhelmina Will]] on the ''[[Iggy Arbuckle]]'' pages, I'm inclined to think it was an honest mistake from not checking the AFCs before doing them. She does go overboard on the non-free images, but I think its just from a lack of full understanding of the policy, which some long term editors no longer always have a good grasp on due to the changes earlier this year. I think a more formal mentoring relationship would be very beneficial in helping correct these problems and help her become an even stronger as I've found her to be fairly open to corrections, willing to learn, and to have a desire to be a good editor. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::In spite of the severity of the problem (factual inaccuracies, and admission on my talk page she doesn't understand the scientific article she wrote incorrectly, bum links, links to viruses, plagiarism, hostility in response when it's pointed out) I suspect this editor is worth working with. Please don't anyone underestimate the level of the problem with her existing articles, though. Underestimating the problem will not do her or Wikipedia any good. Maybe she could get some guidance and learning while fixing the problems she created. --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, initially I agreed that while its a big problem, its fixable with some guidance. However, it seems like she is very deliberately ignoring all messages on her talk page and this report and continuing along with her usual edits. That, to me, does not bode well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Let's be more circumspect with real people's names ===
I've done something blockable: I've altered Blechnic's thread title and opening post above. I'm also invoking IAR; made the changes to partially redact a real person's name who is not involved in this thread and is referred to as a negative example. Let's remember that sort of thing can have a real world impact via Google hits, etc. If a username is ''Fuzzyduckling22'' and has no real world connection to anybody, then turn it into a meme if you like. Please be more circumspect with real human names. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:I have no idea what is a real person's name or not on Wikipedia, and when editors use their real names they have already conceded to allowing a real world impact via Google.
:It was an expedient way to make it clear what I was talking about--what is appearing to be a common editing style among plagiarizing editors: factual inaccuracies, sloppy links, gratuitous references, overall bad editing.
:I don't have an issue with changing the title of a thread, though. Why would that be blockable? Don't answer! --[[User:Blechnic|Blechnic]] ([[User talk:Blechnic|talk]]) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::What would really be better is if we treated copyright more seriously around here. After all, the Wikipedia community doesn't have the power to overrule real world legislation. If an editor is committing bright line copyright violations, he or she should get a limited number of warnings before an indefinite block. And then--as with legal threats--a retraction and pledge to stop creating problems should be necessary to get an unblock (with mentorship if needed). When we as a site treat the law less than seriously, we open the door to difficult editors making an open joke of it. That's a risk to the Foundation and to our site's credibility, and ultimately to the names of those difficult editors if they use their real names. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_roller_derby_leagues List of Derby Leagues] : POV Revisions and Vandalism ==

Situation: There are two users in particular who are attempting to make edits of a POV-nature.
* {{userlinks|Gcrg2006}}
* {{userlinks|Elektraviolette}}

They are moving the entry for "Green Country Roller Girls" FROM Broken Arrow TO Tulsa. The leagues own website states that their home rink is in Broken Arrow. I have spoken with the ONLY rink in Tulsa and they do not have a sponsored Derby League of any sort, but for $150 per practice, they would be willing.
Besides editing their own entry, they are removing and vandalising the entry for T-Town Derby Girls. A former rival league.
I have notified each user to avoid POV entries and stick to the facts, I copied some posts left me by a mod on my first few entries (which just so happened to be HIGHLY POV, my bad, I learned and don't do that anymore) and there were additional changes made to the page anyways afterwards.

[[User:Randomblink|Randomblink]] ([[User talk:Randomblink|talk]]) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Fredrick day vandalism/harassment active again ==

Now that [[User:Allemandtando]] has been identified and blocked as a sock of [[User:Fredrick day]], IP harassment or vandalism from characteristic Fredrick day IP has started up again. I just noticed that edits of mine to three different, totally unrelated articles were just reverted by [[Special:Contributions/88.105.58.91]]. Not sure anything can be done about it, he'll just pick up another router, but thought I'd report it anyway. No problem, I reverted one of these and other editors caught the others, quickly. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:I thought that, as Allemandtando, he did very positive work and found him easy to deal with. Why does he feel the need to be a socking dick the rest of the time? I just don't get it... :( --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Wasn't he killerofcruft? If so, then good riddance. The last thing we need is more [[WP:POINT]]y deletionists. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes. He was Killerofcruft, first. Fredrick day, if you look back, was essentially an SPA devoted to article deletion. I'd say Fd was a bad hand account taking on this work, and he's claimed he has other accounts that he keeps clean. He may be telling the truth.

:::I have a theory. People who get heavily involved in cleanup, including vandalism and article deletion, can start to get a very cynical attitude about people. I think we got it wrong, early on. The encyclopedic project shouldn't be about inclusion/deletion, it should be about categorization, and what we currently delete falls into a number of different categories that we should be treating differently. I've discussed this elsewhere, but my opinion is that the status quo isn't sustainable. There are broad solutions that will need to be considered, but to look at it in a more narrow way, when an editor adds some non-notable, self-promoting, unverifiable text to an article, we don't scrub it from the database, we don't delete the revision so that only admins can read it. We just wiki-delete it, it's an ordinary editorial decision. There have been proposals for this, see [[WP:PWD]], and it's the original wiki concept. It's also possible to have new spaces, where present deletion would be replaced by a normal editorial move to an appropriate space, such as "Non-Notable but of possible interest" (NN?) and "Junkyard." (A junkyard is a place where stuff that may not be currently usable is put for possibly recycling, spare parts, etc.) AfD is a horribly inefficient system, and it burns people out. I'm ''not'' proposing that ''nothing'' be deleted, for the obvious reasons. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::You're welcome to include such stuff on your own "junkpedia" wiki or something.:) I miss Crufty, I thought what he was doing with his editing and proposed changes to articles was excellent. I think he knew his life span would not be as long as other's. Sorry if you are getting hastle from IPs, Abd, and hope it gets sorted. While I like Crufty's work I don't know all the history and if it's him doing the harassment I of course don't condone it. It's not that deletionism makes people lose the plot, but if someone gets blocked, sometimes they blame someone for that block and lose it a bit. This has nothing to do with deletionism and can happen regardless of ''why'' someone got blocked. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I'm not interested in starting a new project. I like this one. And I'm trying to keep it from crashing, and it will if the situation I've been pointing to isn't faced. Might take a couple of years, but damage is being done and accumulating. Yes, it's him. Nobody who knows the history is likely to doubt it. By the way, one way of implementing the solution I'm suggesting is indeed a separate wiki, with interwiki transfer made easier than it is. Essentially, I'm trying to set it up so that, in effect, deletionists get their encyclopedia, inclusionists get their encyclopedia, each benefits from the other, and users choose what they want to see. And it's efficient. Got a problem with that? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Crufty/Fred has just posted here [[User_talk:Sticky_Parkin#ip_vandalism]]. He says the IP vandalism isn't him. Is he posting from the same IP range as them? Abd says Fred has a history of changing his IP, the IPs were said to be unrelated to Crufty/Fred in a checkuser. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fredrick_day]]. Of course, we can't even prove the bloke posting to my page is Fred.:/ [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::on the general matter of people developing a bias for acting in a certain way, I find that after a longish while of new page patrol I tend to over-delete enough to get some complaints. I've seen the same same thing tend to happen with others there, and also at afds, in both directions,and in spam fighting. I usually advise people to diversify. As for a separate wiki, the easy way is to set up one that will screen out articles from an inclusive one. Veropedia is something of that idea. If anyone wants to set up a non-pop culture version, and can think of an algorithm, the rest is easy enough. The difficulty, of course, is the extent to which the Wikipedia brand is known, which will make whatever is called by our current name the major resource. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:I have been in e-mail correspondence with Fredrick day/Allemandto. He admits that those accounts are related, and also provided me with the identity of a long-inactive account that he doesn't want to reveal publicly for real life identity reasons (if the account starts up again I will block it, but I see no reason to expect that it will, and inactive is as good as blocked for our purposes). He denies that most of the I.P. activity attributed to him is him, and also denies having access to the range of I.P.s that Abd claims he has (I express no opinion about the veracity of these claims). He denies being an SPA dedicated to deletion, and, with all due respect to Abd (which is a fair bit), [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Fredrick+day&site=en.wikipedia.org this] seems to contradict his impression that that's what Fd was. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for your work, SI. I'm glad you added the disclaimer about veracity, but I'd have assumed the same without it, you simply told us what he told you. As to SPA dedicated to deletion, the more important part would be "bad hand account." But I'm not pushing that claim at this point, it's unnecessary; however the activity analysis that SI pointed to would not tell us, for example, how many AfDs he filed or voted in. Perhaps I'll compile that, I have the data. I see in the analysis cited, nevertheless, an extremely high involvement with AN/I. And to prove "bad hand" would require ID of the master account. But Fd has acknowledged having other accounts, with a strong implication they were still active. None of these have been found. One was possibly ID'd, but checkuser was inconclusive. (Good hand account! And I dropped it because, by definition, that account was not doing damage. And if it was merely a coincidence, well, sad and tragic for a user to be harassed for mere IP range coincidence -- though this was specific IP, it was shared IP.) The old account he points to would probably not be that major good-hand account, it would be an account he abandoned, as he states; I'm skeptical he would reveal his real identity to SI, but it's not impossible. Given that he has lied over and over, and was continuing to lie or argue deceptively elsewhere as he communicated with SI, nothing he says can be trusted without verification. And as to his use of IP ranges, it is possible that some IDs on the SSP Talk page I've referenced are not him; however, the ones specifically given here were clearly him, and the IP range used yesterday was one such Range he has used before, and not in any uncertain way. To AGF, I'll presume that he forgot he's used that range, and didn't check my references to verify. The very first edit made by him when he was identified as the "Section 31" harassing IP editor, admitting it, before there had been any notice of it by anyone except me, was from the 88.105 range [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=200588899]. If this ID was an error, it's been mentioned many times, and he could have protested long ago. But for a long time he was "nyah, nyah, can't catch me" and didn't care about identification. Has he changed? I don't know. I just know that he lies and harasses and provokes and the rest. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to the post to SP's Talk, that is Fd most common IP range, no reason at all to doubt that this was him. (Checkuser won't say, but I think it reasonably likely that this range was used for Allemandtando.) Sure, it could be someone else from his narrow range pretending to be him. How likely is that? Maybe it's me, maybe I flew to London, set up a Windows 2000 Server with his ISP, for remote access from the comfort of my office, and, heh, heh, can now do whatever I want and he'll get blamed for it. Until he complains to the ISP, and I'd presume he'd be savvy enough to do that if I were so insane as to do such a thing. As to what he says, though, remember that just a few days ago he was lying to all of you, and his modus operandi would suggest that he'd do anything to make it seem that those who notice him are idiots. There is a reason I consider it reasonably proven that the IP edits yesterday -- they weren't exactly vandalism, they were harassment -- were Fredrick day. The IP range is one that he has shown he can use, see [[Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day]], and, in particular, [[Special:Contributions/88.105.40.220]] (explicitly Fd and shows what we are up against) and [[Special:Contributions/88.105.96.11]], which is actually what he edited from when he acknowledged it was over for Fredrick day, and which also implies that Fd was merely one account of his.

Now, just looking at each of these edits, there wouldn't be any reason to think they were Fd, and, in fact, I didn't see it at first. I reverted one of them, thinking it was simply one more editor trying to impeach [[Robert C. Atkins]], common. But then I happened to check the contributions for another IP which reverted in another article I watch, and, bingo! Three edits to articles I recently edited, nothing else. It's conclusive that this is an editor harassing me, and that is very, very characteristic of Fredrick day. Practically nobody else has done it. Now, another editor harassing me, from one of Fd's known access options? No that's it, million to one it isn't Fredrick day. Someday, somebody may decide to imitate Fd, and then Fd will get blamed for what they do. That's the breaks, that's what you get when you establish that you are capable of behaving as Fd behaved.

'''Now, deletionist editors, listen up! I'm not against you. You do valuable work, necessary work. But it is ''essential'' that major article and unsourced text deletion be done with serious respect and caution and helpful civility.''' I understand, it is very, very easy to become frustrated with all the POV pushers and the "fancruft" seems to breed in the dark, there is more in the morning than there was last night. But in your zeal to rid the encyclopedia of all this messy stuff, if you needlessly offend people, Wikipedia suffers. That must stop, and quickly. Delete someone's article and they call you every name in the book? Understand that the reaction is normal; with a minute's work, you destroyed -- he thinks -- his hours of work. Wouldn't you be pissed off? So cut him some slack, tell him how he can get a copy of his article you speedied, suggest other wikis, express regret for any inconvenience you caused, etc. You can still be firm about Wikipedia policy, but, please, when you interact with clueless fans, and the like, you represent Wikipedia, they will think you own the place. Don't trash our reputation! So when someone like Allemandtando shows up, blowing the bugle Charge! Kill cruft!, do ''not'' encourage him, and do not let it be inclusionist editors who are forced to restrain him. I'm an inclusionist, but I do not ''go after'' deletionists. Those are polarities, and wisdom is always, in comparison, a synthesis.

I was a prison chaplain, and I had some experience with prison gangs and how they function. Basic rule for functional gangs: do not allow your own members to abuse members of other gangs, it will cause a gang war. Instead, discipline them yourselves. A member of the [[Aryan Brotherhood]] knifed a white inmate saying he was "hanging out with the niggas." It was pure ignorance, not that other forms of racism aren't, but the knifed inmate was a Muslim. (Most Muslim inmates at [[San Quentin State Prison]], where I was working, are Black, and some are [[Black Muslims]], but maybe a percent or more are not.) The victim wouldn't tell the prison authorities who his assailant was. But it was known to the Muslims. And what did they do? Very simple. One of them worked in the offices, and could find out where the inmate would be sent. And a message would be passed to the Muslims at that institution. Would they attack this inmate? No, that would start a riot. They would have a chat with the Aryan Brotherhood leader there. "Take care of this guy so we don't have to." And that is, I'm sure, exactly what would happen, the assailant would be disciplined by his own people, probably knifed, because [[Lex talonis]] is easily understood and accepted as fair. Because there are so many inmates and so few staff, the prison population must, essentially, police itself, and it usually works. Like Wikipedia. But when it breaks down, then intervention is needed, and we get the stuff that makes news. (And don't believe everything you read about prison gangs, I don't trust some stuff in our article on the [[Aryan Brotherhood]], even if it's "reliably sourced." Let me put it this way: the info in that article is based on a lurid newspaper report describing alleged behavior over thirty years ago as if it were current. My Muslim informant, supposedly an enemy, had a far more constructive view of the Aryan Brotherhood than did the newspaper writer).
--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:Please keep this discussion to incidents requiring admin intervention. Debate over content in specific articles should be relegated to the Talk Pages of those articles. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] ([[User talk:Richardshusr|talk]]) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::That's right. By the way, was there any such "debate" here? I did mention [[Aryan Brotherhood]] but as an example relating to how article deletion and the like ''in general'' should proceed, with specific reference to editor behavior, which is generally the issue here. Sorry if it was too long. I recommend blinking and Page Down if vision is still unfocused.. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Previously sanctioned revert-warrior going at it again ==

Sanction applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Revert-warring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan&action=history

Have fun. --[[User:Slashem|slashem]] ([[User talk:Slashem|talk]]) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Please also note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=178327458&oldid=178306687 this]. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::Indeed. --[[User:Slashem|slashem]] ([[User talk:Slashem|talk]]) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Unable to edit and difficulty in resolving the problem ==

I've been asked to help someone who suspects that his home computer's IP was blocked, not for any editing or dispute he was involved in, but perhaps by accident, or through the blocking of a range of IP addresses.

He no longer remembers his password and has been unable to get to his home page to request an unblock.

I told him I'd see if I could find an admin that would provide some guidance. What should he do first and is there any information that you, as an admin, need from him to help? Please contact me on my user page. Thanks --[[User:SteveWolfer|Steve]] ([[User talk:SteveWolfer|talk]]) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:If you know his username, you may be able to do a send new password request on his behalf by going to the login page while not logged in. -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Block review invited: mrg3105 ==

Review invited of my four-day block of [[User:mrg3105]]. This editor is already subject to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction|Digwuren restriction]] and has already been [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans|blocked twice]] under it. The grounds for the current block are serial incivility and personal attacks which include but are not limited to the following diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation&diff=226381312&oldid=226357103] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation&diff=prev&oldid=226594438] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation&diff=next&oldid=226799141] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation&diff=226908910&oldid=226878293]
The question is whether four days is an appropriate tariff.

On a further note, this user has a long history of disruption as he is unable to recognise consensus and has little notion of when enough is enough. As part of a spin-off campaign arising out of the [[Talk:Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation|article renaming]] he has sought sanctions against [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&diff=prev&oldid=226757957], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats&diff=prev&oldid=226758042] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=226758192]) and tried to unseat [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] as a Milhist coordinator ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history&diff=226732344&oldid=226667229]).
Perhaps the time has now come to consider either a lengthy block, or mentoring, or a community ban.

As mrg3105 is currently blocked, he is unable to respond to this, though he has been notified. (I don't know the usual procedure for transcluding this so he can respond and can't find an example to follow.) --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse the block, the editor has some serious behavioural issues and hasn't been able to be resolved prior to this, and they seem to be causing quite a bit of disruption, hopefully this block will give them some time to reflect. On the topic of straw polls, I see their objection, though Wikipedia doesn't explicitly prohibit them, it does caution their use, but I've used them before, and I think it's use is more than likely appropriate on the article talk page that you linked to. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]] [[User:Steve Crossin/Contact|(contact)]]</font> 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*I am actually pretty concerned that you are citing complaints about individuals acting in "official roles" as a reason to block ''anyone'' within the project. mrg3105 is making his complaints based on Raul's and Nick's actions within their "official" roles within Wikipedia; in each complaint, he has been soundly rebuffed by other Wikipedians, and that should be the end of the story. Would we block every editor who complained about a person in such a role? I think those points are outside of the scope of the Digwuren decision. Of the remainder, I see borderline comments that are pretty mild compared to a lot of typical discourse on EE article talk pages. I also see no discussion on the talk page of the editor, no attempt to de-escalate the situation on the talk page of the article, and the fact that you, Roger, are the lead co-ordinator in the [[WP:MILHIST]] wikiproject, and the dispute centers on a disagreement about how that wikiproject is addressing naming conventions (more generally) for large scale battles. Instead of blocking yourself, perhaps it would have been better to bring this to [[WP:AE]] for discussion amongst uninvolved admins and others. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*<s>Despite my huge respect for Roger, I think if a block is to be imposed, it should be no longer in duration than that already imposed, and</s> Certainly not up to a ban yet but mentoring isn't out of the question, but I do share some of Risker's concerns here. I think the block might have a chilling effect due to this user's history of having perceived problems with users in certain positions, such as the one Roger is in. This does not mean Roger is involved directly; just that more care can be taken in who imposes the block (if necessary) here. Straw polls are acceptable, but are never to be used or cited as 'consensus' for any edit as it would be incorrect, and invalid. Per what I'd suggested on the RfArbitration talk page, I think the blocked user thinks that straw poll is going to be used in that manner. <s>I also think that this is outside of the scope of the Diguwaren decision to quite an extent, leaving question marks over the duration of the block. But I wouldn't encourage the block to be modified in any way. It enables discussion with the user itself, if anyone is willing.</s> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:My apologies for any confusion. I thought I had put enough clear blue water between the two issues, but apparently I didn't. The block specifically deals with incivility (calling [[User:Buckshot06]] the "epitome of a yes man"; accusing [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] of "extreme bias" etc; and is covered in the first paragraph.
:The stuff regarding Raul and Nick is part of a bigger pattern, for which I invited comments and possible remedies, in the second paragraph, as I am well aware of the ambivalence of my position there. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Okay, that makes sense. The only thing that might be suitable to address the problem is probation (supervised editing) or a civility restriction for this user. Mentorship is the alternative. It's still too early to consider a ban. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 09:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*I've had a long chat with mrg3105 tonight and don't think a ban is needed. I'm not mentoring him and not officially speaking on his behalf, but I'd like to relay the general impression that he's reacting in ways that are usually consistent with ''ban not needed.'' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*I also endorse this block, but would certainly oppose a ban. This is a user who, in my experience, generally contributes very good content to military-history related topics, but can easily get upset and extremely stubborn when he doesn't get his way, often with respect to some minor editorial issues such as naming practices. He then has an unfortunate tendency of [[WP:SPIDER|climbing glass domes dressed in not-so-flattering skintight unitards]]. The solution in such cases is just to make him let go of that particular conflict ? that can be done with short blocks if absolutely necessary, but longterm bans would be counterproductive. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|?]] 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

*As Roger notes, this has been a long-ongoing problem. Mrg's attack on Raul654, Buckshot and myself and his other disruptive edits over this particular article is but the latest incident in a very long pattern of disruptive behaviour. For the last few months Mrg has been blatantly ignoring consensus and any guidelines he disagrees in repeated attempts impose his views on article names and content. In particular, he has been seeking to impose Soviet military names on battles involving the USSR in World War II and Soviet military concepts in these and other battles. This has lead to dozens of arguments over article names between Mrg on one side and literally dozens of editors on the other. When challenged he routinely resorts to abusive comments. The following some examples of the kind of disruptive behaviour Mrg frequently engages in. It is important to stress that these four examples are by no means isolated, but are simply some incidents I'm familar with. Several other examples and the the way Mrg typically responds to warnings are available from reviewing [[User talk:Mrg3105]].
:*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War_II task force/Category restructuring]] - Mrg arbitarily, and radically, changed the category structure for World War II articles against numerous editors' opposition (which he dismissed as not being significant: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Dowling&diff=219672809&oldid=219669742])
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kursk&diff=209215605&oldid=208531993] - Mrg re-wrote the introduction to the [[Battle of Kursk]] article so that it declared the near-universal English-language name for this battle incorrect as it isn't the name used by Russians.
:*[[Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)#Another attempt at a new introduction]] - another example of an attempt to dispute a well known name of an article. This sparked a complaint by the editor who's user space Mrg was using and was rejected, but Mrg dropped the most contentious point into the article anyway several weeks later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Atlantic_%281939%E2%80%931945%29&diff=223626624&oldid=223567553]
:*On the most recent dispute over the name of the '[[Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation]]' article Mrg, instead of trying to engage in the discussion on the talk page, removed the straw poll [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation&diff=226575878&oldid=226573353], lodged a complaint here at WP:AN/I after I reverted this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=226603975&oldid=226599033] was told that dispute resolution is needed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=226626697&oldid=226623977] but declared this to be unessessary as he is correct about the article's name and everyone else is wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=226635597&oldid=226635389]. Following this rebuff Mrg posted the complaints against Raul654 and I which Rodger linked to above. Despite the clear opposition to the use of the term 'strategic offensive operation' on the Manchurian article's talk page, Mrg went ahead and renamed the [[Vistula-Oder Offensive]] the 'Vistula-Oder Strategic Offensive Operation' a couple of days ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vistula-Oder_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=226711298].
*In light of this consistant pattern of disruptive behaviour and rejection of consensus decisions, I believe that a editing restriction is now necessary. Mrg has been warned about his behaviour multiple times, and been blocked twice, but has not ceased his disruptive behaviour or moderated his approach in any noticeable way - I would argue that it is actually getting worse. Mrg is a long-established editor who has made thousands of edits and is aware of guidelines and policies, so there is simply no excuse for his behaviour. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's just four days and he doesn't request unblock there is no need for him to do anything, but if his poor editing continues then the case needs to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbcom]]. &ndash;[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCentury]][[User talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Driver]] 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:No, ArbCom is not going to accept it so prematurely. Let's try something as a community. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted notices on the Administrators Noticeboard and in the Bureaucrats Noticeboard to the other pages used to complain and to this page so no one gets confused or lost. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

===Editing Restriction===
I propose he be subject to probation (supervised editing) for 6 months. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for up to 1 month. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator. After 2 bans on the same page or set of pages, the duration of the ban on that page or set of pages may be increased to 1 year. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:I support this proposal. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:XxJoshuaxX]] page moves ==

Would someone care to check out what appears to be disruptive editing from this user in moving pages based on faulty premises? Check the [[User talk:XxJoshuaxX|talk page]] for examples, specifically moving articles on books, films and songs with "Over" in the title to pages with a small "o" in the word "over", contravening the actual titles. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:I hate to say it, but this editor operates more like a vandal, wikilawyering, quoting MoS to suit purposes, and working entirely against consensus. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
:: Isn't this the same guy as Big T.V. Fan? If so he just changed his username last week after way overstepping the bounds of [[WP:3RR]. I had to file a CheckUser even. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Same guy. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::An indefinite block is in order in that case. [[User:Chafford|Chafford]] ([[User talk:Chafford|talk]]) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::So, is someone going to implement it? --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::On second thought, this was a legitimate renaming of an account, not sockpuppetry. Still the page moves he's doing are absurd. --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Can some admin be bold and undo the editor's page moves? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Moved the Cuckoo's Nest novel, play & films back. Do we have consensus for a block here, or would a severe warning be enough? I'm leaning towards block myself, given the consistent disruptive editing and accompanying incivility... [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Judging by the MO established, I would first favour a "highly descriptive" warning before resorting to the ACME hammer. FWiW, I think this is a very young person who probably is well-meaning but then again, his actions are highly problematic... [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
:::::::::I moved those pages because "over" is a presposition. [[User:XxJoshuaxX|XxJoshuaxX]] ([[User talk:XxJoshuaxX|talk]]) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::However, when dealing with the ''title'' of someone else's work or the ''name'' of another entity, it should be rendered according to their intent, including any grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. Or perhaps the article on the hit song should be [[He Is Not Heavy. He is My Brother]]. And the article for the toy giant should be [[Toys Are We]]! --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh,I get it now. [[User:XxJoshuaxX|XxJoshuaxX]] ([[User talk:XxJoshuaxX|talk]]) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::But I feel like a total idiot now. [[User:XxJoshuaxX|XxJoshuaxX]] ([[User talk:XxJoshuaxX|talk]]) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)[[Someone to Watch over Me (film)]] still needs to be moved back to [[Someone to Watch Over Me (film)]], as does the disambiguation page [[Someone to Watch over Me]] and all the pages linked on it, all of which have been moved to pages with small "o"s in "over". [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, thought I'd got them all. Done. Any more I've missed? [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Looking at the editor's history, there are a number of other moves which may be problematic, if they followed the same procedure of elevating grammar and Wikipedia naming conventions over the actual titles of things, but most of the rest of them involve songs and musical artists I'm not particularly familiar with, so someone else will need to evaluate the moves. In the meantime, I hope the editor takes to heart the lesson here not to override the names of things, and to initiate some discussion before making potentially contentious page moves. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Yup, I went through many of them earlier, but didn't have the time to go too far back. If someone else wants to have a look...? [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm concerned that [[User:XxJoshuaxX]] is still doing numerous page moves, some of which seem pretty dicey on the face of it. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to take a close look at his edits and give him some advice. It might be a good idea for him to hold back from doing page moves for a while. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog]] ==

#After all what we have been through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive443#Repeated_deletions_by_User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog_and_User:Folantin here here].
#{{User|Papa November}} and admin states on the disputed article's talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChechen_people&diff=225772049&oldid=225176001 Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors.] My enquiry into the changes leads to this suggestion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chechen_people&diff=next&oldid=225778730 highlight which specific statements you consider to be POV by adding {{tl|POV-statement}} tags]. Which I do.
#The {{User|Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog}} comes along with one go [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chechen_people&diff=226856074&oldid=225781861 REVERTS] Papa November's insistance on keeping the article on the stable version '''without an entry into the talk page'''.
#After I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chechen_people&diff=next&oldid=226857641 re-install the tags], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaptain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog&diff=226955201&oldid=226049813 point him to the] to PN's comments, the user again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chechen_people&diff=next&oldid=226953398 removes the tags]. --[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban Cossack]] ([[User talk:Kuban kazak|По-балакаем?]]) 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Mcanmoocanu]] ==

:{{user5|Mcanmoocanu}}
Yesterday, we [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=226822425#Ban_proposal_of_Tasc0 decided to ban] {{user|Tasc0}}. Late last night, Mcanmoocanu left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tasc0&diff=prev&oldid=226931169 this incivil message] on Tasc0's talk page, which he (Mcanmoocanu) immediately reverted. He also left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcanmoocanu&diff=prev&oldid=226929309 this message] on his own talk page. Believing that this account had possibly been compromised by Tasc0 (the comment on his own talk page seemed to be talking to himself) I indefinitely blocked the account pending a checkuser. The checkuser has come back unrelated so I want to bring it here for a determination from the community about what to do. Looking at his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Mcanmoocanu&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 user talk contributions], he and Tasc0 seemed to trade incivil barbs on a pretty regular basis. I have no particular opinion about whether to leave this user indefinitely blocked, unblock immediately with a stern warning, or reduce the block to a finite time. Obviously, he did immediately revert his own comment to Tasc0, but it is so extreme that it's hard to uncork the bottle. So I'm open to suggestions here. Thanks. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Given the negative checkuser, except for the messages in question he's done nothing blockable, and seems to have made a number of minor but useful edits. The language in those messages though is such that a short block seems appropriate, such as time served. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Ok, I'm inclined to offer him the same deal Tasc0 previously got - agree to not make personal attacks and understand that further personal attacks will result in an extended block ... and if he agrees, any admin can unblock him. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Um, time served for the appalling comment... plus 3 hours for the spelling mistakes? Nevermind, it is 4 hours past the last comment so I will unblock if it hasn't already happened. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Unblocked just over three hours after B's comments by User:Sandstein. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:CrashTestSmartie]]'s recent categorization efforts ==

I find [[User:CrashTestSmartie]]'s recent categorization efforts somewhat disturbing, and cannot see how they advance Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia was [[WP:NOT]] meant to be a vehicle for this sort of activity. Please can other admins take a look at this? -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:I've just been [[WP:BOLD]] and reverted / deleted the lot. This looks suspiciously like trolling to me. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::I support your action, Anome. the category was not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Best, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
== I'm no expert...but something seems seriously wrong with today's [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 21|AFD page]] ==

Would somebody take a look? I can't see anything in the last few edits so I'm assuming the problem is on one of the transcluded pages. Thanks = ) --[[User:Cameron|Cameron]][[User Talk:Cameron|*]] 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Fixed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_21&diff=226985009&oldid=226981873]. Somebody accidentally transcluded the wrong page by writing | instead of / [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Contest]] ==

I was cleaning up after a spam-vandal, {{User5|Cheapb2b}}, and came to this page that he created which I'm assuming is a copy of [[WP:CBB]]. So far his is the only edit to the page yet when I look at the associated [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Contest|"what links here"]] page, I see a gazillion links. I'm reluctant to delete this page since I don't understand the possible implications.

Can someone explain this? Thanks, --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Those links seem to all come from {{tl|WPAVIATION Navigation}}, which includes redlinks to talkpages. Nothing to worry about that I can see. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Looks like it was a redlink on that template and he decided to try and create it. Presumably the WikiProject hasn't gotten around to making the contest page yet. --<span style="color:blue">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</span> <span style="color:#777">[[User:tiny plastic Grey Knight|&#x2296;]]</span> 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The project page has been created but the talk page had not been prior to this. I'll go ahead and delete -- thanks for the help. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Whoops, I got Project: and Project_talk: mixed up! <tt>:-)</tt> --<span style="color:blue">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</span> <span style="color:#777">[[User:tiny plastic Grey Knight|&#x2296;]]</span> 13:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Could someone explain what the heck happened to this page?? ==

[[Audi A8]] [[User:Enok Walker|Enok]]<sup>[[User talk:Enok Walker|talk]]</sup> 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Somehow you can't see it anymore with the most recent edit, but it was this stuff about someone calling themselves "the Zodiac" having an administrator's password and threatening to "post their logo on the main page". I don't know why it's not showing up in the History. [[User:Enok Walker|Enok]]<sup>[[User talk:Enok Walker|talk]]</sup> 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
**We have had a rash of IP spammers changing templates that include this Zodiac stuff. It wasn't changing the text of the Audi page, but a transcluded template, which has likely been reverted back, but that's why you can't see it in the article history. If you see such types of problems, report them here but we're pretty quick on reverting such changes. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Vandalism was at {{tl|Infobox Automobile generation}}. <strong>[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#006400">Spencer</span>]]</strong><sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">T♦</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">C</span>]]</sup> 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Any reason all templates shouldn't be semi-protected by default? I think that anyone, including me when I started, should not be touching templates. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:You want [[WP:VPR#Proposal: Semiprotect the entire Template: namespace]]. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Again, [[User:BalkanFever]] ==

For once more, impoliteness, incivility and difficult communications with [[User:BalkanFever]], same language repeated twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_naming_dispute&diff=226795535&oldid=226771485 here] (..."''learn the name of the country or gtfo''") and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute here] (..."''and you definitely should gtfo''"). The guy obviously has a serious behavioural problem, his has been reported many times before for similar behaviour, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29&diff=prev&oldid=170437640 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADialects_of_Macedonian_language&diff=205768753&oldid=205750101 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASelski_speech&diff=225788322&oldid=224092340 here], and has also been blocked several times. Will someone actually do something? [[User:The Cat and the Owl|The Cat and the Owl]] ([[User talk:The Cat and the Owl|talk]]) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't being reasonable with your dealings with BalkanFever. Perhaps you should try to work with others in disagreement. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've notified him of this on his talk page, which you should have done. I did just see your notification on the talk page of the article in question, I'd prefer it on his talk page. But I guess that's just a fine point and not important.[[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the context of these comments at [[Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute]] I see no action necessary and would warn you not to edit war or pov push. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Hmm, are you an admin? Or his lawyer perhaps?? Or just his good friend? [[User:The Cat and the Owl|The Cat and the Owl]] ([[User talk:The Cat and the Owl|talk]]) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm his sworn enemy. Also, anyone else will probably make similar statements if they read that talk page. And Fut.Per is an admin, and I'm pretty sure he agrees with me. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::BTW, the claim that BalkanFever was blocked repeatedly for incivility or similar problems is wrong. He has only one block in his log (I should now, because I was the blocker), and it was for a revert-warring spree he succumbed to half a year ago when he was rather new. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Hmm, FPS you were the second blocker, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalkanFever/Archive1#Blocked here]. [[User:The Cat and the Owl|The Cat and the Owl]] ([[User talk:The Cat and the Owl|talk]]) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nope. Only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BalkanFever one block]. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Prior to "BalkanFever" he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:202.10.89.28 User:202.10.89.28]. [[User:The Cat and the Owl|The Cat and the Owl]] ([[User talk:The Cat and the Owl|talk]]) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::: You're right, there was something in his early IP days, and he was honest enough to include the IP talk page in his later archive. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: I agree to that, only he hasn't changed his overall behaviour. [[User:The Cat and the Owl|The Cat and the Owl]] ([[User talk:The Cat and the Owl|talk]]) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I have to say I've had a couple of issues with the user as well. The most recent of those was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASelski_speech&diff=225788322&oldid=224092340 this] "probably cause you suck" to an annon and the response I got from BF [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABalkanFever&diff=225994438&oldid=225993390 I'm pretty sure he does suck]. I don't have the time to get to the links right now, but I'd appreciate it if he didn't call [[Philipp Kirkorov]] gay and so on. It just looks like a habit of his to use such words, but it's not nice reading them, really. I don't think it's something worth a block, but a formal warning or something? --'''[[User:Laveol|<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v<font color="#00cc00">e</font>o</font>l</font></font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Laveol|T]]</sup>''' 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Ok, maybe it's because I myself am sometimes guilty of such statements (once at least), but I really don't think that "I'm pretty sure he does suck." is blockable. I haveto admit when I read that I chuckled. No, I'm not an uncivil jerk, but it suprised me. Plus BalkanFever is a good user. If ever does slip on civilitty, similar to me, it's only because he's fighting the good fight for NPOV, Consensus, and RS. The lightest of uncivil comments should not be put ahead of the Encyclopedia. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well there won't be a third block even if those comments were uncivil. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yup, I said it was not worth a block. --'''[[User:Laveol|<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v<font color="#00cc00">e</font>o</font>l</font></font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Laveol|T]]</sup>''' 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:really? And why is that? <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were uncivil, which they weren't, blocks aren't punitive. You should try, and this may seem strange, speaking with the user whom you disagree with. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:But you make it sound as if you have the final say in the matter. <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
BalkanFever occasionally over-eggs the pudding with some of his comments but usually he's quite rational and sensible. I wish I could say the same for some his adversaries in this thread. We don't need to lynch him on ANI for a few misplaced words, thank you very much. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Let me please make it clear that I am not taking any side in this discussion, my only concern is the authoritarianism and finality with which Beam makes his pronouncements. <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::No need for concern. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 22:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Dodgechris]] ==

[[User:Dodgechris]] was indefinitely blocked yesterday for using multiple sockpuppet accounts abusively (see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodgechris]]). He's now actively editing again using his sister's account {{Userlinks|PAWSFORSPORT2000}}. While none of his edits with this account have been necessarily 'bad' thusfar, user contribs clearly follow his usual editing patterns. Is this grounds for this account also to be blocked? [[User talk:Frickative|<font face="Courier New">Frickative</font>]] 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Yup. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Many thanks for dealing with that. Could someone tell me - what is the best way to report block evasion? He's now moved on to using {{userlinks|Chesseman,ganster rabbit}}, so is obviously going through accounts at quite a pace. Should I be opening new sockpuppet cases, or is it better to report it here? [[User talk:Frickative|<font face="Courier New">Frickative</font>]] 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Block evasion for sockpuppetry, providing it is obvious and current, can be reported to AIV or here (AIV is faster but may be denied as not being obvious enough) and obvious but not currently editing should be reported here. Not obvious should be returned to SSP for a more expert opinion. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit blocked indef as sockpuppet. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Request for review of block/protection of [[User:Ebfilms]] ==

I would like to request some comment on my indefinite block of <span class="plainlinks">[[User:Ebfilms|{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}]] ([[User talk:Ebfilms|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Ebfilms|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Ebfilms|deleted]] · [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}}}&site={{SERVERNAME}} count] · [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{anchorencode:{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}}}}} logs] · [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{anchorencode:{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}}}}} block&nbsp;log] · [{{fullurl:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}}}}} lu] · [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}|rfar]] · [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}|rfc]] · [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}|rfcu]] · [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{ucfirst:Ebfilms}}|ssp]] · [http://toolserver.org/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=%28%5C%7B%5C%7B%5B%5E%5B%5D*%5C%7C%7C%5B%5E%7C%3A%2FA-Za-z0-9%5D%7C%5E%29{{urlencode:Ebfilms}}%5B%5EA-Za-z0-9%5D&useregex=1&where%5B%5D=enpedia_3rr&where%5B%5D=enpedia_an&where%5B%5D=enpedia_ani&where%5B%5D=enpedia_cn search an, ani, cn, an3]</span>) and the subsequent month-long protection of his/her talk page based on [[WP:NPA]]. The initial block was for 48 hours, and this user has a block history. After abuse of the unblock template and further disruptive edits on the talk page, I indefinitely blocked until the user could show understanding of applicable Wikipedia policy. The personal attacks, directed at me, are obvious at the bottom of the talk page. I subsequently fully protected the page for a month. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Look for an ip or what not to try to recreate "his" articles. Seems the type to not let go. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the block and the talk page protection were more than called for. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Looks fine to me. Editor's got some issues with working collaboratively, from the looks of it, and the personal attacks were uncalled for. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Looks fine to me as well. The username could've probably been blocked long before the incivility as a USERNAME vio as a blatant spam username. Combine that with the obvious SPA/COI intentions of the account, and the belligerence/attitude when Wikipedia actually follows through on its intentions to keep spam out, and what you have here is a perfectly legitimate (and welcome) indef block + protection. Nice work, on to the next! Bye bye, ebfilms, come back when you're notable. Better yet, let someone else write about you when you're notable. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Good block per Keeper76 [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
* Another vanity spammer bites the dust. Good riddance. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
**Yeah, spamming isn't the way to be FILLED with vanity on Wikipedia, you just have to get 25 FA. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Good block Tan. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Inappropriate tagging by TheWatcherREME ==

[[User:TheWatcherREME]] appears to be impersonating an admin (by blocking user pages/accounts in an apparent attempt at a new form of edit warring, tagging user pages with sockpuppet tags, etc., for all users which with he disagrees.) The block log shows the editors are not really blocked, unlike for actual blocks. The edits by this user look suspicious. {{Userlinks|TheWatcherREME}} -- [[User:Yaf|Yaf]] ([[User talk:Yaf|talk]]) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:It looks like he incorrectly applied the {{tl|indefblocked}} and ((sockpuppet|blocked)) templates to [[User:Nukes4Tots]] and [[User_talk:Nukes4Tots]]. Refactored the section heading accordingly. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Somewhat bizarrely, he's also created [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots]] and added himself to it. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:He also appears to have tagged his own userpage with the same templates ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WatcherREME&action=history]) and populated a "suspected sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots" category, although there doesn't appear to be a checkuser in his history to back up the claim. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::And also to: [[User talk:195.18.164.66‎]], [[User talk:24.224.153.255]], [[User talk:24.229.253.142]],[[ User:Jedediah42]], and [[User:Variablebinary]]. Looks like more activity that is impersonating an admin to me. ‎[[User:Yaf|Yaf]] ([[User talk:Yaf|talk]]) 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts edit primarily gun-related articles - perhaps he's tagging the accounts and IP addresses that belong to him? Doesn't explain the talkpage edits by Nukes4Tots to WatcherREME's page, though. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:??Well, I'm not sure why my single edit on his talk page means anything. He copied an article directly to the text in his new article. That's copyvio, plain and simple, and I tagged his talk page and the article as should be done. As I said earlier (below) this is the standard MO for JetWaveDave if you look at his edit history. He's trying to trash me like he did to Parsecboy. --[[User:Nukes4Tots|Nukes4Tots]] ([[User talk:Nukes4Tots|talk]]) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just has a personality disorder. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:This is a sock puppet account for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jetwave_Dave Jetwave Dave]. Yes, there is some sort of mental disorder going on. He creates wildly obscure articles through CopyVio and then personally attack those who try to enforce standards on his articles, links, and pictures. Same MO if you look at Jetwave Dave's history. Needs a perm block just like his previous persona, [[User:WatcherREME]].--[[User:Nukes4Tots|Nukes4Tots]] ([[User talk:Nukes4Tots|talk]]) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Lynch1000s ==

{{user|Lynch1000s}} is systematically going through articles and changing bold text to bold and italics, and sometimes incorrectly so that random apostrophes show around words. As the convention seems to be that the first instance of the article's title is bolded, this seems to be against convention. The user has already been blocked for vandalism in the past. Is there an admin tool for reverting everything this editor did today? [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of those clever contrib history jokes?

*20:13, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Malignant narcissism‎ (you can't psychollogically penetrate other people) (top) [rollback]
* 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Devil's Advocate (film)‎ (→Plot summary) (top) [rollback]
* 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) People‎ (top) [rollback]
* 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Other‎ (top) [rollback]
* 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Penetration‎ (top) [rollback]
* 20:09, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Psychology
* 20:08, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) You

[[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:I've been going through his contribs before coming back here and noticing Avruch's post...I was about to say, individually, his edits aren't uniformly bad...[[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these edits are incorrect and unconstructive. User is likely up to no good. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::'''Note''' I also put a notice on the "usernames for administrator attention" NB because this person's name is "lynch thousands", but as soon as they got blocked for the unconstructive edits, a bot removed the name from that list. Can somebody here look into this? [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== What's going on here? ==

I just noticed a ton of seemingly random IP's replacing articles with this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway&diff=prev&oldid=227071281]
So far the following IP's have made similar edits:
* 76.252.168.122
* 83.233.183.104
* 79.185.244.114
* 96.232.181.247
* 209.216.179.12
* 69.205.185.242 <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]], [[User:Vivio Testarossa|My master]]</sup> 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

: Plus [[User:Poohea]] and some others apparently. Probably some 4chan gangup or something similar. [[User:Suva|Suva]] <small>[[User_talk:Suva|Чего?]]</small> 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, I wish I didn't open that diff at work. Looks to be sort of the same vandalism that's been hitting some of the templates recently. [[User:Wildthing61476|Wildthing61476]] ([[User talk:Wildthing61476|talk]]) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Pedophile pirates aren't allowed at work? [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::You know, it's usually something frowned upon...[[User:Wildthing61476|Wildthing61476]] ([[User talk:Wildthing61476|talk]]) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.40.35.209 this] too.... I've never seen vandalism like this before. -- [[User:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::A functionality could be implemented to disable IP edits involving large numbers of &lt;br>s. [[User:Admiral Norton|Admiral Norton]] <sup>([[User talk:Admiral Norton|talk]])</sup> 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== New editor and copyright problems ==

{{user|Keith Jeffords, MD}} created two articles last night; {{la|Norman Mackenzie (Conductor)}} and {{la|Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus}} (the latter was originally a redirect to [[Atlanta Symphony Orchestra]]) The text of the two articles was copied from http://www.atlantasymphony.org/abouttheaso/meetthemusicians/conductors/normanmackenzie.aspx and http://www.asochorus.org/ with a few minor changes. So I removed the copied material, welcomed him on [[User talk:Keith Jeffords, MD|his talk page]] and pointed him towards our policies on copyright and NPOV (as the text is just the choir's own promotional material in any event). But he doesn't seem to have taken the hint, and several reverts and unanswered messages on his talk page later he's still reinstating the copied material, claiming in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Mackenzie_%28Conductor%29&curid=18518481&diff=227069616&oldid=227024798 his edit summaries] that it is not copyrighted. His claim is rather undermined by the fact that [http://www.atlantasymphony.org/abouttheaso/meetthemusicians/conductors/normanmackenzie.aspx the page in question] says "© 2008 Atlanta Symphony Orchestra". But I'm up to three reverts, so I'm done for the moment. Could someone uninvolved please review the situation? Thanks '''[[User:Iain99|Iain99]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Iain99|Balderdash]] and [[Special:Contributions/Iain99|piffle]]</sup> 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Does 3RR cover a situation like this where [[User:Keith Jeffords, MD]] is clearly acting outside policy and guidance? In any event, I reverted his most recent change to [[Norman Mackenzie (Conductor)]].&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::No. You're good to go. I sincerely hope none of our admins is clueless enough to block someone for removing a copyright violation. See [[Wikipedia:3RR#Unwanted_edits|this section]] which specifically mentions this case. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I realise 3RR doesn't apply to blatant copyright infringements, of course, but I didn't want to keep reverting ''ad nauseam'' without some sort of reality check anyway. I was also hoping that someone less close to the end of his patience than me might be able to offer some constructive advice to the editor as well - so thanks for doing that Antandrus. '''[[User:Iain99|Iain99]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Iain99|Balderdash]] and [[Special:Contributions/Iain99|piffle]]</sup> 21:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Possibly disruptive image tagging ==

This post is in reference to recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=OsamaK&month=&year= mass tagging] of images for deletion by [[User:OsamaK]]. I've tried to talk it over with him [[Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Sourcing_for_PD_images|here]] but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg this one]. The subject died ''201'' years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tchaikovsky-11.jpg this one]? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements ==

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, inncludig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the [[User:Biruitorul]]... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like [[User:Biruitorul]] under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to [[Moldova]], inlcuding basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby can I be blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity?--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4,5"><b>[[User:Moldopodo|<font color="#990000">Mol</font><font color="#ff9900">dop</font><font color="#990000">odo</font>]]</b></font><sup>[[User talk:Moldopodo|talk]]</sup> 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'''[[User_talk:Moldopodo#Indef_block|HERE]] IS THE WHOLE STORY'''
:OK, so [[where's the beef?]] [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Moldopodo, you were not blocked for filing a request, you were blocked for your racism, your ranting, your edit warring and your failure to get the point with, well, everything and anything. Whether others warrant a block has nothing to do with your block, which was fully justified. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Please review my actions at [[Overspending]] ==

Can someone please review my actions at {{la|Overspending}}, in particular in relation to this thread on the talk page: [[Talk:Overspending#Primary_source_is_outdated]]. I plan to disengage, so as to ensure I don't violate 3RR, but would like other admin's opinions as to whether I've already crossed (the spirit of) that line. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<font color="black">Zim</font><font color="darkgreen">'''Zala'''</font><font color="black">Bim</font>]] <sup><font color="black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</font></sup> 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:I left a note for [[User:Colonel Warden]] that this discussion is taking place, and suggested he wait for a consensus on the article Talk before removing the {{tl|Out of date}} tag again. Your willingness to disengage from editing the article for a while will be helpful here. The quality of this article seems disappointing, and it would be hard to argue with a [[WP:DRV]] nomination to review the closure of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overspending|the recent AfD]]. (It was a speedy Keep, closed in less than 8 hours by a non-admin, without meeting the criteria for speedy keep in my opinion). Nothing wrong with you proposing the DRV since you were the AfD nominator, if you choose that option. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[Anti-Harris Coalition]] ==

{{resolved|Article deleted}}
Hmmmm. Someone w experience & tact might want to glance at this page. Does the organization really exist? Is is wiki notable? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aaaronsmith|Aaaronsmith]] ([[User talk:Aaaronsmith|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aaaronsmith|contribs]]) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->That bot is fast. Blocked me as I tried to go back and sign.[[User:Aaaronsmith|Aaaronsmith]] ([[User talk:Aaaronsmith|talk]]) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Despite the fact that this is not the best place for questions on articles' notability, I agree with you that this is either a hoax or a very non-notable organization. As such, you might want to [[WP:AFD|AfD]] it. If you need help with that, just let me know on my talk page. [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Although [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Harris_Coalition#Anti-Harris_Coalition|AfD'd]], this ought to be G3 Speedied. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== User:Italicus is ignoring the issue ==

[[Special:Contributions/Italicus|Italicus]] appears to be one of many sockpuppets—a series of IPs and a couple of accounts.

I responded today by notifying all of the accounts of the [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3|report for suspected sock puppets]], but [[Special:Contributions/201.67.241.178| 201.67.241.178]] probably noticed and '''''went ahead with the same thing''''' (here we go again).

When that IP was blocked today, Italicus simply continued in doing the same thing. I don't think that I can deal with this for ten whole days. What should I do??? [[User:Troy 07|~ Troy]] ([[User talk:Troy 07|talk]]) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:I have blocked [[Special:Contributions/Italicus|Italicus]] for continuing the edit war. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== I need a bureaucrat to email me ==


'''Albert Cornelius "Al" Freeman, Jr.''' (born [[March 21]], [[1934]], in [[San Antonio, Texas]]) is an [[United States|African-American]] [[actor]] and director.
I have a matter that I need a bureaucrat to resolve, that involves personal information. Could a bureaucrat please [[Special:Emailuser/Nwwaew|email me]]? Thanks! <font face="Trebuchet MS">[[User:Nwwaew|Nwwaew]]<small> ([[User_Talk:Nwwaew|Talk Page]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Nwwaew|Contribs]]) ([[Special:Emailuser/Nwwaew|E-mail me]])</small></font> 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (Note: I'm aware of [[WP:BN]])


Freeman has made appearances in many [[film]]s, such as ''[[My Sweet Charlie]]'', ''[[Finian's Rainbow (film)|Finian's Rainbow]]'', and ''[[Malcolm X (film)|Malcolm X]]'', and television series such as ''[[The Cosby Show]]'', ''[[Law & Order]]'', ''[[Homicide: Life on the Street]]''and ''[[ The Edge of Night]]''. He is mostly recognized for his portrayal of Police Captain Ed Hall on the [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] [[soap opera]], ''[[One Life to Live]]'', a role he played from 1972 through 1985, with recurring roles in 1988 and 2000. He won an [[Emmy award]] as best lead actor for that role, the first African-American actor to be so honored. He left the show briefly to appear in the network's controversial sitcom ''[[Hot L Baltimore]]''. During that period, "Ed" was played by another actor, [[Arthur Pendleton]].
:Better off at [[WP:BN]], IMO. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Nah, if it involves personal information an email is probably better. Nwwaew, you could just email any bureaucrat of your choice rather than waiting for a 'crat to happen along. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


He was also a director of ''One Life to Live'', and was one of the first, if not the first, African-Americans who directed a soap opera.
==On this day...==


After leaving ''One Life to Live'', Freeman appeared in the motion picture ''[[Down in the Delta]]''. His [[Broadway theatre]] credits include ''[[Look to the Lilies]]'', ''Blues for Mister Charlie'', and ''[[Medea]]''.
Can someone please tell me where I can edit the entries in this list, because I want to pull one of the stories out to make them line up with the Did You Know entries on the other side of the front page. Or can someone do it for me please? [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 22]] [[User talk:Moondyne|Moondyne]] 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Freeman is still teaching acting as a professor at Howard University, located in Washington DC.
::Yeah, thanks, I figured it out, what I really needed was some advice on whether I should pull a story from that section, as that would leave the section with only three stories and I'm not sure if that would be considered an insufficient number. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


==External links==
== Uncivil comment made by [[User:Gene Poole]] ==
* {{imdb name|name=Al Freeman, Jr.|id=0293272}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Freeman, Al, Jr.}}
{{userlinks|Gene Poole}} has made a rather unfair and uncivil comment about myself[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regions_of_sydney&diff=227145952&oldid=227145036]. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:American film actors]]
[[Category:American soap opera actors]]
[[Category:Daytime Emmy Award winners]]
[[Category:African American actors]]
[[Category:People from San Antonio, Texas]]
[[Category:1934 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]


{{US-film-actor-1930s-stub}}
:I agree that the user could have found a more polite way to point out the flaws in your comment, regardless I don't think it is actionable. I suggest you simply ask the person to be more polite in a kind fashion. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Looking at the block log ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gene_Poole]) it's not the first time they have been uncivil to another editor though they where blocked back in 2007 but still should know to assume good faith, remain civil to other editors, no personal attacks. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 05:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, I'd probably of blocked Gene Poole for that comment, but for the fact I've been involved before with Bidgee so I can't use the tools. Its totally off the wall from an [[WP:NPA|NPA]] perspective. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


[[it:Al Freeman jr.]]
:Now I am all for blocking for repeated or excessive personal attacks, I find this to be neither(despite a block for personal attacks over a year ago, not recent enough). It is a commentary on the quality of the idea presented. I agree it crosses the boundary into being needlessly offensive but the civility/npa policies are clear that blocking is only to be done in egregious or repeated incidents. That being said, I would not unblock. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Lead Actor 1974-1979}}

Revision as of 09:01, 13 October 2008

Al Freeman, Jr.
Born
Albert Cornelius Freeman, Jr.
SpouseSevara Clemon (1960 - present)

Albert Cornelius "Al" Freeman, Jr. (born March 21, 1934, in San Antonio, Texas) is an African-American actor and director.

Freeman has made appearances in many films, such as My Sweet Charlie, Finian's Rainbow, and Malcolm X, and television series such as The Cosby Show, Law & Order, Homicide: Life on the Streetand The Edge of Night. He is mostly recognized for his portrayal of Police Captain Ed Hall on the ABC soap opera, One Life to Live, a role he played from 1972 through 1985, with recurring roles in 1988 and 2000. He won an Emmy award as best lead actor for that role, the first African-American actor to be so honored. He left the show briefly to appear in the network's controversial sitcom Hot L Baltimore. During that period, "Ed" was played by another actor, Arthur Pendleton.

He was also a director of One Life to Live, and was one of the first, if not the first, African-Americans who directed a soap opera.

After leaving One Life to Live, Freeman appeared in the motion picture Down in the Delta. His Broadway theatre credits include Look to the Lilies, Blues for Mister Charlie, and Medea.

Freeman is still teaching acting as a professor at Howard University, located in Washington DC.

External links

Stub icon

This article about a United States film actor born in the 1930s is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Template:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Lead Actor 1974-1979

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=244953157"