Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Coloane community ban discussion

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

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Wikipedia, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: [1] where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: [2] where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: [3] where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Wikipedia, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have a history of behavior which cannot be ignored at this point. You don;t get to disrupt FAC after FAC over and over simply because you want us to forget about past problems. You have never adequately explained you outright declarations to intentionally disrupt the processes at FAC. For this reason, I feel the community ban is an appropriate solution. I urge you to refrain from commenting on FACs and FARs in the future, and return to editing articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your concrete evidence to prove that I disrupt/ed the FAC process? I am not going to write anymore here since it really wastes me too much time to reply your comment, so this is my last comment here. I guess you probably wanted to save your face on my comment under U2. Plus I guess you have nothing to do so far and that is why you spent most of your time to see if you can do something. Oh by the way, it seems you did a right job to give a warning to someone I didn't know. Hopefully this is not the only one you can do as an admin. Good luck! Coloane (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: [4]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put this comment on Archive 354. Coloane (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane. It would seem a community ban on FA/GA discussions is the next stage from here. Orderinchaos 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall Coloane has commented in a past Macau FAC with personal attacks directed at Tony and myself at the very least. I have reminded this user that the attacking behaviour is unacceptable, but has ignored the message. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

So the question remains: Are we prepared to institute and enforce a community ban on this user? Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, something needs to be done; I just don't know what. Maybe a ban, maybe FAC probation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

I think if the user were restricted from any future FA discussions, that would be a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he has not clean up his acts & instead went on his 'crusade' further by ignoring any past community warnings or actions & even while his case is in arbitration now, I wld like to bring to your attention on his editing behaviour & actions towards Singapore-related articles & the SGpedia community not too long ago. As his case is still pending here, he has 'retired' suddenly as of Jan 23 but I've lingering doubts that he will remain so for long. [5]. u may also want to read his remarks posted on Jimbo Wales' talkpage previously. Fyi, I'm a RC patroller & was given the roll-back authority to help in monitoring on Singapore-related articles for such trolls & vandals. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane is my husband. I already let him retire and he will not come back for sure. I hope it can clarify your doubt. In addition, I do not think your claim about what he did for Singapore-related topics are reasonable. Guia Hill 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

The statement I made were based on his pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen from his history logs, talkpage (blanked repeatedly[6]), personal attacks on SG-related articles [7] & SGpedians [8] that also matches similar reports made by other editors/Admins all these while. I'm not alone nor the only SGpedian in making such a statement as seen from this discussion, related disputes & repeated ANI cases initiated unabatedly over the past 2 weeks. Besides the SG case I mentioned earlier, I trust the Wiki community is able to evaluate on any such claims being discussed here & decide on its final long-term solution once & for all as the community has tolerated such behaviour long enuf. The community only welcome & valued volunteers who are civil and constructive to the spirit and aspirations of Wikipedia in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. I just make a response here for you. You can leave your message on my talk page if you want. Your claims are entirely not relevant. He already got warnings from someone and this matter was over long time ago. What Jayron32 wrote is also irrelevant. I didn't have much time to read his edit history. But I am sure that Miyokan is the one who voted and really disrupted the FAC process and that is why Coloane reacted emotionally on his talk page. That is why Raul restarted the nomination. Jayron32 didn't read the context carefully. Finally I would like to tell you that this page is not a battlefield for retaliation. I don't enjoy this much. I also trust Wikipedia can foster people how to love and respect each other. Nobody is prefect here. With love and peace!! Guia Hill 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

I responded to your earlier replies even though your intervention consitutes a possible COI here. My statement made were backed with factual logs & third-party's reports & I'm not using this platform as "a battlefield for retaliation" as u claimed; I'm expressing my views & concern here in my capacity as a RC patroller. Despite numerous warnings & repeated ANI action in recent weeks, he still persist with his disruptive remarks/action at the expense of the good faith & assistance extended to him earlier. Whether my view or someone else view is being discounted or not, the onus is still left for the community to decide in arriving at a consensus as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Ask him & yourself honestly this question - what led to this unwholesome karma now? Shld he chooses to return to contribute esp on Macau/HK-related articles in future, we hope he wld have reflected & learnt on this whole episode & to accord everyone the same "love & respect" as u mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban from FAC. Long-term disruption leaves little confidence in a change after this. Lara❤Love 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Laralove, Jayron and Aldwinteo. Aldwinteo's remarks about the SG situation cause me particular concern regarding this user. We do not need people taking out vindictive GARs/FARs - it only creates more work for already overworked volunteers. Orderinchaos 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumours of his retirement might just be premature [9]. He also seems "used to" bans. hmmm --Merbabu (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Move for closure

Seeing no objections to the course of action, I say that we should notify the user that it has been decided that he is asked to make no further comments to FA and GA discussions in any way, and that such a probation means that if he continues to do so he may be blocked for disruption. Could another admin notify him of this. He already hates me, apparently, and in the interest of representing the widespread support for this proposal, it may be better if a relatively uninvolved admin notifies the user of this decision. If I do it, it may be taken as bullying him or something. Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is less than two days of discussion really enough to be able to gauge community consensus? At AfD at least five days is required. Guest9999 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue isn't only 2 days old. There are prior ANI reports on this user. Its been a frequent topic of discussion for over a week; the priod discussions are linked above. If this were truly only a two day discussion, I would agree with you, however, though THIS thread is only two days old, this problem has been being addressed by admins for some time, and despite this, the user continues the problematic behavior. He knows that we know what he is doing. He knows that we have told him to stop. He has not yet stopped. If you disagree that any action is needed, please say so yourself. The thread is here, and open to comment. What do YOU think needs be done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could tell (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the other threads mentioned a community ban. So far in this thread four users (by my count) have supported a ban, two of whom are - or have been - involved in disputes with the user. Other users have suggested dispute resolution or simply unecertainty as to what action to take. Personnaly I do not think that this shows that a community consensus has been formed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the views of ‘involved’ editors are less valid than those who are - um - uninvolved, perhaps you yourself could comment on the issue (as opposed to commenting on procedure around the issue) – as Jayron has already suggested.

PS, I am what you might call an “involved” editor, and have thus not commented in this thread (until now). --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Their opinions are no less valid, it's just that they have a conflict of interest within the situation that has to be taken into account. The main points I wanted to make were that the discussion on banning had been running for less than two days with four users supporting the idea and two uncertain, to me the length of time and level of contribution - at this stage - does not show the consensus of the community required for such a ban. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I've no prior disputes with Coloane as my only direct contact with him so far wrt to the above case, is my reply to his posting at the Singapore talkpage dated Jan 3 & it ended there with a non-reply from him. Also, I've not advocated any specific action here earlier, except calling for a final resolution done thru' a community consensus when presenting the mentioned case and its relevant facts. If a vote is needed so as to wrap up this case once & for all, I'll cast my vote formally then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

That formal dispute resolution processes are started to receive wider community input on the behavior of editors here. Let's start with an WP:RFC. Any objections to this idea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how this proposal will go mate, I hope this case will not 'loose steam' again & be consigned to the 'Archives' & forgotten like [10] & [11] earlier. Also, I fear that the longer this case drags on, more 'show-stoppers or proxies' may pop up to derail the case,[12] although it's a clear-cut case of recalcitrant behaviour based on its merits for all to see. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears no one here cares much one way or the other, else we would have received more comments on this one. Users have valid concerns about a community ban so far; and if ArbCom will even accept this it needs to be shown that due process is followed and steps are taken at the community level to handle this. RFC seems a reasonable solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed immediate topic bans

• After reviewing the diffs above, I support an immediate and permanent topic ban on this editor. Classic disruption, nothing more, nothing less. It's these type of editors that discourage good people from contributing. -- Bellwether ^B_C 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur that, since no editor has come forward to support or excuse Coloane's behaviour (not even Coloane - he now claims to have permanently retired from Wikipedia), an RFC seems a complete waste of productive editing time and give my Strong support for immediate topic bans on:

1. Asian topics other than Macau and Hong Kong
2. FACs and FARs

for a minimum period of 9 months. I am an "involved editor". Alice^✉ 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support of the above including GAC & GAR ban as per his history logs. Unlike wat u think Jayron32, I believe this case is being monitored by many of his past victims & affected WikiProject groups but they're reluctant to comment or support further; either they have given up hope on seeing any final resolution again as per previous long drawn clashes/ANI episodes, or to avoid being seen as 'bullying' or 'involved editor' at this stage now. Let's get this done with so that everyone can move on & get back to our regular tasks in Wikipedia folks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this couldn't go to arbitration? Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an administrator who I greatly respect, Carcharoth, so I am a bit puzzled by the implied implication that it should go to the ArbCom; I don't think there is any technical reason for not raising it at ArbCom (although they may decline to accept it). (It can't go to other forms of arbitration, I presume, because Coloane has stated on his user page that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia due to time constraints.) Alice^✉

• Support as this was my idea from the first. However, some users apparently felt this was too harsh. As to why this couldn't go before the arbiters; well it could, and no one can read their minds, they could accept it. However, based on a long history of precedent, ArbCom is more reluctant to take on cases where no prior attempts at behavior correction are undertaken at the community level. If these topic bans (GA, FA, and any Asia related articles except Macau and Hong Kong) are violated, THEN ArbCom will have something to work from. Lets atleast try to handle this at the community level before involving the ArbCom... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Support - Support ban on WP:FAC and WP:FAR for a period of less than one year, followed by a permanent ban if disruptive behaviour resumes. Final warning for disruptive behaviour on Asian topics followed by an immediate and indefinate ban if there is any further disruptive behaviour. Support ban only if (and then when) the editor resumes editing Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, duh. However, we should notify them of the ban if we decide to enforce it. They claim to be retired, and while that may be so for now, if and when they return, they need to know that the ban is in place (whetever we decide it should be). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple but informative notes (referencing this discussion) placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages will suffice. Coloane will get the big orange message directing him to his talk page if and when he logs on again. Alice^✉ 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my above comments. Orderinchaos 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Interesting. As far as I know, the previous ANI discussion [13] regarding similar behaviors had the conclusion: "a mentorship or some kind of user-user adoption would be in order." Notice that not even a formal warning is issued. And a couple of days later we're talking about an "immediate and permanent topic ban." Even blatant vandals are warned a few times before they are blocked. Shouldn't User:Coloane be at least warned first? That if his behavior continues, he will be banned from all FAC pages for a long, long time? It worries me to see such a severe measure is taken without warning the involved editor first. Since banning is used to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, and any further disruptions by Coloane can be easily identified, I don't see why you cant be more generous and forgiving. Josuechan (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That ANI you referenced, like many, just fizzled out. That was a concluding comment - not a closing summation of the consensus reached, I would suggest.

There is no ban proposed here. There would be more than a million WArts (Wikipedia Articles) he could still edit. The topic ban is specific and proportional to the damage and disruption caused. He has been warned many times - not with templates but with comments left on talk pages. How would you suggest further disruption to Wikipedia by Coloane be prevented if not with the specific and directed and proportional measures proposed? Alice^✉ 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just block/ban him outright? He's said he's effectively 'done' here anyway. HalfShadow (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In response top Josuechan, his numerous responses to each of the ANI's shows that he is well aware that a) what he is doing is regarded as wrong and b) he doesn't seem to care. The fact that no-one left a generic uw-template on his talk page means little... We have no reason to doubt that he is fully aware what he did was unwelcome, and yet he continued it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Coloane is fully aware that what he did was unwelcome. Maybe he is not. But that is not the point; the point is that he may not be aware of the severe consequence as he was not warned of that. He might have expected to be blocked/banned for a few days or a week. But come on, nine months? When someone is trying to kill you and you have a gun, you shoot his legs first, not his head. There's a reason why atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima first, then Nagasaki, but not Tokyo.

Any actions taken should be aimed at preventing disruptions, not punishing users. Banning Coloane on FAC/FAR discussions and other Asian topics for a long time would only induce him to assume a new identity to disrupt, if he chooses to do so. Think about it, a new user who aims secretly to game the system, and the good old Coloane: who's easier to spot? Josuechan (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be primarily focussed on preventing damage to the project and you make a valid point about reincarnation. You seem to know him well - may I press you to answer my question and suggest the remedy that you think would be more effective, please, Josuechan? Alice^✉

That's a difficult question and I was secretly hoping I would not be pressed to answer it. But since you insist, here's my two cents. An economist would tell you that a user would assume a new identity when the benefits to do so are greater than the costs. What are the benefits? Well, he could get rid of maybe a dozen users who are keeping an eye on him and evade the ban. What are the costs? He would lose his some 1000 edits and the shiny barnstar. What I am saying is that banning him for nine months makes the reincarnation option too tempting to resist, as the benefits far outweigh the costs. Just ask yourself: with so many enemies and a ban of 9 months, while those 1000 edits could be made in maybe 3 months, wouldn't you just get a new account right away? So I say a ban of duration at most a month, otherwise it's counter-productive.

Note that Coloane is no vandals; he made quite a few valuable contributions. The ultimate solution is to lure him to make more edits, acquire more barnstars and build up a reputation, so that there's more at stake. But since whether he will come back or not is still a question, I'm not going to bore you any further. Josuechan (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very perceptive analysis, Josuechan.

Let me throw another variable into the calculation. Let us take Coloane at his word and assume he will be rather busy in his new job for, say, 2 months. That presumably means we should add on the time when he has no time to edit to your estimate of the attractive period for him to sit out a topic ban. That makes 3 months. I also think we should discount the fact that he will not be banned from editing - just banned from certain topics. He's not stupid and knows that if he appears at FACs, FARs, GACs & GARs he will be spotted as a sockpuppet and blocks begin. I think the discount that should be applied for this opportunity sacrifice should be quite large, but lets err on the conservative side. Would you support a topic ban of 4 months starting tomorrow? Alice^✉ 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your spirit, Alice, but I'm in no position to bargain the duration of a "sentence." I'm just concerned about the procedural justice (severe punishment without a warning of the consequence) and whether such a punishment would have its desired effect. I do not oppose nor support the 4-month ban you mentioned, and seeing that all the people agree with your original 9-month ban proposal, you don't need my blessings to go ahead. Josuechan (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if he assumes a new identity to disrupt the project, the limited scope topic ban on not editing FA and GA discussions instantly becomes an indefinate block on both usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a ban. We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them. If they do, they have broken ANOTHER rule, and that will be met by further action. However, I still haven't seen any reason why this user should NOT be proscribed from FA and GA discussions, beyond "he didn't know what he was doing would result in sanction" (he knew it was wrong; that he didn't know what punishment he risked is moot... He knew that he shouldn't do it and he did it anyways. The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous.) and "He might just cheat to avoid the sanctions" (well, lets atleast assume SOME good faith here, and if he does, there will be additional consequences for his actions). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day it comes down to this - I don't believe many new users would come on and think that vindictively disrupting the Featured Article process to spite users who vote or offer advice on an article candidature in which he is clearly over-invested, is non-sanctionable behaviour. We have disruptive behaviour guidelines for a reason. I don't believe for a second that he would seriously believe he could continue like this indefinitely. Orderinchaos 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just two brief comments:

1) "We don't avoid issuing sanctions because we fear that the person we are sanctioning may "cheat" to avoid them." Don't forget sanctions are given to prevent disruptions, not as punishment. It follows that if it is expected that a severe measure would induce more disruptions, then it should not be given. That was my first point.

2) "The specifics of the sanction should not have entered into his calculation to decide to break the rules. Such a reasoning is rediculous." Gary Becker might not agree with you. Suppose you travel to a different country and somehow you run out of money and have to steal food. You're caught and according to the penal codes of the country, your hands should be chopped off. It's too severe, of course. But surely, stealing is wrong, and the specifics of the sanction should not have entered into your calculation to decide to break the rules. That was my second point.

I'm glad this incident is coming to an end. Take care. Josuechan (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposed sanction

In the light of discussions in the previous section, I now propose:

With the exception of topics specifically relating to Hong Kong or Macau, User:Coloane is prohibited until 1 June 2008 from editing

1. either Asian articles or Asian article talk pages
2. FACs, FARs, GACs and GARs

Appropriate warnings are to be placed on Coloane's User and User Talk pages making clear that

1. breaches of these topic bans will result in blocks
2. attempts to circumvent these topic bans by using different user names will result in indefinite blocks on all relevant usernames as an abuse of sockpuppets to evade a topic ban
3. the warnings should not be removed before 1 June 2008 (so that editors may be aware of the topic bans and react appropriately if they are breached).

• Support Alice^✉ 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Unless there's a valid objection expressed from a highly respected official arbitrater, there's no need for another round of vote at this stage now as almost all the users has supported the proposed topic ban as summarised based on the discussion so far:

Support

• Jayron32
• Orderinchaos -- topic ban (FA/GA) good, rest seems a bit bureaucratic? Orderinchaos 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• 哦，是吗？
• LaraLove
• Bellwether
• Alice
• Aldwinteo - Coloane was warned by experienced editors from different WikiProject groups & admins on several occasions & was blocked twice before - the recent case was for 24hrs for violation of 3RR on Jan 11 [14]. Instead, he persisted with his recalcitrant ways immediately after his ban (although he claimed he won't be returning back to Wiki until the following week due to his bz schedule then. Sound familiar?) which led subsequently to the previous ANI & Checkuser case (both unresolved), & finally to this ANI case which we have been discussing for the past 7 days now. How do one communicate with such individual when he resorted in blanking his talkpage repeatedly to hide his incriminating remarks/acts & the increasing spate of warnings against him? See [15] [16] [17] [18] (He claimed it was his "user's right" to do so, when everyone know it's a 'privilege' & 'not rights' as it can be challenged or revoked by anyone anytime as per Wikipedia policies & guidelines) In fact, his remarks & actions all these while (till his sudden retirement) doesn't show he was repentant or receptive to warnings (even from an admin) or even good counsel at all! As such, I supported the first proposal by Alice's which nearly all of us here find it's a fair resolution in relation not only to the disruptive acts he has committed so far, but also as per his positive contribution mainly to Macau/HK-related articles previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• HalfShadow
• DGG -- previously uninvolved altogether. Topic bans are a good option we should be considering in general.

Semi-support

• Guest9999 I absolutely oppose a user not being able to remove warnings from their user/user talk page. Guest9999 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Sandra123234345 - I oppose because in the past few days, some reasonable oppose comments have been removed. This shows that the support people do not have sufficient grounds for banning and must resort to removing all discussion which is different from their opinion.

I support an outright block of 1-2 months and then no restrictions on editing. Trying to restrict certain topics is just muzzling someone and can be a tactic to censor opinions by falsely claiming other editors with different opinions are the same person as the sock. This is a tactic used by editors trying to own certain articles. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) See below for a simpler proposal which is an outright block then welcome back later, not complicated scheme like the above.Sandra123234345 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any oppose comments being removed. If you could link to them with diffs, or if you don't know how to do this, give the date and time of the edits, I'll certainly have a look. Orderinchaos 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

diff of my comments which were deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=186769152 I will not repeat what I wrote before because I was blocked indefinitely before just for writing these comments shown in the diffs and do not want to be blocked again. So to prevent being blocked again, I will not comment any further except to say that I agree with you 10,000% whatever side you are on. Whoaslow (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, it was reverted by an admin who has not expressed any view on this debate at all. I wouldn't doubt there's been some misunderstanding - there's nothing controversial there, even if I disagree with it. Orderinchaos 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the user was blocked for being an "AN/I troll"[19] by the admin in question. I would guess that is why he removed the user's contribution. Guest9999 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either that or he was using "trolling" as an excuse because Orderinchaos thinks there is nothing controversial there. The administrator who called it trolling actually harms a fair process and discussion by tampering. In real life, if the police tamper with evidence, the criminal goes free. If a hospital alters the records, the patient wins the malpractice lawsuit. Maybe the administrator opposes the proposal so he tampers with it? Whoaslow (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not waste precious time further by sidetracking to another issue now. If u have any outstanding issues with the admin concerned, do highlight this on his talkpage instead, not here as we're trying to close this case. Otherwise, hold your peace as other watchful admins may deemed further remarks or participation esp by a newly created user a/c as disruption on this ANI page. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know we are wasting precious time. Let's decide now and close the case like you suggested. Whoaslow (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I only commented on the specific diff (my sole act of investigation involved clicking "next diff" twice to see when and how it disappeared), I didn't investigate any issues of overall behaviour. It seems to me, on looking further, that it was caught up in a sweep. Trolling does exist and is widespread unfortunately, if one sits here for a few days one sees an awful lot of it. This is one reason why, despite being an admin, I only visit AN/I periodically and focus more on positive pursuits such as getting articles to B-class or higher, and managing my watchlist. Otherwise one gets rather disillusioned about the whole thing (it's like trying to judge a city by sitting in the foyer of its central police watch-house.) Orderinchaos 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, although I'm a RC patroller, I spend most of my time in wiki in writing DYK/GA-class articles previously. I believe u missed out this interesting statement [20] in your earlier investigation too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstain

• Josuechan

Let's give another day by Jan 28 (UTC) for everyone, including newcomers, to contemplate on the final details of the proposal or to reconsider their votes now. I believe many wld want to see a final closure soon including the 'silent watchers' on this long-drawn case, but we shld show all parties concerned that our deliberations & final consensus reached shown fairness & accountability as a record for ArbCom or audit later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we running a poll? Furthermore, I did not express any approval nor disapproval of actions to take; I was merely tossing some ideas up in the air, along with some evidence. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

'cos voting is a common tool used to gauge consensus in Wikipedia. As mentioned above, anyone mentioned on the list is free to correct or comment accordingly. In order to facilitate a final closure of this case, the list was compiled to serve as a gauge of the discussion so far. Anyway, whether by vote, debates, judging panels or whatever process deployed here or elsewhere in Wiki, it's but a 'means' to reach an outcome ultimately. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposed sanctions II

A 2 month block as punishment then AGF and no restrictions after that unless the user acts badly.

Comment: Currently this proposal has 100% support and the other one has some opposition. So this proposal should be accepted unless the vote changes. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I did not see anyone here (including myself) expressing prior 100% support on your proposal of outright ban other than topic ban that has been discussed in much details so far. As a new user since Jan 27,[21] cld u tell us why r u so particularly interested in tackling on ANI cases, instead of editing articles according to your edit history to date?[22] -- Aldwinteo (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Sandra123234345

Oppose

• DGG - Considering he is a good editor in some respects this does not seem addressed to the situation. Why should we block him where it isn't necessary?
• Orderinchaos - Agreed with DGG, he has strongly disrupted one part of the encyclopaedia but in others his editing appears positive.
• Blocking should never be used as punishment. The result of a punitive block would be even more atrocious behaviour. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Proposal 3

I oppose proposal II as does most people. Blocking is often used as punishment but it is not supposed to be. Someone said that the person is taking a break and can't use dispute resolution (therefore, they are proposing to place a topic ban). This is not logical. The logical way would be to say that before he edits in the topics, he must use dispute resolution or he will be blocked (not you will be gone so we skip certain steps). I think this proposal should satisfy everyone because it incorporates the first proposal yet also incorporates the dispute resolution proposal. So,

Proposal 3: The community has decided that user must participate in dispute resolution upon return. If they return before 1 June 2008 but does not participate in dispute resolution, the user may be blocked for periods up time up to 1 June 2008. Whoaslow (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Whoaslow

Oppose

• The user has never acknowledged what they are doing is wrong, and they have been given several opportunities to reform, none of which have been taken. Dispute resolution is unnecessary bureaucracy in a case where the facts are clear and the person's actions in violation of core policy. Orderinchaos 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• I suspect this would result in additional drama rather than resolution of any dispute. DGG (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to wrap this up

OK, things are starting to get a bit crazy above, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental disagreement with a topic ban on FAC and GAC, as he has disrupted in both. I think other Asian topics is a bit wide, and I think some of the other approaches advocate a bureaucracy-heavy approach either from banning from things which he has not disrupted (which would be punitive) or opening unnecessary dispute resolution mechanisms (which would allow continued disruption). What do others think? Orderinchaos 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recommendation. In line with the agreed principle that we shld topic ban based on the extent of an individual's past disruptions. Let's proceed along with a topic ban on FAC/FAR, GAC/GAR & drop the Asian-centric clause with a replacement that he should not touch on those topics/articles that he has previously disrupted. It's also in his interest too, as I believe that the folks at those affected WikiProject groups will definitely not forget him - they will be on the lookout for him or any similar sockpuppets/related proxies in order to report him promptly to higher arbitration next time round or worse. Let's close this case now as it has somewhat turned into the longest running case (nearly 8 days now) on this page now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is proposal number 4

Topic ban on FAC and GAC until June only. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk)

Posting by Jaymes2

Resolved

Moved from WP:AN. — Satori Son

User:Jaymes2 (contribs) (talk) has been posting a long speculative piece about the relationship between meteors hitting the earth, Mass-energy equivalence and global warming on Talk:Global warming and other global-warming related pages. The user has been warned several times on the user's talk page, responded to my warning with a post of the same information to my talk page, and continues to re-post the same information (plus impolite comments directed at people who have deleted the speculation) on the global warming talk page. The user has made some edits unrelated to this theory, but it appears that they've all been reverted as unconstructive. I think that this user needs to be blocked, as several attempts at warning the user and introducing them to the purpose of Wikipedia have not affected the user's contributions. - Enuja (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the user has not edited since their final warning about inappropriate use of the talk page (warnings left at 17:29 (UTC) and 19:00 (UTC) on 26 Jan 2008, last edited said talk page on 14:06 (UTC) 26 Jan 2008). It would be reasonable, before any action is taken, to see if he heeds the warning or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The user deleted a level 4 warning on 16:40, 26 January 2008 [23]. - Enuja (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor should be blocked. There are six warnings on the relevant talk page, excluding any deleted ones. Even if the warnings are not for the same things, it shows a pattern of disruptive behavior that should not be tolerated. Why are we tolerating an editor who has done nothing but waste our time (e.g., this discussion)? I say that we agree to block on the next disruptive edit. The block should be implemented even by an "involved admin" since she will notice the disruption faster (thus, an effective block) and the decision to act was taken here as a group so the admin merely implements the block but does no "decide" to block. Brusegadi (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this admin agrees; block on the next disruptive edit that has the same content. Blocking is preventative, not punative, so that makes sense. Also vandalism, and that is what it is when it is disruptive - even when made in good faith - means that otherwise "involved" admins can act, similar in the way that vandalism does not count against 3RR. However, if they have otherwise stopped - just let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, another one. I've reverted. I would block, but I'm borderline involved, so if someone else in available, please go ahead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by virtue of the fact that he has a 24 hr rip. However, this isn't going to fly as an offense - it's a discussion page. the_undertow ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this user's disruptions have been, as mentioned above, almost exclusively on talk pages. I know this issue was tagged as resolved, but where should I go to get an administrator if this user continues to post this same speculation on talk pages after this block expires? - Enuja (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit up an admin from this thread. It will get taken care of. the_undertow ^talk 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nikkul on Poverty in India

Resolved

 – Content dispute

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
File:India Rural.JPG Poverty is more common in rural areas of India. Shown here are homes of farmers living below the poverty line in Maharashtra A beggar in Bodhgaya. I found no way other than coming here. User:Nikkul is continuously adding an image of homes in rural India with a caption "Low income homes in rural India". His edits are going too much problematic. First, in rural India, homes like these are quite common, and in rural India, per capita income is relatively low than in urban India. An image in a article for poverty should depict the subject very well. But farmer's homes are not well representative of Poverty. This user is also removing the begger image wikilawyering this image is WP:UNDUE. This is blatant wikilawyering and excuse. In India, many poor homeless beggers live like this, and there is no wikipedia rule that an image of a begger cannot be included in an article. He is continuously reverting my edits, no intention in engaging in a fruitful argument in constructive manner. Dispute resolution is not posiible with this editor. I think an experienced editor or administrator should look into the matter. I am getting tired with this user's disruptive edits. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) From memory I seem to believe that there is no Wikipedia rule that determines that an image of a Manatee cannot be used in article space, either... Of course, context is everything. "Low income housing" (besides being a recent Western concept) may not necessarily indicate that poverty (or "trans or sub subsistence income") exists in an area - although economic weakness may make it more likely should incomes be reduced even by a small margin. Also, as suggested, a traditional low cost building does not mean that the locality is economically depressed, it may simply mean that semi permanent dwellings are not considered as essential as to another culture. Begging, outside of religious/cultural practice in the sub-continent, is an obvious sign of poverty, however. It is indicative of a lack of employment opportunities (if the begger is otherwise fit) and also of a welfare provision where the begger is not capable of work which are strong indicators of poverty. I will comment on Nikkul's talkpage, noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Why is dispute resolution not possible? I see no recent edits from you to either the aritcle talk page or to Nikkul's talk page. When you find yourself arguing against a policy, ANI is usually not the first place to try. The inability to resolve disputes with a particular user is generally established by precedence. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I suppose edit warring, for that is what it appears to be, is a matter for admin input? Anyway, I have left a message at the users talkpage. Hopefully both parties can now move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Well I'm just saying, ANI isn't the first step in dispute resolution, and one shouldn't assume it won't work before one has tried. But yes, it will hopefully take care of itself now :-) Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) The reason this user is giving in removing the begger image is "all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue". This is ridiculas argument and apllying WP:UNDUE here is blatant wikilawyering. Many beggers have no eyes, many beggers cannot see, many beggers have no arms, amny beggers cannot walk steadily. This is the reality, the truth, it is not right to conceal it. On the other hand many beggers are physically fit. So how to judge a begger image? This begger image is right, this begger image in not right? Many beggers, as I have told earlier, forced in this profession due to utter lack of livelihood, and live more worse condition than depicted here. So placing this image is completely appropriate, using the above argumant this user is applying is ridiculas and certainly POV pushing. This user's only job in wikipedia is bigging up the India articles by placing nice touristy pictures and removing "negative material" which he is doing here. This user is mixing "low income" with "poverty". "Poverty" is defined as "condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". Low income houses, the farmer's houses are not representative for what "poverty" stands. In wikipedia, we cannot place an image of a farmer, or a farmer's house when depicting poverty. I think in an article, which completely describing poverty, only those images should be given which are well-indicative to the subject. And by that, the begger image is terribly appropriate in the article. I hope after LessHeard vanU's message on this user's talk page, this user will not disrupt the article again. But if he continue his disruptive edits, I may need help from other editors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul, while an excellent source of images, proves problematic in the extreme about their use. For those wondering why DR isn't tried, I suggest a look at the Talk:India archives. Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) First,I would like to say that Otolemur crassicaudatus did not ask me to discuss this on the talk page. He also did not leave me a note telling me that this discussion was going on. This is another attempt by him to block me. He has tried to delete my userpage because I said "Being an American is priceless" User Otolemur crassicaudatus keeps deleting my contributions without giving a good reason as to why. Any edit that i have made to this page or another is always reverted by him. This is getting tiring for me and is hindering my efforts on Wiki. Poverty in India is mostly rural. Most people who live under the poverty line live in rural places. No other picture on the povetry in India page shows rural poverty which dominates over urban poverty. The picture of homes represents poverty in rural India, because these homes are where poor farmers live. I have travelled in poor parts of India and I know firsthand that these homes house people under the poverty line. Not having an image of rural poverty is wp:undue since all the images show urban poverty which is only a fraction of poverty in India. I have explained this many times to Otolemur crassicaudatus but he still keeps removing my image with an excuse that "no place is mentioned" The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers or beggars. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of indias poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page. This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can. Before, he has tried inserting an image of beggars washing their clothes in a puddle in the economy section of the India article which is featured. He still kept doing this even when I told him that the image represents the poorest of the poor in India and that every country has poor people, but most do not show an image of the dirt poor on their economy sections. Because the beggar in Bodhgaya image doesnot show the truth of Indias poor, andbecause user:otolemur insists on having a beggar image,i haveuploaded Image:India poor.jpg which is more representative of beggars in India rather than a man with broken legs Also, when I say low income housing, i do not mean housing for the lower class. I should have made it clear that these homes are of poor farmers who live below the poverty line. Hence, the image is appropriate for the page. It also shows rural poverty which is significantly greater than urban poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor. Any mention of "negative aspect" of India is attempt to make India bad by this user. The farmer image is not indicative to poverty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) This is a content dispute. Please take it to the article or your own talkpages, or pursue Dispute Resolution. I would suggest that the rhetoric is toned down also, assuming bad faith does not help the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I actually think Nikkul has a reasonable point here, to be honest. It seems that WP:UNDUE is being violated by use of an unrepresentative or overly polarising image in the context in which it is being used (the image could be used in several other contexts without any problems). I suggest that the users try to resolve their problems at the article talk page and assume good faith - both editors do wish to improve the article, that's obvious by the above, but just have starkly different ideas about how to do it. Orderinchaos 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul's image is much more relevant than a handpicked photo of a beggar. Beggars in India need not be poor, while slums are the home of the poor. OC's edits indicate a pattern of Indophobia that Nikkul has brought to light.Bakaman 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Bakasuprman, every single statement of yours like this is only going to make the next ArbCom workshop longer. Stop it now. Relata refero (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what this has to do with OC/Nikkul. However, I doubt arbcom will look down upon upholding WP:RS. Trolling on ANI will of course make any arbcom workshop page interesting, as would the not-so-covert veiled threats you seem to be making.Bakaman 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) What threats? (And how can they be not-so-covert and veiled at the same time?) And I'm here in response to a request on my talkpage, so that's hardly trolling. And what this has to do with OC/Nikkul is that you poison the atmosphere with words like "Indophobia". Which is what I am reminding you to stop. Relata refero (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC) And similarly low-income housing is sometimes misused (by putting it on rent by those who supposedly need it). The fact is that vast majority of beggars are poor. Also, you allegations of Indophobia, as a way to solve disputes, are a violation of WP:CIVIL.Bless sins (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There is nothing incivil about calling a spade a spade. I pointed out that his edits, indicate a pattern of Indophobia. Incidentally, wikistalking is a clear violation of policy, unlike spurious allegations of incivility. Nikkul's image is much more germane to the situation, and OC's forum-shopping does little but to exhaust the time and patience of more productive editors.Bakaman 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I found the beggar's image on the Begging article. I removed it since there already was a representative for India. Perhaps this is related to this incident--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I have worked signifiantly with Indias poor. I have travelled in rural maharashtra and given firsthand help to people under the povety line. I have also worked in urban slums. Last time I was involved with a project, it was in Worli, Mumbai. I established a school for slum children. The teacher we hired were from the slums. They were paid 200 rupees per month (less than a dollar a day) to teach slum children. After a month of volunteering, I was invited into one of the teachers homes. I was surprised to see that though she lived below the poverty line and though she lived in the slums, she had a color TV, a stereo player, an sofa, electricity, and running water. The point im trying to make is that India's poor do not have broken legs and most are not beggars. Of those who are beggars, they surely do not look like that man in Bodhagya. User:OC's excuse is "Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor." which really is not the case. This user is being very uncooperative. He removed my pic of rural poor homes and so i asked him to please not insert the beggar image until this dispute is resolved.He has reinserted that image again.[24] He has continued to edit war even when I asked him to hold off on the image and I told him that I wouldnot insert my image until the dispute was resolved. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If you think Mumbai is representative in any way, you have a problem. Relata refero (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The image of the beggar is relevant to the article and should remain. The image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like, especially to those unfamiliar with the subject of poverty in that country. I don’t think the picture of rural homes in the countryside really portrays poverty at its most extreme. The photo in question looks more like and old country town in a rural setting where the inhabitants would not be rich or to poor, but would be able to support themselves by living off their own crops and lives stock and fend for themselves by living off their own land, unlike the poor beggar with broken legs begging in the streets to make a living. To someone unfamiliar with the subject this picture does not portray poverty but a rural lifestyle. The user in question seems to have a bad habit of wanting to get his photos into articles regardless of relevance or quality. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul, whether you find the image offensive, or not in accordance with your work with beggars, that is not relevant. Some time ago there was a huge debate about whether to have a picture of prophet Muhammad, or whehter to have the Jyllands posten cartoons. The result in both cases was that though the image may be false, it'll still be included because wikipedia is not censored. If you have a copyright related objection, then by all means, remove the image.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I believe that both pictures should be included. Only adding the beggar would make the article look like a Human zoo as if all poor Indians look like him. On the other hand, retaining the houses alone would seem to tell us that the poor of India are rather well off (although the accompanying pictures seems to balance this). Besides I don't think that OC is knowledgeable or familiar with poverty. Last time I encountered him, s/he called tuberculosis as a non-serious disease.--Lenticel (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am not opposed to having a pic of a beggar because it does represent poverty I AM opposed to having that image of the beggar because it really does not represent beggars in India or in general Just like a terrorist does not represent the people of Pakistan, this image does not represent beggars. A beggar with such deformations is an exception. I have uploaded an image (Image:India poor.jpg) which shows what most beggars look like. I think this picture is more relevant and more appropriate. I also think that the rural homes image is important because Almost all of India's poor live in the rural areas Most of India's rural population is involved in the agricultral industry Most of Indias poor farm for a living and live in homes like these I have been in these homes and I know that these people live on less than a dollar a day There is no image of rural poverty on the page But MOST of the poverty in India is Rural Nikkul (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Your comparison is unfair. If you included a picture of a terrorist, in article called "Pakistani terrorists", that'd be ok. We are not including a picture of a beggar in "India", but rather "Poverty in India". I agree both images should be included.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Another problem we have here is "he said, she said" (figuratively speaking). Nikkul speaks from his/her personal experience. While I respect his/her personal experience, I don't think it holds a lot of credibility on wikipedia. I One problem I do see with the image this: how do we know this beggar is in India? He could be in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc.Bless sins (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Have a look at these images [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I think this begger in Bodhgaya is much "wealthier" than the others. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Has nobody thought of the possibility of using an image showing an intermediate situation between the two shown above, both of which do seem a little pointy in this context ?DGG (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The Bodhgaya beggar image is appropriate here. The only reason given for its deletion is "this is not typical beggar". This is a fallacious and anti-Individualistic argument. Adam.J.W.C. has given a good argument that "the image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like". Many poor people have television in their home. Will it be right to include an image of a television set from a home of poor people with a caption "Shown here a television in a poor home. X% poor people of Y country has low price television like this". Will it be appropriate? The farmers home, yes it is true that rural area has low per capita income. But this is typical in all countries, per capita income is generally low in rural ares than urban ares. In an article whcih is depicting poverty only, only those images should be given which illustrate "lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". The image is showing rural situation, rural lifestyle. Many Sadhus in India do not have high income, in that sense an image of a Sadhu also can be included in the article. But it is not going to build a good article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If the houses pictured are actually the homes of poverty stricken people in India and a significant proportion of poverty stricken people in India live in similar homes, then it is probably a useful addition to the article as an illustration of living conditions. In terms of whether to use the picture or not, the question of whether similar (or identical) houses are also owned by people who are not poverty stricken is irrelevent(although it that should probably be mentioned in the article). Guest9999 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Man husking rice by throwing it into the air. The imege shown here is also rural image, is also showing poverty. But will this image appropriate in an article for poverty with a caption "Poor man in rural India husking rice"? In the same sense, the farmer's home image is also inappropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Look, this user is not making any sense. His arguements are pointless and unsourced. All I am saying is that: Just like color of skin does not indicate poverty, a disability does not indicate poverty either. Almost all of Indias poverty is rural. Almost all of Indias poor are farmers. This user keeps deleting the only image of rural poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) ANI isn't the place to have conversations about content, only about user behaviour that requires admin intervention. Take it to RfC or mediation, unless OC can come up with other examples of Nikkul being problematic. Relata refero (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is not dispute resolution

What you are looking for is outlined at the dispute resolution page - a third opinion, an RfC, or mediation. Administrators are not content experts necessarily, and it doesn't appear that evidence is presented here of activity requiring administrator intervention. If there is such activity, please present diffs below in a concise manner. ^Avruchtalk 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nikkul (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists

In the next links it is wise to look who started to be impolite

[[31]],

I don't like to be called "Dude"

[[32]],

I don't like to be called wikibabel wich refers to the tower of Babel. My name is wikibakel

I don't like trhat someone is telling me that i act like a troll (trolling)

[[33]].

Again the troll story

Editors Helladios and Tsourkpk act like they are god. No other opinion than theirs is allowed. They don't discuss with arguments they just censure. They accuse without reason the site Illyrians.org to be extremist nationalistic. This harassement has to be looked into by NON-greek admins. An article can only grow when the greek accept that there opinion is not the only one

Helladios accuses me of deleting a warning. This warning was on my one talk page. After reading i deleted this because i have enough braincapacity to remeber those messages. Furthermore it doesn't state anywhere that i have to keep every message on my talk page. Next to this i put the text that i wrote on my own talk page. What is helladios doing on my page? Is he on a personal vendetta? It seems so. Sorry I'm not impressed nor afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBakel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) WikiBakel (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not obliged to keep the warning there, that much is true. On the other hand, it doesn't look too good for you if you first complain of other people misspelling your username, and then for you to persistently misspell that of the other guy. Come on, you are too intelligent for such games. The guy is called "Helladios". Now, come down from that glass dome, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I directly changed Heliastos in Helladios. This was a true mistakeWikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Your statement however doesn't change their censorship nor their accusations.Is that still allowed? WikiBakel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

your accusations of censorship aside, your attitude is far afield of civility, and should be put in check. Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors? ThuranX (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell means "Dick size comments is the best you can do to discuss problems with other editors?" WikiBakel (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:POT. Apart from making racist slurs (mentioned in a previous thread), you have been promoting the inclusion of material from an extremist pseudo-scholarly website [34] that amongst other things attempts to identify many figures from classical antiquity, such as Homer, as ethnically attached to a specific Balkan country, usually not modern Greece. This is a meaningless exercise. The material from that website - mostly very poorly written and argued - is unacceptable for any encyclopedia. You have been attempting to incite other editors by quoting from it at length on talk pages. By his reference to a children's game, I think ThuranX is referring to this kind of behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, mathsci, I was spexifixally referring to this bit from the link above: "I know we Dutch are the longest in the world and that the greece are as long as an average dwarf. I can't do nothing about the fact that you feel a little bit inferior." It's a bigger penis contest to him, ans he should be blocked for a while to cool off, as it's clear he is still confrontational. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block PipepBot as out-of-control bot

Resolved

 – Bot unblocked (second resolution) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally posted on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, I'm moving it here since it might need a quick action : pywikipedia is not supposed to work that badly. NicDumZ ~ 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot (talk•contribs) is broken and is removing lots of valid interlanguage links, e.g. [35] [36][37][38][39][40] [41][42][43][44] (there are many more examples). It is also moving existing interlanguage links around (out of alphabetic order) for no good reason, e.g. [45]. This is causing disruption. The bot owner has been notified of these concerns [2], but I am suggesting a temporary block to prevent the bot causing further unnecessary disruption. - Neparis (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for the time being. Lara❤Love 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot is still operating across other wikis, e.g. fr.wiki, de.wiki, it.wiki (probably more wikis too). It is removing valid interlanguage links there too. I presume it cannot be blocked by admins on en-wiki. Is there a central cross-wiki noticeboard for reporting a bot that is misbehaving across multiple wikis? (rather than making multiple reports to different wikis) - Neparis (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for permissions on Meta, section Removal of access, probably, or contact a Steward. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought the matter to the French AN ... NicDumZ ~ 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a request for steward assistance on the bot status page on [46]. - Neparis (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this bot is not out of control. The user is fixing interwiki conflicts. Please unblock this bot. Nothing wrong with these edits:

• [47] - interwiki mess Town with City
• [48] - interwiki mess Dioxin and Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
• [49] - interwiki mess Particulate and Aerosol
• [50] - interwiki mess Calypso (RFID) and Navigo pass
• [51] - dont know

interwiki mess Software maintenance and Maintenance. --Pipep (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• [52] - interwiki mess de:Rapperswil SG and de:Rapperswil-Jona
• [53] - interwiki mess Donatyre and Avenches
• [54] - interwiki mess Schwyz and Canton of Schwyz
• [55] interwiki mess St. Antönien and St. Antönien Ascharina
• [56] - interwiki mess Stadtbahn Glattal and Glattalbahn

Looks like Neparis owes someone an apology - multichill (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

well, as far as I know, fr:Ville is the translation of City, even if it is also the meaning of Town. Interwiki.py usually don't remove "controversial" interwikis like these, unless the -force option is activated. It should not. NicDumZ ~ 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

City/town is a mess. Probably unfixable in the current interwiki system. But you're wrong about the -force option. I happen to run an interwiki bot myself and i never use the -force option. I do however fix interwiki conflicts every once in a while. This means i pick a page and run the bot without the -autonomous option (and without -force option). Bot asks me a lot of questions and in the end adds and removes a lot of links. Looks like Pipet did the same. multichill (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Next on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard ...This page is too big :) NicDumZ ~ 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Well, the ones that really caught my eye were the interlanguage link removals for dioxin.[57] I just reviewed them again and at least some of them still look like they might be considered at least somewhat controversial link removals. I could be wrong about it, but some wikis (e.g. Danish) seem to me to have an article on dioxin, but not yet an article on polychlorinated dioxins, which is a specific type of dioxin. In such a case, having interlanguage links to dioxin, as the general term, seems quite useful to me. User:Blech from de-wiki has told the bot owner that most of the interwiki links that the bot removed were correct and that he has reverted the bot.[2] I have not checked any of the other examples in detail, but I had a quick look at one of them — the aerosol link removals.[58] Particulates are a cause of aerosols, and, though I may well be wrong about it, some wikis (e.g. French) seem to have an article on the latter but not the former, so, in such a case, having the interlanguage links, e.g. to fr:Aérosol, seems quite useful to me. I am acting in good faith here, and if I have made a mistake I will certainly say sorry to the bot owner. Please let me know your thoughts — I can take a wikitrout or two. - Neparis (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NicDumZ, let's continue at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. multichill (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the operator of PipepBot. I update the bot code at least every day with svn, and I never modifies the code. Yesterday I was solving interwiki conflicts in manual mode, and I have shuted down the bot short before you decided to block it. The bot was never out of control. I don't think, the links I removed where correct links. As explained in Help:Interlanguage links#Bots and links to and from a section, "The activity of the bots also requires that interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less." I yust removed links to or from articles not covering the same subject. It is possible that some less edits could be controversial (especially City and Town), but you should consider that since August 2008 I have solved manually thousands of interwiki conflicts. The alphabetical order was respected based on the local names of the languages, and not according to the two-letter language (see Help:Interlanguage_links#Sorting).

I ask you to remove the block of my bot. Sorry for my bad english. Thank you! --Pipep (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove unblocked your bot. multichill (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99

Stale

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

There has been an ongoing content dispute over several articles involving Russia, Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., with this user and User:Biophys on one side and User:Frjohnwhiteford on the other. For the most part, this is of no interest to ANI. However, the narrow issue of uncivil personal attacks by Muscovite99 against Frjohnwhiteford may need to be addressed. The relevant info is summarised in this RfC/U, on which I have made the only uninvolved comment. Note that, of the five diffs listed under "Evidence of disputed behavior", the final two took place after I made my comment at the RfC/U. It thus seems that Muscovite99 is aware of what he's doing and has no intention of changing his behavior, and a short block (which I have no authority to enact) might be appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 was engaged in personal attacks not only to Frjohnwhiteford, but attacked other editors as well. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muscovite99 for more details. This is not a dispute between two editors, Muscovite99 and Frjohnwhiteford, but a dispute between Muscovite99 on one hand and other editors on the other. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The case about User:Frjohnwhiteford has been at WP:COI noticeboard. Can anyone review if it was properly resolved? See [59]. User:Muscovite99 is a newcomer (less than 700 edits). I do not know if he was really uncivil, but no one issued any civility warnings at his talk page.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He was issued numerous warnings on the talk pages in which he engaged in the attacks, and he responded with more. The RfC was posted on his talk page, and he has engaged in at least two additional attacks. Claiming that he is a newbie (which is questionable, given his pre-existence in Russian Wikipedia, where he has engaged in the same behavior) cannot possibly hold any water at this point. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 is not a newcomer in WP. He has over 5000 edits in Russian WP and numerous warnings on his talk page there. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:COI/N thread ended in a consensus that Frjohnwhiteford has no serious COI. But that is not relevant to the issue at hand here, which is Muscovite99's incivility. He has 17,000 edits at Russian Wikipedia, so the newbie defense is limited in its utility. He has persisted in his behavior despite warnings. If not a block, then I think we need at least a stern warning from someone who can back up their words with action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I see WP:WEIGHT problem towards User:Muscovite99. If he is right or wrong we should give him WP:AGF we can always hang him later..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not the content dispute, but civility. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI noticeboard[60]. User:Frjohnwhiteford is a Russian Orthodox priest who was involved in several Orthodoxy-related disputes with users Martintg, Malick78, Muscovite99, and me. I believe it is he who creates the problems rather than all others. User Jeepday tried to mediate the dispute between Frjohnwhiteford and me, apparently without much success [61]. Singling out Muscovite99 would be unfair.Biophys (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If any warnings to be issued, one should also warn User:Frjohnwhiteford who was making bad faith accusations [62].Biophys (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Frjohn was out of line in accusing you of bad faith on that occasion, but it was a single incident. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means read the COI/N thread all the way to the end, if you want some context as to the dispute underlying the incivility. There is also this. However, Muscovite99 is being singled out because only he has made sustained personal attacks. It would be nice to have an admin give an opinion on this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99.--Addhoc (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the links:

• [63]

• [64]

• [65]

• [66]

• [67]

• [68]

• [69]

^Avruchtalk 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Adding comment from RFC/U discussion section with diffs embedded) ^Avruchtalk 22:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 continued to engage in personal attacks after being warned to stick to the issues. Accuses several users of vandalism including an administrator [70]. User accuses others of vandalism and violating WP:NPOV when only he a persistent history of being warned for violating WP:NPOV on the said (Vladimir Putin) article [71] [72] [73] has been blocked for violating the 3RR on that article [74].--Miyokan (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All links by Avruch are copied from a old RfC above. All links by Miykan are edits by other users, not by Muscovite99. The links are very old. Nothing is going on right now... Biophys (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These pertinent diffs establish that Muscovite has a extended history of disruptive editing and ignoring warnings, giving context to his most recent uncivil attacks of Frjohn despite being warned. This most recent attack - Talking to you i am beginning to understand why the whole world hates americans: it is one thing to be just an idiot but an idiot who teaches others and intrudes into other people's affairs is the whole different kettle of fish - is truly disgraceful, taking place after warnings were made at RfC/U. It thus seems that Muscovite99 is aware of what he's doing and has no intention of changing his behavior.--Miyokan (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that was before RfC and long time ago. Such case should be handled by issuing a warning to a WP newcomer with less than 700 edits here (per "WP:do not bite newcomers"). The problem has been already addressed by filing an RfC about this user. No one is going to investigate what he (or someone else with the same name) was doing in Russian WP, since this is hardly related to English WP.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These two diffs post-date the RfC. I think I remember seeing M99 acknowledge being the same person as the identically-named user on Russian WP, but I don't have the diff now. In any case, very little that is new is being said here. Admins should have enough information to decide whether a block, a clear warning of consequences (my preference), or no action is appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:ANI is not to "punish" users, but to prevent an ongoing and significant distraction. I did not see any serious problems during last 24 hours or more. If you want to punish this user, you should ask ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI, as its name indicates, is to notify admins of incidents that require their attention. Preventing an ongoing disruption was in fact why I initiated this thread, only 13 hours after the most recent personal attack. If M99 has behaved himself since that time, then good. There is no talk here of punishing, and no need for Arbcom. This is a simple case of personal attacks that, IMO, merited at least a warning from an admin. Unless an admin comes along and expresses interest in looking into this, I see no point in further conversation here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

AN/I is not dispute resolution

Looking at the above, including the links I reposted from the RfC for convenience, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of recent violations of policy requiring administrator action. If such activity has occurred, please place diffs below in a concise manner that administrators can react to. Otherwise, the RfC that you have already begun should be the right step at this point to address the above concerns. ^Avruchtalk 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mp3tt

Mp3tt (talk · contribs) is creating multiple pages in his/her User space which are nothing more than external links to music download sites. I don't know whether the site is a legit download site or a copyright violating site, but are these edits appropriate use of User space? Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎
• User:Mp3tt/ Jordin Sparks Tattoo‎

So far--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those go to a site where you can download the entire album, track by track. I seem to remember there being a policy against that, somewhere... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy, i couldn't find any speedy tag i could put on them. Failry certain there will be a precedent out there somewhere though--Jac16888 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising? Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It legally. Try download something:)--Mp3tt (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/_Sara_Bareilles_Love_SongAdvertising? Where?
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Rihanna Don't Stop the Music
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sean Kingston Take You There‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Sara Bareilles Love Song‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Linkin Park Shadow of the Day‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Finger Eleven Paralyzer‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Chris Brown Kiss Kiss‎
• Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Mp3tt/ Colbie Caillat Bubbly‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp3tt (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have you posted a list of what links to your sub-pages? (i.e. here) Anyway, your point of the legality of the link, which i don't intend to use/visit, is moot, wikipedia is not a place for you to spamvertise.--Jac16888 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ok--Mp3tt (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Welcome to Wikipedia, i hope you have fun editing here, and don't let this little incident stop you coming here--Jac16888 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So is an MfD in order? Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. The links to the download site appear to violate the "referral link" clause of WP:UP. Caknuck (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

POV warring and WP:OWN issues

Resolved

 – Please seek dispute resolution

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

User:Stone put to sky reverts any and all edits to Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States that do not meet his own POV, continually reverting cleasnup efforts to remove material that violates WP:SYNT and WP:REDFLAG and accusing those attempting cleanup of "being disruptive". This link may prove rather illuminating: [75]. I bring this here because his continuous reverts bring any attempts to work on Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States to a complete halt. MONGO can probably weigh in on this further if he so wishes, he's had a bit of a more in-depth look at Stone put to sky himself. Jtrainor (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Jtrainor, you probably noticed but everyone has reverted Raggz, and for good reasons. For controversial articles such as this one, where content has been the result of tough compromises, it's important to respect consensus and float major changes on the talk page first, and reach some consensus. All his major edits had major problems and have been corrected reverted by various respected editors. Your claim that material violates SNYNT and RedFlag, these have been shown to be without merit. If you can substantiate those claims, then I ask you to please do on the talk page so we can address and fix those problems. Editors working on that article have been very accommodating to work with all editors of all POV's, and we have given Raggz (and continue to give him) assumptions of good faith and a tremendous amount of patience. Despite a tendentaious editing style, we continue to work with him to try to identify and resolve issues he raises. What happens is that issues he raises gets answered, and then he drops it and starts over, on a new subject, and then returns to an old resolved subject, all over again like a merry-go-round, opening up several section topics at the same time. So the real problem is not user StonePutToSky but Raggz editing style.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute argument, which has no place here. This page has been the subject of content disputes for years. The total contributions of many editors on this page consists of deleting content they disagree with, using policy to mask their POV deletions.

You can call a RfC on the page. travb 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started an RFC for a certain aspect of the dispute (central to the problems, but relatively contained and based on policy rather than endless political arguing - hopefully). It can be found here. I'm sure most folks who follow this page would not want to touch the article in question or any dispute surrounding it with a ten foot pole. That is wise. Again though, the RFC just begun is on a relatively limited policy issue. I think it could prove constructive if some neutral folks could weigh in, and might help to develop some good will on the article (though things have generally stayed pretty civil there despite the intense debate). So comments on the RFC would be much appreciated, and I think would be far more useful than a long AN/I thread.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that i have been singled out for this; i am responsible for only a small number of the reverts that have been made. Those reverts that i have made were undertaken with wide support from the Talk page. Of the seven or so editors who have frequented the page these last few weeks, five have made extensive contributions and suggestions for molding content while one has restricted himself to challenging sources and citations. In each case the sources and citations have withstood community scrutiny. For my part, i will be happy to leave the article and take a wiki-break for a while. I have no personal stake in it. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz efforts at so-called cleansing are being rejected by the majority of editors participating. Raggz is advancing interpretations of wikipedia policy that the majority of editors participating are rejecting because they do not represent a legitimate interpretation of those policies. Raggz has been responsible for extremely tendentious editing, both in the article and on the talk pages. The majority of editors participating have supported those edits of Stone Put to the Sky that JTrainor disputes and have effectively argued as much in the talk pages. JTrainor has not made positive contributions to the article. In the talk pages he has occasionally made critical assertions but has not yet demonstrated the capability, or even the interest, to back up his assertions with argumentation.BernardL (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a sustained effort to engage the other editors. This article has no pretense for NPOV compliance. I have made a serious good faith effort to assist with NPOV. Read the article, just read this article. No one pretends that NPOV is intended to prevail, and this is an article without a shred of compliance. Not one minor edit offered to this goal has been accepted, but personal attacks have been made there and (on this board as well). Every editor need take responsibility for raising policy violations and to make a good faith effort to reach consensus for these. I have done this. The article is exactly as it was when I begun, except a few weak citations were replaced with stronger ones. NPOV is absent, just read the article. When you read the article you will see this. No one disputes that there is no NPOV compliance.

The topic itself requires an article with a POV bias. Take the Cuba section, the topic requires that the three invasions by Cuba of its neighbors in 1959 not be mentioned. The horrific crimes against humanity committed by Cuba that forced a half million (of seven million) Cubans to flee to Miami cannot be mentioned. The continuing war crimes against the families remaining and the rage of the Cubans in Miami cannot be mentioned. The threat and real plans to invade Puerto Rico cannot be mentioned. The assasinations of refugees in Miami by Cuba cannot be mentioned. The Cold War cannot be mentioned, the nuclear missles in Cuba cannnot be mentioned, the fact that Americans were digging fallout shelters to try to survive a Cuban nuclear attack cannot be mentioned. The Reader doesn't know that the Cold War was involved as the motivation of the US acts of war against Cuba in 1961. The article assumes that NPOV can be attained when the article's topic is restricted to the actions on one side in any war. This topic can never really attain NPOV. NPOV will require a topic that permits NPOV. No article about a war that excludes one side will attain NPOV, nor will this article manage this. Raggz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP policy to ban argumentative topics?

I have two questions:

• Does WP permit argumentative topics (like this one) that are impossible to bring into compliance with NPOV?

An analagous topic would be Allegations made against OJ Simpson. This article would not discuss actual court decisions because only allegations would be relevant. The trial of OJ Simpson would be covered, but not the verdict (a verdict is not an allegation.) We discuss Hiroshima, but never mention the international legal tribunal that rendered a verdict on this topic. Why not mention the international tribunal? Technically, because the tribunal's verdict is a fact, and is not an allegation. Likewise the verdicts about OJ Simpson are irrelevant to the allegations, the point of this proposed article is to debate all allegations against OJ Simpson within WP, not to discuss verdicts.

Other argumentative topica would be: Allegations that Global Warming does not exist, Allegations that Fidel Castro personally assasinated political opponents at the 1948 Bogata Conference, Allegations that the Earth is flat. The Catholic Church does not focus upon the Allegations that the Catholic Church encourges child molestation, do we need this second topic? Do we want topics that ensure a lack of NPOV compliance because they are too narrowly focused for NPOV to be attainable?

• If argumentative topics are allowed, where would I go to request that argumentative topics not be permitted? Raggz (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Bad faith speedy deletion and general behavior of an editor

Resolved

 – Pages are at DRV, AN/I is not dispute resolution

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

User:SqueakBox has nominated two Wikipedia-related article drafts in my personal userspace for speedy deletion, here and here as he'd previously threatened to do on my own talkpage. One was saved by an admin that quickly removed the tag for now, but the other was in fact speedily deleted with admin Jayron32 pointing to "recreation of deleted material".

• This claim by admin about "recreation" is patently false. This was no "recreation" after the fact, this sub-page in my private userspace was several weeks old after having been created to save valuable material from Squeak's constant vandalism crusade against several admins, the official article on WP had only been deleted today due to steamrollering in spite of severe opposition of roughly 70 editors and admins (and my draft had already been several weeks old when the official article was, once again, nominated for AfD), and it had looked nothing like my draft because I had intensively edited it after moving it to my private userspace.

• Furthermore, this deletion was even violating several of the policies the admin linked to: "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, [...], or deleted via proposed deletion" (the official article had been nominated by User:SqueakBox just as well), not to mention it violated the policy mentioned at WP:MFD, User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.

• User:SqueakBox has been blocked before for months for disruptive, vandalizing, and flaming behavior like this, blocks he even tried to evade by creating sock puppet accounts that were deleted after having been spotted. User:VigilancePrime attempted to create a mere quotes and diff links collection sub-page of User:SqueakBox's constant personal attacks, edit wars, flaming, and vandalism to be brought before admins to do something more effective about the issue than just temporary blocks, but User:SqueakBox got this sub-page speedily deleted within 6 hours [76], and see how the current Deletion Review is going: [77].

I request at the very least access to my deleted private userpage draft so I can copy it, if not full restoration. I'd also like some opinions about the behavior of User:SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you and Squeak can't stop squabbling this will end up at Arbitration. I'm sick of seeing this kind of thing continuingly being brought up on noticeboards. Both of your recent conduct at DRV was unacceptable and uncivil. Please either raise a RFC or RFAR or pipe down. All I ask is that you stop bring complaints here as you must see by now that its not making any difference. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that the issue of what to do with User:SqueakBox is only secondary. My fist concern is caring about the work that so many editors put months of their efforts into and that he has destroyed. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the DRV confirming the deletion of the Adult-child sex article just closed as "Endorsed" it seems that content has been rejected as being never suitable for the encyclopedia (otherwise AfD could've closed as needing content editting). So in that case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999#User_subpages would apply and it should be deleted. And Der pädophile Impuls is clearly written entirely in another language and therefore could never be a mainspace article of Wikipedia's english edition. Maybe it could survive as a transwiki work-in-progress, but it really should then be in the de.wikipedia userspace. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Never suitable"? The closing admin of the DRV, similarly to the one closing the original AfD, closed with a rationale of mere per above partisan vote counting and pointing to the unsubstantiated, vague claims of any "POV fork" issues that had been substantially debunked by many people, and all in all roughly 70 people, editors and admins, wanted the article to stay, with very sophisticated reasonings and rationales, while the other side just gave colorful one-liners and parotted the vague, entirely debunked claim of "POV fork", a "POV fork" where all the other articles could have perfectly been merged into. Add to those 70 people those more 60 people that had come to the consensus in 15-20 prior polls for delete/merge-redirect that the article should stay. And you still have the audacity to say "never suitable for the encyclopedia" against 130 people saying otherwise?

Furthermore, your reference is entirely moot because it refers to a case of "tedentious editing" were a user had created a large number of nonsense and fantasy articles without any use at all, and the user was banned for one year. Do you intend to ban me for one year for creating two sub-pages for articles that are wanted by several dozen people?

Third, I'd like to repeat that according to the official policy I've pointed out above, it's invalid and forbidden to tag userspace drafts for deletion if the official article was "deleted via proposed deletion". One of the reasons for that is the fact that consensus can chance, a policy that has been brought up after each single of those prior 15-20 unsuccessful polls for delete/merge/redirect by those people wanting to purge the article one way or another. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out, as I am the admin who "saved" one of the pages from speedy, that I did so partly because I feel there were many sides to the topic and discussion was needed, however moreover because I wished Vigilance to remove the content to his own personal PC space voluntarily, so that it would stop acting as a target for Squeaks behaviour, and also as a sign of good faith in resolving the dispute between the to. However it didn't turn out like that and Squeaks MfD (eventually) went to deletion, and I gave up trying to resolve their differences. I suggested Arbitration but I don't know if they will respond. SGGH ^speak! 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just restore his userpages that were deleted. Geesh. What's the big deal? And tell Squeak to stop stalking. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it's in German, so is never going to be an article here - transwiki to the .de wikipedia and leave it at that. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had a look at my talkpage you'd see that I've put it here for English editors with a basic grasp of German to get their opinion whether I should put up a translated version in my userspace to one day put it up as an official article, WikiEssay, or WikiBook if there will be consensus for doing so. I got positive responses on both issues so far, and really, why care about somebody's userspace as long as it's free of personal attacks and actually Wikipedia-related? After all, userspaces are the least-accessed place of all Wikipedia. I'd like to also point out that I'm a civil editor to the degree that on controversial topics I always get consensus on the relating talkpages first before I do anything (and it was exactly for the sake of this civil consensus that I moved the now deleted content to my userspace), so there's really no threat inherent in the mere existence of any of my personal userpages to be unilaterally put up as an official article without any consensus. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page. CSD is not applicable here. According to userpage policy, inclusion of deleted material (or copies of other pages) on user subpage is acceptable. However, if the subpage's content is a matter of dispute, one can propose it to WP:MFD to consult community's consent. Speedy delete G4 is definitely an improper manipulation of deleting admin. @pple complain 13:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this applies only to the German article, which appears to be an essay in process of possible translation; the copy of the deleted adult-child sex article is unacceptable - after extensive debate it has already been decided that this subject is adequately covered in numerous other articles, and keeping copies of deleted material on subjects deemed not to be encyclopaedic is an unacceptable use of user space, as has been noted above. The deleted content may be emailed to the user if he wishes. We need to err on the side of caution in cases of apparent pedophile advocacy, for reasons that are well enough understood and documented. The adult-child sex article was deleted mainly because it was a POV-fork, and it remains a POV-fork wherever it lies. The user is free to edit the multiple existing articles whihc cover this topic, should he feel that there is additional material worthy of inclusion, and as I say the deleted content can (and will, if he asks me) be emailed on request. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, a user subpage can hold anything the user wants to have under certain conditions. If the material included somewhat violates the policy, the prudent step will be WP:MFD as an official process of handling this type of issue. CSD, once again, is not applicable here. For the record, this page was created on 21:29, November 27, 2007, thus it is undoubtedly not a "recreation of deleted material". The subpage in question contains material that is a subject of a recent debate, however its content carries certain merit that is widely agreed by a number of established users and respected admins (if you really followed both the DRV and the AFD, you could have seen it). Although the deleted material is a subject of controversy, no way it was labeled as "unacceptable". PoV fork is a reason for vote deleters; at the same time vote keepers sustained their own reasoning for the inclusion of this article. Nevertheless we are here to discuss the appropriateness of speedy deleting a user subpage, not about the content of such material. DRV result doesn't hold much weight here. You action of reverting, which clearly violates WP:WW, at best can't be considered a good judgement. @pple complain 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much @pple. I'd suggest everyone following what the template at its top says, "Please do not edit this page unless you created it, instead create your own." Such editing naturally includes tagging for any kind of deletion. Trust me, this sub-page is neither meant to be authoritative in this form, nor is it anytime going back to be an official article without solid consensus. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Guy, a cautious approach should be taken regarding apparent pro-pedophile advocacy. Would suggest this discussion should be closed, and if necessary parties use dispute resolution. However, the page shouldn't be restored again, unless consensus changes. Addhoc (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. There's no need to prolong the agony - as Mackensen said in the DRV close, "editors remanded to the existing articles on the subject". There being no shortage of same. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell all 130 people, editors and admins alike, personally that strongly supported this article and wanted it to stay that they are "pro-pedophile activists" and supported "pro-pedophile activism". It's pathetic and in very bad faith what you're throwing around here at so many good editors and admins. I've outlined above how many policies are violated verbatim by harassing and vandalizing my userpages like this, how it is official policy that private userpages MUST NOT be touched because of an article being "deleted via proposed deletion", it's illegal verbatim, look up my link above, and I've never "recreated any deleted material" because my sub-page was up long before the original article was even nominated for AfD and probably 75-90% of my draft had never even been in the official article, making your claim of "recreating deleted material" even more ridiculous. If you wanna make somebody accountable for "recreating material", go after admin @pple. Do you wanna ban him now? You ought to be really ashamed of yourselves. None of you even deserves an admin status for your own incapability to see beyond your own tiny, self-righteous POV horizon, in my humble opinion, both AfD and Review closing admins included as they chose to completely ignore all known consensus policies and gave in to the simple name-calling contest that you're throwing here now. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're free to initiate recall proceedings against those admins who are in the category, otherwise attacking long-time admins as bad faith actors and etc. is probably unproductive for you. Mackensen, for instance, is a two-time Arbitrator, checkuser and a long-time admin. If a long list of admins disagrees with you, consider for a moment that you may be wrong. In any case, the article in question is deleted and should stay deleted. We don't need ten more debates about the same topic in a weeks time. Work on something else. ^Avruchtalk 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) JzG: CSD G4 is not, by any manner of means, applicable to user subpages. If the one doesn't like the existence of the subpage, they could please use MfD, not cut the red tape. By re-deleting this page, you've performed what people call wheel warring action; oh well, I'd expect an admin like you to know better. Please restore the page or your deletion will be brought to DRV. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peace, and @pple: G4 does not normally apply in this circumstance. Nor is there normally a case that all userfied drafts of an article are deleted once the article is deleted. I think that this page could well end up deleted at WP:MFD but the DRV for Adult-child sex just closed. In my view this should not be deleted in this manner... but on the other hand I don't like flip-flopping admin actions over a point of process. Before settling anything, I think the least we can do is to ask TlatoSMD: now that the adult-child sex article's deletion has been endorsed, what do you intend to do with the draft? Mangojuice^talk 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to bother what the user will do with his material. I also leave a cock-up of materials in my sandboxes, a lot of which are never used, but who knows some day they are suddenly in need. The article was deleted for "PoV-fork", meaning that as long as this concern is addressed, article may be recreated and be maintained on Wikipedia on its own merit. TlatoSMD apparently uses his subpage for future improvement of a potential article, and we should encourage such efforts instead of making fuss out of the nothing. @pple complain 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The closure of the DRV makes it clear that editing should take place at the existing pages. If consensus can be built to move one of those to the deleted title, it could be recreated. However "POV fork" is not a problem that can be addressed by editing, which is why we delete POV forks instead of allowing them to exist for editing. I see your point about assuming Tlato has a good reason. I just figure, before we get into a big discussion, I'd like to clarify the situation... but I see you've opened a DRV anyway, so it's probably moot now. Mangojuice^talk 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thats what happens when you post before going to sleep, you get to miss all the WP:DRAMA. Let me just reiterate, that this seems to be a contentious topic and even if CSD: Recreated wasn't the best CSD option, it seems to me that the community has decided there will never (consensus can change, just not quickly) be an article of that name on that specific topic, so it would be an inappropriate thing to keep hanging around the userspace. Also, from what I understand, banners like "Please do not edit this page unless you created it" is merely advisory request as under WP:OWN, no pages, even userspace pages, are the sole property of the creator. An no, I'm not proposing any bans here, I'm merely referring to the Principle the Arbcom established in that case. If I was proposing that action be taken, I'd cite the Remedy or start an RFC. Also, as I said, the German article was a broderline case. In some cases it might've been a speedy foreign language, since I didn't see a warning note that it was inprogress, but it also could be a translation being worked on (although I didn't see that and it still wouldve belonged onthe German WP). MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Hot-headed, wrong-headed admin

I have been tidying up English biographical articles, replacing dates in American Dating format (month-day-year) with dates in International Dating format (day-month-year), as used in England. This is in accordance with the Manual of Style. User:Ian Cairns incorrectly accused me of doing the opposite, reversed my valid edits and warned me for vandalism. And then blocked me for 72 hours. This looks like a blatant abuse of administrator powers to win an edit war where he was clearly in the wrong, and, even though after his errors were pointed out he unblocked me, I would like some careful pairs of eyes on his hasty actions. Further discussion and examples on my talk page here. --Pete (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he was critisized for blocking you, so he undid the block. The matter appears to be over before you brought it here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted. But this sort of thing is extremely disruptive, and not at all what I'd expect an admin to be doing. I can't really just gloss over this. Perhaps there's a better place for reporting it? --Pete (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, you should be happy you were forgiven to fast. Next time try and wokr more cooperatively with your fellow editors instead of antagonizing them so much. Smith Jones (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I should follow your polite example. --Pete (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that following earlier criticism of the block and the method by Deus ex Machina, which I took to heart, I reversed my block a while back. I apologise for any incorrect method.

This issue for me was that Skyring was deleting birth and death templates in articles and hard-coding his desired date solution, and thereby losing the subject's age information. No edit summaries were provided and the edits were marked as minor. I agree with his changing the American date format to International date formats in the British articles, but this should have been achieved by adjusting the template parameters. If the template is faulty, then he should be progressing changes to that (he has left comments to that effect). The lack of edit summaries obscured his intent. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't the templates, but the speed with which you got things wrong, ignored my correction, insultingly accused me of vandalism and gave me a long block in the space of a few minutes. --Pete (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it was a mistake, okay. everyone makes them including admisn you do have a point htat maybe he hurried a bit too much but it owuld be better to let it go now rather than create a grudge over a temporary block that he already apologissed for. Smith Jones (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering your recent blocks, and the fact that (at first glance) your edits were disruptive (effectively removing the birth and death templates) the block doesn't strike me as "OMG abuse" bad in the extend that it prevents further disruption and allows everyone to catch a breath and examinate calmly. Communication is essential, and when someone clearly objects to your actions, undoing them is never the best idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication is essential, and when someone clearly objects to your actions, undoing them is never the best idea. One would hope that this works two ways, hmmm? If a breathing space is required, presumably the edit-warring admin would find it when he requested an uninvolved admin to apply a block. --Pete (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the block was perfect, just that it was not screaming "OMG abuse". I personally wouldn't have blocked (yet) considering you were not editing at high pace. He contacted you prior to the block, but probably didn't wait long enough to see clearly your intent. My opinion is that it was a misunderstanding on both sides (you thinking you were fixing dates, and he seeing you removing important templates and not stopping despite 2 warnings). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe if the templates weren't so user-unfriendly, this type of problem would be less likely to arise. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. Pete, you would do well to let this matter drop. The section heading here could be construed as a personal attack on a respected and well-mannered contributor and to describe him in the terms you've used is not on. Your block log speaks volumes of your own ability to work collaboratively and for you to accuse others of bad faith is laughable. —Moondyne 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Birth_date_and_age}} is protected. If the style of the dates violates WP:MOS, could some admin change the template to conform? Taemyr (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If I remember WP:DATE well, the date can be written in the "US" format for a US-centric article (MM-dd-yyyy), and in the "European" format for a European article (dd-MM-yyyy). There's a (badly documented) switch "df" (day first?) that allows the day to be output first in such cases (when put to "yes"). I think the template is ok (considering it's wide usage, I would advise against incompatible changes), but its documentation might need to be made clearer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts: edits were good faith not clear vandalism, the block was inappropriate and User:Icairns violated the three revert rule during the course of the incident ([78], [79], [80], [81]). Further discussion may be relevant as the actions constitute a misuse of the rollback feature, which was given as an admin tool. However since an apology has been given and the action reversed it would probably just be better for all parties to move on. Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the comments, this is the only one to which I need make any reply. Until Deus' comments, I thought I was dealing with simple and clear vandalism. My reasons were: Loss of article subject's age information caused by the deletion of birth and death templates; the lack of any edit summaries and the tagging of the edits as minor. Under this impression, I therefore felt I was working under WP:3RR#Exceptions. Clearly, after Deus' comments, I took his point and withdrew the block.

Communication is essential starts with present and clear edit summaries, to indicate content and intent. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith but the changes made to the article were so minor that I think it would have been better - and perfectly reasonable - to assume good faith of the contributor. Additionally, the 3RR exception applies only to "simple and obvious vandalism", I don't think that replacing a templated date with a written out date can be counted under this criteria. Using incorrect wiki markup and stubborness are specifically mentioned as things which are not vandalism. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments above. The extremely useful template is marred by its poor internationalisation, as I've already noted. I'm not pursuing any kind of vendetta against ICairns, and I'll say no more on his actions. However, I couldn't just gloss over what appears to me to be an abuse of admin powers. This project means a lot to me, and it is essential that we aim for high standards. --Pete (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell, apparently I deleted this comment when posting mine, my deepest apologies. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete, I'm confused by what you describe. I see the output of this template in the day-month-year format, not the month-day-year one. Are you aware that you can set your preferences to the date format of your choice? (If this isn't the problem, I wonder if there is a bug in your browser that prevents this setting to work for you.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Geez, if I hear that one more time... We're writing this encyclopaedia for normal people. People who don't have editor accounts and user names and date preferences. Most of our users are readers, not editors - that's how we get so far up in the rankings. Sometimes I think everyone here is intent on carving out an imperial bureaucracy, like Asimov's Foundation series. --Pete (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Skyring, I did not know that this template existed until I saw this thread, so I'm going to ask those kinds of questions. And since I hadn't seen any of your recent edits, I had no idea you had been asked this question umpteen dozen times. So excuse me for demonstrating some concern about a possible problem that affects these normal people you write about -- even though I found your response insensitive if not offensive. I would rather ask stupid questions instead of allowing things on Wikipedia that make people feel stupid, but with a response like that I'll be happy to leave you alone -- & unconcerned about how the software works for you. -- llywrch (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: User:Shrine_Maiden

Over the past week, Shrine Maiden has been making repeated edits that violate Wikipedia's policies in regards to writing fiction, all on the List of Claymore characters page. First, the user added CLEARLY biased content to the page with [[82]] edit, which obviously favors the character "Teresa" over that of "Priscilla", whom Shrine Maiden admits to hating. Then, over the next week, Shrine Maiden repeatedly reverts several edits made by myself and other editors in order to continue a personal mission of Teresa-hype. Such as with [[83]], where Shrine Maiden makes his/her intentions clear with the edit summary. On the talk page, both myself and another member named Twsl have attempted to dissuade Shrine Maiden from continuing, but we are called "vandals" and I personally am accused of "acting almighty". I've even allowed Shrine Maiden to add some of his/her other statements while nixing what is blatantly POV, with little avail. Can an admin please step in and help this matter get resolved? King Zeal (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Also, please take a gander at Shrine Maiden's talk page, and main page, which strike me as very odd, especially since he/she admits to deleting old comments to the Talk page, because they were critical. Also of note is the fact that he/she admits to not assuming good faith with others, which is a result of my pointing out a double standard on the Claymore characters talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the situation, King Zeal. Lara❤Love 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

lighten up a little, dude. its clear that the comment on the talk page about good faith was intended to be ajoke, and User:Shrine MAiden's userpage is remarkably well-written and wellorganized than most talk pages. the more serious issue is the first one htat you raised, and i recommend that you stop interacting with here directly in order to avoid a conflict of interests. Smith Jones (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found it a little odd and decided to bring it up. It doesn't particularly bother me. The first issue is what I was particularly griping about. King Zeal (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The incivility issues seem extremely minor and a bi-product of a content dispute. For that reason, I recommend filing a request for comment. Lara❤Love 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admins here watch/read anime/manga. So I'll give a brief description about it first:

• There is this character called Teresa, the author made her the most powerful warrior ever. Teresa beat another character called Priscilla and spared her life. Priscilla released over 80% power and turned into a monster, and chased Teresa again. Teresa beat Priscilla again with only 10% power. Priscilla dropped her sword, fell to her knees, cried and begged Teresa to kill her before she completely became a monster. Teresa lowered her guard, Priscilla picked up the sword and killed Teresa with 2 quick blows. Then she became a monster and slaughtered the rest of Ilena, Noel, Sophia.
• But it was written like this in the article: "However, Priscilla pursued and attacked her in blind rage. In her anger, Priscilla accidentally released too much Yoma power and Awakened, slaughtering Teresa, Noel, and Sophia and severely wounding Ilena." Anyone who read that would think that Priscilla is super powerful, and she killed Teresa/Noel/Sophia alike easily, which is wrong and does not accurately describe what shown in the anime. I feel that I must edit it to make it more accurate. And I did.

Then what happened between me and User:King Zeal?

• On 9 JAN 2008, I added more information to Teresa's section: "cheap shot", to make it more accurate and clear history here, and added the same to Priscilla's section: here. The comments "I hate this monster" is just a cute funny summary comment for the edit (did not write it in the article)
• On 14 JAN 2008, User:King Zeal thinks that "cheap shot" is not "appropriate", and User:Twsl thinks it's "non-sense", so they reverted to the old inaccurate version: here and here
• I compromised and removed to word "cheap shot", changing my edits to describe exactly what happened in the anime, but User:King Zeal just laughed at it and reverted: here I reverted him, asking if he actually watched the show?
• On 24 JAN 2008 User:Twsl tried to call me a vandal, pretending that he's fighting vandalism: here Why adding facts to describe the subject more accurately is vandalism? So I told User:Twsl to stop labeling people who do not agree with him as vandal here. User:Twsl quickly changed his arguement to "it ain't neccessary" here
• On 25 JAN 2008 I wanted to solve this funny edit war so , I stared a talk section and tell them to talk instead of starting an edit war: here User:Twsl dropped out of the talk shortly afterward. here. User:King Zeal continued to talk
• But the talk is pointless. User:King Zeal keeps using one excuse after another to delete the word surprise attack, from "inappropriate" to "not important" to "unneccessary" to "Point of View" to "Original research". I say it's a fact, it's accurate, and it's important, User:King Zeal says "it's not". User:King Zeal said "you don't get to decide what's right and what's important". I said "same to you". In my POV, he was trying to delete accurate information so he is a vandal.
• Meanwhile, on the article, I compromised again, and did not use the word "surprise attack" anymore. But User:King Zeal again reverted without any reasons here. Now there's nothing such as "cheap shot" or "surprise attack" in the article, but User:King Zeal still deleted it. Now he thinks that the word "only" is POV.
• 26 JAN 2008. I compromised long ago and removed all the words that User:King Zeal does not agree, but he keeps reverting. The whole paragraph is about a past story, it was written in past tense for a long time, but User:King Zeal keep changing 2 lines of it to present tense: here
• User:King Zeal keeps reverting anything I write, and keeps talking about how "only" is POV. here Then he secretly reported to admins, making me into a complete fool who keeps vandalisng the article (?) here. He even took my joke in my talkpage to attack me (?) and even said that I deleted comments from my talkpage because it's critical? Oh? Why should I want to delete them? Which comment on my talkpage did I try hide? I'll re-add them if you want, but wait, the rules allow it: Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of_pages in the user space and here Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If only I could know that someday someone would attack me just because I wanna keep my talkpage clean...
• 28 JAN 2008, User:King Zeal cherry-picked one or two comments from the talk, created a new section, pretending that I am still adding "surprise attack" into the article. here First, "surprise attack" is an accurate fact. Second, I compromised and did not add "surprise attack" since 26 JAN 2008, but User:King Zeal somehow keep reverting for unknown reasons. Now he tried to make me look bad, and even reported such a minor conflict to admins.

Quick summary (evidences above):

• I added the fact "surprise attack" into the article List of Claymore characters to describe the plot of the anime more accurately.
• User:King Zeal does not agree with it, he kept reverting me. I opened a talk section to talk about it. Lots of talks, generally: "I don't agree with you" from both sides.
• Day 26, I compromised and removed from the article all the facts that User:King Zeal does not agree (like "surprise attack"). So the dispute should have stopped.
• But no, User:King Zeal keeps reverting anything I write for no reason. He even said that the word "only" is original research/POV. He said that "fiction should be written in present tense", and just keeps reverting me for no reason at all. Like here, here. But the whole article is mostly written in past tense, and he does not care.
• Day 28, User:King Zeal reported me to admins, making me look like a bad, stupid user who keep vandalising. I assume that he took it personally? Because if it's about the article, the dispute should have been over since 26 JAN 2008 (I compromised), the only reason it continued it because User:King Zeal feel he must revert anything from me...

There's this sentence right in Teresa's section: "Teresa is a cold-blooded killer who cares for no one, only helping villages because she is ordered to, and taking pleasure in scaring humans". But User:King Zeal does not care about that. Instead, User:King Zeal thinks the word "only" in "releasing only 10% power" is POV. I guess it's just because I wrote that? Shrine Maiden (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's no lady! She's my girlfriend

Resolved

 – article was kept, editors directed to DRV

OK, cute header aside, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination) has been opened and closed a few times. Can someone step in to either close it definitively or rule when it can be closed? Benjiboi 15:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, why was it even reopened last time? The five days are long gone. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was closed on the 20th as a speedy keep by User:Canley. User:Rossami was apparently unhappy with this and reopened it five days later [84] and has since reopened every attempt to close it (I didn't notice this at first when I closed it, thinking that it had its allotted time).

While this may not been strictly according to procedure, I have no problems of IAR'ing this and declaring it a keep. A delete result seems highly unlikely. henrik•talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussions may be listed for up to 5 days, it was opened for more than 4 days and 13 hours (if we don't count the 5 days delisting in the middle). If an other admin disagrees, he may reopen it of course. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition...you don't just re-open a debate if you don't like how it closed. That's what WP:DRV is for. --Smashville^BONK! 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, once it is closed, it needs to stay closed, take it to deletion review if you are un-happy. This looks like a speedy keep to me. Tiptoety ^talk 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with apeedy keep. I'm concerned about the nominator User:RightGot's behaviour. Note his recent edits where he archives his talk page by moving ( nowt wrong with that) then moves the archive to a different page and blanks the redirect. Now that definately looks dodgy. If you check the archived page this user has multiple warnings in the short time he has been here. I'm tempted to move the history back and move protect his talk page. Or is that OTT? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks dodgey, but it doesn't really hide the page, you just have to know where to click. He moved it from Archive 1 to Archive 0. Perhaps he is just trying to start his Archive from 0 instead of 1? But on the other point, recent warnings should be kept on Talk. Do we have a set policy on how long? That might be applicable here. It's also possible the editor does not know this and might need to be assisted in this issue.Wjhonson (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a rule requiring registered users to keep warnings on their page for any amount of time. —Random832 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this situation is rare anough that i would be very surprised if we had a rule to deal with it! We shall have to use our best judgment instead ;-) I have no problems with users blanking warnings, because it's all in the history. But moving the page history like this to obscure the warnings (it's not completely hidden but would fool the casual observer) is worrying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminstrator Waggers and WP:AIV

Resolved

This morning I had some free time and went on a WP:HUGGLE spree. I encountered Mmata3 (talk · contribs), a account that is obviously being used only to promote a travel website. I reported this to AIV. I received two template warnings from Waggers (talk · contribs) and an admonishment to "stop wasting our time" reporting spammers on AIV. Is this the sort of treatment that vandalism reverters usually receive from administrators working AIV? Do we actually require a notarized form filled out in triplicate for these sorts of blocks? If blocking vandals reported to AIV did not require sound administrative judgment, we could just write a bot to do it. ➪HiDrNick! 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Waggers (talk · contribs) told you the process that has to be followed before making AIV reports, namely giving new users final warnings (after hopefully giving them lower level warnings first). This is a well established process that most admins helping out on AIV follow. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Please read the instructions at WP:AIV. Report vandalism by vandals who have edited after a final warning. It doesn't appear to me that Mmata3 had a full set of warnings, if any at all, at the time you made the report. Lara❤Love 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that once I gave a final warning to the user, they stopped. The block was not needed, and if in the future it is needed then the final warning will justify immediate blocking. Though I will point out that an account that is only used for disruption can be blocked without warning, though that does not always mean one should. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmata3 (talk · contribs) was actually reported to AIV no less than three times (two of which were by HiDrNick (talk · contribs)) - at no stage had Mmata3 edited (let alone vandalised) past a final warning. HiDrNick (talk · contribs) also says that Mmata3's every edit was to promote a tourism site; this isn't true. While Mmata did add an inappropriate external link a few times, most of their edits were adding information to geographical articles, the only snag being that they were written very much in a promotional, not neutral, tone. In my view, where there's any doubt, the need to not bite the newcomers overrides the need to wield a banhammer every time. Waggers (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disgruntled harassment

Resolved

 – Editor has apologized and will leave no more 'congratulatory' messages

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm looking for some community advice on the behaviour of User:Filll. The editor in question appears to be waging a mini-harassment war on a few other editors, most specifically User:Amaltheus, over some edit warring that has been prevalent at Introduction to evolution‎. This seems (to me at least) to have taken the form of sarcastic and repetitive congratulation messages left on Amaltheus' and other editor's pages. Some diffs: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. There are plenty more. Also, this is directed against a different editor. I'm not quite sure what ought to be done. This recent behaviour is pretty objectionable, no matter what your stance on evolution happens to be. I'd be glad for another view (or three)! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Whilst it certainly looks objectionable, we'd need to know the background before we can form an opinion. What has lead up to this? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There has been an on-going edit war at Introduction to evolution which is (perhaps uniquely) at WP:FAC, here (as nominated by User:Filll) and WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) with several diffs (see second opinion at the AFD) suggesting User:Filll has been making pointy comments to delete the article, perhaps because of the failure of the article to make FAC. I'd appreciate some comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It must also be noted that Fill has been involved with the heated debates on homeopathy and that the attitude of other editors there have also been to blame. LinaMishima (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I do not think that homeopathy is germane to this discussion, however my input there has been that we need to maintain NPOV if at all possible. Some elements have not been willing to approach the article from the standpoint of NPOV, or unable or unwilling to understand NPOV. I have sought other ways to reduce conflict, as in trying to encourage one or both sides of this debate/discussion to disengage with the other, to let them construct the type of article they envision as a reasonable balance in peace, so all can be productive. I do not believe that encouraging a battleground benefits anyone, those for NPOV and those who do not understand it, those who favor a more pro-science view and those who favor a more WP:FRINGE science position. What has to be remembered is that for a large group, there are financial interests involved in Wikipedia not disparaging homeopathy in any way, and therefore they are dedicated to removing any input from medical authorities or scientific authorities or peer-reviewed mainstream journals or prouncements of any governmental panels or medical bodies. This has to be recognized and some way for assorted sides to come to some reasonable compromise and be productive. The two sides can work together, as has been done with world class homeopathy expert User: Peter morrell on Wikipedia, but it cannot be done in a combative disruptive environment, which is what Wikipedia seems to have encouraged in the homeopathy article for more than 8 months now. I personally think it is unproductive to fight and that other options have to be examined. Others are free to disagree with me of course, if they feel that uncivil contentitious battles over articles here are productive and advisable and are to be encouraged.--Filll (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There are two sides to this story, of course. I do not want to offend anyone and I apologize if I have caused any offense by my effusive praise directed to Amaltheus and his accomplishments. He is clearly a smart guy and has made some contributions, so I do not want to take that away from him. On the other hand, Amaltheus has waged a long time war of attritition against me, and all the other editors on that article, and on several other articles. He even maintained a list on his talk page for a long time of "article scalps" that he collected from his attacks on various articles, that he called the "F off list". He was advised several times by admins and editors to remove it since it gave a somewhat negative appearance, but he declined to do so. Random Replicator, Awadewit, SandyGeorgia, Snalwimba, Wassupwestcoast and several others on Introduction to evolution have lost patience with Amaltheus. Awadewit, Random Replicator, Wassupwestcoast, Snalwimba and myself have stopped working on the article; 2 have left Wikipedia because of Amaltheus. Amaltheus has seized control of the article while it was being considered for FA status, by threatening others, cursing at length in vile strings of invective and expletives, refusing to compromise or engage in consensus or constructive discussions, engaging in diatribes and vendettas, tendentious disruptive editing, and tortuous endless arguments, and making vague complicated complaints that have to be parsed infinitely to find penumbrations of meaning, and this resulted in driving all others away from the page. I approached several admins casually for assistance, but none was offered since in the current environment on WP we must assume GF in all circumstances, even to the point of driving away long time productive users and at the expense of article production and quality. I am sorry if this is politically incorrec to write, but it is my impression. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way. I hope that it is just a mistaken impression on my part and on the part of other editors who I have seen state similar impresisons. Amaltheus has several characteristics which make it highly likely that he is a sock puppet of a previous disruptive editor with editing restrictions placed against him by the administrative structure at Wikipedia, and I would be glad to give further details in private channels. I can provide diffs for all of the above of course.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Please do. Ahead of your diffs, it looks like you were editing his user page over his reversions to place snide and patronizing pseudo-award messages. Avruchtalk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I'd support that request. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Some clarification for the record: I don't believe the editing at Introduction to evolution can be characterized as an edit war, the article hasn't failed at FAC, I haven't lost patience with Amaltheus, and I don't believe he has seized control of the article. He's made helpful suggestions, and has barely edited the article, but he's clearly angry now after having been poked quite a while. I was hoping to get the parties to talk amicably so the remaining issues at the FAC could be resolved as the article was within striking distance of passing FAC a few days ago; I failed. I'd like to see the poking stopped, as the FAC and the article are being affected. My summary is on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I apologize if I misinterpreted the position of SandyGeorgia on her relationship with Amaltheus. As I said before, Amaltheus has made valuable contributions and suggestions, as confirmed above by SandyGeorgia, and I do not want to take anything away from him. In fact, as I have said, I would congratulate him for many of his contributions. Also, allow me to clarify that when I say "seize" control I do not mean it in a literal sense of course, since this is impossible, but more of a figurative sense, given that several other editors have decided that it is best to disengage with Amaltheus rather than interact with him in what often turned into a negative situation. Including User: Random Replicator and User: Wassupwestcoast, who both decided to withdraw from Wikipedia after this unfortunate episode and trying set of exchanges. I personally have not "poked" Amaltheus and have avoided him and the article for weeks, except for my efforts to talk to him in a friendly manner after the defection of two of the editors he was interacting with last night. I personally was unaware of any poking that was going on or might have been going on, since I was avoiding the page for the most part given previous outbursts I had witnessed by Amaltheus. I again apologize for having made unwelcome efforts to talk to Amaltheus in a friendly manner and my entreaties were clearly poorly timed and inadvisable. I will not do so again of course and I apologize to all and sundry for any offense this engendered.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, so perhaps "edit-warring" is an inflated description. It's an emotive subject so it's bound to cause "creative discussion". It's an unusual situation, how many FACs are AFDs simultaneously? However, the seemingly intense personal campaign Filll appears to be waging against Amaltheus seems unnecessary. I'm not saying that Amaltheus is blameless but what I've seen lately is bordering on cyberbullying which is totally unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I disagree with the characterization advanced by The Rambling Man. I only placed the article up for FAC because Random Replicator wanted to try for it. I have stated repeatedly throughout my time at Wikipedia that I do not care about the GA and FA process, since I do not think it is always productive and constructive. I only think it has value when it leads to article improvements. I have counselled Random Replicator and others not to worry if it fails FA because it is not important, what is important is that it is a useful article to our readers. I can provide numerous diffs where I have repeatedly stated this in many places for months. I did not put the article up for deletion. Wassupwestcoast, who left Wikipedia completely disappointed at having been frustrated to death by attacks by Amaltheus, did it after I had wondered if it should be deleted. To be fair, Wassupwestcoast has several times wondered if there needed to be two articles on Wikipedia on the same subject, Introduction to evolution and evolution, and I tried to reassure him that there was a place for both several times. This time, I did not fight him on it. I have fought for the creation and preservation of Introduction to evolution for a year, and argued repeatedly against many who thought that introductory articles did not belong on Wikipedia. However, in the course of this FA process, I see few if any seem to care about this sort of article. As I have stated on the talk page and other places, I want someone to tell me why they believe it belongs on Wikipedia. Instead of me begging to keep it, someone else should tell me. I am not so sure now. For example, Amaltheus is welcome to convince me that it should be on Wikipedia, since he seems to be trying to get rid of it by attrition or blatant attacks, so he can accumulate more "article scalps" on his "F off list". His edits and demands are completely antithetical to an introductory article, and he has made repeated suggestions and challenges that are anti-science in nature, suggesting to me that he has an agenda to remove the article under all costs. So if Amaltheus wants to destroy it or remove it, I think he should be allowed to do so. I cannot fight him and I will not fight him. I am done fighting after a year of fighting. If Amaltheus wants to remove the article, he can make the case that it should be removed. I am done fighting for this article, at tremendous expense, with no assistance from others, particularly the administrators on Wikipedia in this instance who left us open to predation by Amaltheus. It is a bit much to require me to be cursed out repeatedly for weeks on end, but not allow me to say anything in my defense or even have this person cautioned for cursing me and engaging in disruptive editing. It just beggars the imagination. Should I have complained in a formal venue? Maybe, but having seen how administrators treat "newbies" and disruptive trolls and POV pushers in comparison to longstanding productive editors, I have little confidence that AN/I or Wikiquette alerts or anything else would be of value in this instance, and might have had negative consequences for the person lodging the complaint. We have to let these elements have the run of Wikipedia, because that is policy and I understand that and accept it. I can provide diffs of course, as above and I apologize if any of this offended anyone since it was not intended to offend.--Filll (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I don't believe Amaltheus is trying to get rid of the article; s/he entered a keep on the AfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am willing to be convinced that there is a place for two evolution articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia. I would welcome the explanations and arguments from Amaltheus or anyone else that such needless duplication and an article that is clearly inferior because of its introductory nature has a place on Wikipedia. I would love to see any explanations of this and its value. --Filll (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Filll I would note that both you *and* Amaltheus have the disgruntled scientist (or whatever it's called) template on your user page. I find that very telling! I'm sure that both of your sets of contributions would be very helpful to the project. You both have strong feelings and we welcome frank discussion. You might want to create an RfC, and also review our dispute resolution procedure.Wjhonson (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You and I both know the dispute resolution procedure is pretty dysfunctional and that we have to WP:AGF since he is new. I believe Amaltheus can do whatever he likes since he purports to be new (although I have my doubts that he is "new"). But thanks, I will take that under advisement but I think an RfC is unproductive and of zero or negative value in most cases. Amaltheus also pulled that notice from my page, since I am trying to encourage editors to think of potential methods for improving Wikipedia on the discussion page which is linked there on that notice. --Filll (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) And I should note that any "characterization" I may be accused of simply stems from the sarcastic and harassing messages you have left on Amaltheus' talk page. I have little interest in the detail of the "edit warring" (quotations in case it's simply banter) but I do have a serious concern over deliberate attempts to belittle and harass other editors on Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't care a jot who said what but if I see people continually harping on at other editors I take issue. That's why I'm here and that's why this discussion is here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I apologize for using the word "characterization" which I realize might have some negative connotations apparently. This was not my intention and I apologize for any misunderstanding or offense or bad feelings which resulted.--Filll (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am not edit warring with him. Show me the edit warring. I am only congratulating him on his success. And I have stopped.--Filll (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If you agree to stop your "congratulating" and have no diffs to provide to back up your accusations against Amaltheus, then I think we can consider this resolved with the proviso that if your conduct resumes stiffer remedies may be required. Avruchtalk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) As I said I don't care about the "edit warring" (quotations again in case it's banter/usual heated evolution discussion), I care about your continual harassment. I've provided enough diffs of your unreasonable behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) After trying to avoid Amaltheus and his outbursts and cursing for weeks, I finally tried to engage Amaltheus in friendly conversation after Amaltheus succeeded in driving off 2 people from Wikipedia that Amaltheus was working on the article with. I started to realize I had failed when Amaltheus constantly blanked my entries. After a few attempts, I gave up of course. I will not do so again since I realize now Amaltheus does not want to engage in any discussions or friendly conversation. I certainly do not intend to harass or belittle him in any way and we all have to assume GF in all circumstances no matter what the evidence is, especially if someone is new and I realize this is policy and I understand and accept it. I apologize to anyone for any offense I caused, including Amaltheus.--Filll (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I can't really comment on the Amaltheus situation, but I've been following the discussion at User talk:Firsfron, and from what I can see there, Filll has been continuing to badger Firsfron about his opinion of Orangemarlin. Despite Firsfron's attempt to calm the situation down and to explain things in rational terms, Filll has continued to go at it. I thought we were an encyclopedia, not a battleground. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Firsfron disparaged Orangemarlin and participated in a very negative conversation on Wikipedia Review for his allegedly "uncivil" behavior. I expressed my disappointment and disapproval of Firsfron's participation in such a forum and giving tacit approval to badmouthing of good faith edits and actions here on Wikipedia by well meaning editors. Firsfron said he was correct and that there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia Review and that even if negative things were said, he did not give tacit approval of them by participating in the conversation. I disagreed, but eventually gave up when it was clear he was positive he was correct. It was disappointing to me however that our policy of erring on the side of assuming that all POV warriors and trolls are allowed to do whatever they like, while those like Orangemarlin are to be vilifed for "uncivil" remarks expressed out of frustration at the trolls and POV warriors are castigated and worse. I unfortunately expressed my disappointment and vented my disappointment at learning that two of my collaborators had quit because of harassment by Amaltheus, and I expressed this opinion, although hopefully not in an offensive or uncivil way. I of course will apologize to anyone offended including Amaltheus and Firsfron for any offense that was inferred from my comments, which were not meant to be intemperate, but might be interpreted that way since I was upset at learning of this unfortunate attrition of our productive elements at the hands of yet another disruptive editor. I will place apologies on Firsfron's page and anywhere else that is deemed appropriate of course.--Filll (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) As promised above, I have apologized to Firsfron [90] and hopefully can make amends for my unfortunate behavior last night. I apologize to any and all who took offense at my behavior and my inappropriate expressions of disappointment and dismay.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This is getting out of hand. I'll look into this more when I get home from work tonight and see what I can do to calm things down. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) User:Filll, I am getting a Migraine just reading your colloquial English. Could this be the root of the problem, or am I just death, dumb, and illiterate? Igor Berger (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am confused to be honest. I am not sure what you mean. I understood that colloquial language was characteristically informal. I am of course being more careful and exact in what I write here since these are semi-formal proceedings. I was unaware therefore that I was using colloquial language here. I apologize for any offense that this post or my previous posts might have caused because it was purely unintentional.--Filll (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with your use of English. You are completely understandable, I have no idea what Igor is on about.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Agreed, I'd ignore that comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that since Filll has apologised and agreed to stop posting on Amaltheus' talk page then at least for now the matter is settled? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Burnout? I have no doubt that what we are witnessing is editor burnout, principally from the frustration of having to justify the same points again and again. This results is a trigger finger response that can lead to arguments where none should exist. I have noticed this type of burnout happening to other regulars at homeopathy too.[91] Fairly recently I experienced an interaction with Fill that was symtomatic of this burnout. After a "very strong oppose" from Filll on an RFA for Thumperward (talk · contribs), that had no explanation at all, I asked on his talk page if there were any reasons, principally because i respect his opinions and was thinking that there may be very good reason to switch to oppose. For some inexplicable reason this got characterised as "I have been taken to task by supporters several times on my talk page, for both opposing and for being reluctant to state why I oppose at this time". Not true at all and a less defensive attitude would never have seen such an comment from Filll. Similarly with Amaltheus (talk · contribs) I felt that Fill was overly defensive in his response. I think if Fill continues to interact with unfamiliar users in this overly defensive, and lets be frank, quite aggressive manner, then we will see many more of these fights. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) With all due respect, this was over and settled long ago. And I can rehash these conversations ad nauseum if you like, but I really think this is like poking a caged animal. Want me to go into a big long description of why I think that fighting during RfAs is unseemly and unfair to the candidate? I think I explained it before. Did you miss that somehow? Did you not understand it perchance? Want me to dredge all that up again? I was hoping to support Thumperward for his next attempt, as long as I see him learning from the experience. I stated this before on these administrative pages. This strikes me as a bit... questionable at the minimum to bring this up again at this point. Want to drag poor Thumperward through the mud all over again? I would venture that that is unfair, to be honest, and uncalled for. I am just puzzled at this post frankly. --Filll (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Could be. In situations where burnout is likely a wikibreak is is the best way to get a perspective. I've been here for many years now and take regular but unexpected breaks for weeks or even months. I highly recommend it for anyone who feels they are getting too stressed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I believe we're getting somewhere here with Filll and I appreciate comments from all parties involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I agree and I think that concludes the portion of this issue that can be facilitated by AN/I. Avruchtalk 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

100% Defamation, racism and vandalism - school

Resolved

 – IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

87.42.135.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Last 50 edits have been 100% defamation, racism and vandalism. It's a school - HEANET - School Broadband Connection ID 5660, Ireland - with 3 recent blocks. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SchoolBlocked for three months. Nothing but abuse from that address - Alison ^❤ 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary policy of the USA

3RR violation. Minor change in phrasing by user BigK to mask the violation.--Gregalton (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Before someone refers him to 3RR, note that 3RR is nuts, and insane, and ridiculous, and I wouldn't go there if you paid me. Unless it was a lot). ^Avruchtalk 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

------

Personally, I was unaware that the editing of this particular text was under dispute. I was under the impression that the contention was with another change. Specifically, I changed the unclear original text:

Ecological Economist, Herman Daly, has made some observations of the use of monetary policy. Daly has summarized that most of the basic money supply in the United States requires a cost in order to be maintained; although, his logic has been criticized due to his assertion that the change in money supply is due to demand, which justifies its cost. For the vast majority of US money in circulation, each dollar throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan.

to the elaborative version which has additions that are supported by the citation .. no meaning was lost, and new phraseology improves readability:

Ecological Economist, Herman Daly, has made some observations of the use of monetary policy. Eric Miller criticizes Daly's logic, concluding that money supply changes are due to demand, which justifies its cost; this in response to Daly's summarization which states that most of the basic money supply in the United States requires a cost in order to be maintained. It would follow that---for the vast majority of US money in circulation---each dollar throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan.

I would suggest that it is frivolous for Gregalton to post a notice about edit that change absolutely no meaning. BigK HeX (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a notice on this article will need to be investigated, I would like to note that Gregalton is deleting cited and verifiable text while claiming "fringe" violations, but repeatedly fails (or refuses) to produce any verifiable evidence of a contradictory "mainstream." These edits are affecting the accuracy of the article, by causing unnecessary confusion and filling the article with irrelevent topics, further damaging readability and clarity. The proposed resonings that Gregalton has for his deletions seem to violate WP:DISRUPT, as they "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." I would appreciate any intervention, per the WP:TE essay, which states that "there is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." Perhaps, some of my concessions to Gregalton's earlier disputes have encouraged him to delete material, but now that I am offering verifiable text that he cannot reasonably dispute, he seems to have lost patience and is resorting to unwarranted deletions without discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyrus111 making a mess

This user tries to revive Aryans and does not mind to use false references to fill Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) (and reinsert stubbornly) with WP:UNDUE gibberish: [92]. Moreover, he tries to put material together in a way that constitutes original research (WP:SYNTH), even though he does not manage for the "simple" reason that his sourced references don't support his claims for a bit. This is POV-pushing and in violation of WP:NOR. To be sure, this does not have anything to do with a justified encyclopedic compilation using proper quotes. One example of this abuse of sources out of three:

• His own quote "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." he sourced with Mallory (1989:185). Apart from the very one-sided inaccuracy of the first part of this statement, Mallory was absolutely agnostic of the gene R1a1 in 1989.

I don't know yet what policy he is violating by putting references around his claims using quotes that don't match, still this looks a pretty serious violation of something.

1. An assessment to the abuse of his sourced references you'll find at Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Iran_and_Central_Asia
2. We also had discussions here:[93]
3. And also here: [94]

Please do something, because nothing works to make him stop. Rokus01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist vs. Number48

Resolved

 – Number48 blocked idefinitely, socks identified and blocked

• Davkal (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

• Number48 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

User:ScienceApologist appears to be engaging in a concerted campaign to disrupt Wiki. He has currently taken part in edit wars that have led to at least 5 separate articles being locked. Thuja, Thuja occidentalis, Homeopathy, What the Bleep Do We Know!? & Electronic voice phenomenon.

With regard to the two Thuja articles where I have been involved, he has rejected almost every source offered for the information he wants to exclude with a variety of nonsensical and bizarre claims. For example, the number one peer-reviewed journal for emergency medicine & resuscitation, Annals of Emergency Medicine is, according to ScienceApologist a "fringe" journal. [95]. He has also claimed that the Natural History Museum is merely a "search engine" and so is "unreliable". [96]. And he has dismissed a variety of other sources in an equally offhand manner.

On numerous occasions he has cited an alleged policy called "the principle of one-way linking", for example, [97], [98] & [99], but this simply turns out to be something he has concocted on his user page [100]. On other occasions when pressed about the particular sections of the policies and guidelines he says supports him, he refuses to cite them but links instead to two "tutorials" he has written [101] and simply will not be drawn on how those "tutorials" relate to the policies he is supposedly referring to [102].

As noted, this behaviour has resulted in many articles being blocked - and it will probably lead to those articles remaining blocked since he appears completely unwilling to compromise in any way. For example, a question was raised on the Wiki Project Plants page [103], but despite significant (virtually unanimous) support for the inclusion of the factual information about homeopathy from the plant project editors, ScienceApologist has not moved on this issue one iota. A situation that has led some of the plant editors to a view not dissimilar to mine. [104], [105], [106] & [107].

All in all then, ScienceApologist has made Wiki a particularly unpleasant place to be. I urge someone to do something about this problematic editor.Number48 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Complaints of this nature regarding this editor should probably be directed to WP:AE based on the remedies in this case. ^Avruchtalk 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How do those remedies apply in this case? Absent some blantant incivility, do you think ArbCom will do anything? I suppose you could say that SA's crusade against those he calls "POV-pushers" amounts to multiple and blanket assumptions of bad faith. Indeed this "fight against the POV-pushers" forms the basis of many of his talk page arguments. But somehow loudly proclaiming that you intend to treat Wikipedia as a battleground is considered immaterial to these discussions. I don't get it, but, what do I know, I've only been around here for a few months, and I'm still trying to figure out if this Wikipedia thing can work. Dlabtot (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate, but I have tried to broker a compromise. So far this compromise has mostly been rejected by those on the nonmainstream side. I also do not believe the situation is exactly Number48 is describing it.--Filll (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs)

• SA does, IMO, persistently argue eristically and not towards consensus. (I'm not neutral about that, he's been a PITA to me). However, at least some of the specifics in this complaint aren't sufficiently well documented. Particularly, that SA calls Annals of Emergency Medicine "fringe"; his comment to the deletion diff provided is that the source was fringe, but that material doesn't indicate that AEM was the source for "used as an analgesic by homeopaths". So at the least that item should be clarified. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another in a series of complaints directed by supporters of pseudoscientific claptrap against SA. Over the past 5 days SA has made a distinct and substantial improvement in his civility, which was the concern expressed (again and again and again and again) by psuedoscientific supporters. It appears now that with his dramatic and continued improvement in civility, said supporters are attempting to find another tune to dance to - in this case it's hard to tell if it's revert warring or just being difficult about sourcing. Whatever, file an RFC for your content disputes like every pro-science editor is told to.

On the other hand, 48, arrived on January 21, his first edit was basically a revert in an edit war,([108], but with the knowledge of {{fact}} tags, and he was making personal attacks on that same day ([109] - his use page was since deleted as a copyvio). He was blocked for "Edit warring, falsely accusing others of vandalism" on Jan 23, and this block survived a {{unblock}} [110]. Since his unblock he has contributed to the free-floating homeopathy war, but nothing else. Hmm.... PouponOnToast (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've seen of SA on a few articles, he often asks very direct, often hard questions on sourcing. Since the responsibility always lies with the person who wants to include material in an article, if called to task on the validity of a source, they should be able to explain why under policy it's allowed. If SA asks hard questions, to ensure articles are compliant with NPOV, UNDUE, and FRINGE, this is not a bad thing. If the material the random editor wants to include is indeed worthy to include, they should have no problem answering a couple of direct questions to explain why. It's not on SA to bend NPOV to suit individuals that can't answer questions on sourcing; it's the other way around. I think this complaint is frivolous. Number48's efforts to include this material have been rebuffed on the thuja articles by a lot of editors, myself included, and not SA alone. He appears to be specifically going after SA to single him out by using the editor's previous history against him. Bad show. Lawrence § t/e 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only so many times one can point out that the Natural History Museum is a World renowned scientific institution and not a "search engine".Number48 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In any event, this is a content dispute from the perspective of the pseudoscience being pushed. If one user or a tiny minority of users are butting heads aggressively with many users, doesn't that tell you that the position of the tiny minority is not acceptable on Wikipedia by practice, policy, history, or precedent? If you don't stop attacking good contributors, it will be a behavioral issue on you for the admins to take more action on, similiar to your last block. Lawrence § t/e 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Content questions are not germaine for adminstrative attention (as pro-science editors are repeatedly told). If you have concerns with SA's disdain (which I share) towards your sources, please file an RFC or seek mediation. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Number48 also has attacked other editors, such as his previous userpage, seen here, which was, "Number 48 Hates arseholes who eat shit on toast", attacking PouponOnToast. Disruptive SPA user. Lawrence § t/e 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly urge any admins looking in on this case to look at the recent diffs very carefully. I would be the first to admit that User:ScienceApologist has a history of being highly abrasive toward fellow editors. His recent edits have not shown this. As a matter of fact, (notably in the Thuja article), there were other editors acting as aggressively, yet only this one was turned in. I would not be an apologist for any editors bad behavior, but I am convinced that User:ScienceApologist has not been acting in such a way in these recent cases, and I am concerned that he may be being targeted because of his past history, and the belief that he can be more easily blocked from editing than other editors who do not have a history of blocks. Again, please look carefully at what is being edited, and please be careful to examine questionable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• N 48 was indefed by User:JzG. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Number48 was a single purpose account started either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet with the express purpose to promote inclusion of homeopathy on plant articles. He is not the only one to do this. User:Area69 also showed up at approximately the same time and has a eerily similar username. User:Anthon01 has been around somewhat longer but has also had some suspicion of untoward behavior cast upon him. In short, these editors are acting in tandem to attempt to harass me off the wiki. In an ideal world, these pov-pushers would be blocked by Wikipedia administrators, but we are currently going through a phase where many Wikipedia administrators are either too scared or too accommodating to act to remove disruptive and tendentious editors. These users have learned that appealing to these processes is a good gamble because often administrators won't bother to look carefully into situations and instead will take at face-value the false claims and accusations. Even as we speak, a rather substantial group of Wikipedians is planning a protest edit-stoppage to bring greater visbility to this problem. If it is not addressed soon, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy will become historical. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite over. There seems to be a sock drawer here. Thatcher 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you requested checkuser to empty the whole drawer? Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Even better. I AM a checkuser.  Confirmed the puppetmaster is Davkal (talk · contribs). Thatcher 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ooh, when did that happen. If only I had known... Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The only other active account is LionelStarkweather (talk · contribs), also blocked. There's a few that might be sleepers but I'll watch them. Thatcher 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacks and potential BLP violation

Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen#Osli's Double Standard: Trifunovic vs. so called Bosnian Mujjahadeen. Could an administrator check over that and redact the page as appropriate? Please be aware that 142.179.67.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears related to Dr Richard Johnstone (talk · contribs) (see Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen#I vote to delete this article). Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP there enough for us to intervene - there's a multi-party, Bosnian/Serbian fight going on over allegations that a particular Serbian researcher (Trifunovic) is a genocide denier, more on Darko Trifunovic than anywhere else. Both sides are misbehaving - the question of what to do about it, and whether admins need to apply a boot, is an open one. I'm watching - more admins reviewing wouldn't hurt. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't calling someone a "Serbian propagandist activist who wrote lies" a BLP violation? Vassyana (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot

76 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 – seems to be working again - Keeper

Hello. It seems that there is something wrong with ClueBot. It isn't warning users anymore. What is going on? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it was having some other problems earlier ( User talk:Cobi#ClueBot has gone nuts )...Maybe Cobi is working on it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Have noticed this as well this evening, since 20:40 according to logs. I've left a note at User talk:ClueBot Commons as well, as that seems to be the right place. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when people (*cough*Tim*cough*Starling*cough*) break the parser. Notice how {{{1}}} is no longer being subst'd correctly.

As for not warning, something is going awry with api.php. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I have fixed the second problem, now to fix the template problem. -- The bot is offline, by the way, until this is fixed. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed. I implemented a parser workaround in the template. Bot started again. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems back and working well again. Thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nessaholic13

Resolved

 – Account blocked for being vandalism-only account, talk page deleted, sent to oversight. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. User:Nessaholic13 has posted his/her phone number on his/her userpage. Is this allowed? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight01

User:Moonlight01 is continuing to upload non-free images without sources, fair-use rationales, or licensing information and using them to replace existing images for no apparent reason. One of her replacements included replacing an official manga cover with what appears to be a bootleg DVD cover. She/He is ignoring all warnings and reverts of her changes, and even uploaded another image to try again when one was tagged for having no fair use rationale or source. Collectonian (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if this user uploads anything past your "final warning". I'll perform the block after reviewing the contrib. As of know, moonlight01 hasn't done anything after your "Last Warning". Cheers, Keeper | 76 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Resolved

 – resolved tag for script purposes

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot is a replacement of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot which was approved and running since November 2006. Was later renamed User:AntiSpamBot. --Hu12 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Denial of editing to others

Resolved

 – No sysop action needed at this time. Please move discussion to dispute resolution. nat.utoronto 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – User unblocked

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

If anyone thinks I've got it wrong here, please feel free to unblock: User_talk:Kcmafia#Blocked. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but what the hell do I know? Keeper | 76 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

True, his edits weren't the most constructive, but he's had no warnings yet. If I was you, the best thing you could have done is to drop him a uw-test2/3 and we could have taken it from there. All I'd suggest for the future is try and warn users as much as possible before you move in with blocks - they often stop their misconduct. Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know, a warning might have helped prior to an indef block. I think with the recent discussions here you aren't going to get a great reaction to this block. ^Avruchtalk 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's my first (blush), but it seem gross. I'll unblock. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally it can't hurt to start off with escalating blocks, and unless its really egregious at least one warning is advisable. Tends to keep the volume down here on AN/I... ^Avruchtalk 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I've now unblocked the account. I did, however, consider his vandalism unnecessarily offensive, especially since I earlier semi-protected Cunt due to the return of anon IP vandalism since the last semi expired. It's been a long day. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

im not an admin, btu forgiveness is a virtue.that user was disrutpive, but it is usually as i've seen it done more common to start from warnings then to temporary blocks then to permanent blocks rather than starting with a permanent block and working your way down to feeble warnings. just a thought. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, User:Smith Jones. Spot on, as always. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I pray God you were being sarcastic... -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. What gave you that idea? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no earthly idea. -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Disconcerting AfD posts

Resolved

 – Editor revised the posts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard is still going through a whirl of AfDs with such "votes" as "Seems damn uninteresting too, unless you're 5", "Oh and the current revision of the article is shit, by the way", "None of this unnecessary extra geek shit", "Shitty article and probably self-promotion to an unknown band", etc. He appears to be just going through AfDs as I type making such terse, insulting comments. He has been blocked multiple times for various items before. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a problem for many reasons. I warned him and gave him some advice. Hopefully the user takes it into consideration. the_undertow ^talk 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if he does not take undertow's advice it is time for a nice long block. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be patient and give him a chance to go back and revise them first. I also left a comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He claims to be "on a deletion rampage". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• He does appear to be reworking the problematic comments, though. -- Bellwether ^B_C 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account ?

Resolved

POV tag strikes me as being out of place and would not apply to an essay. see Wikipedia_talk:Single-purpose_account#POV_tag. "Essay" implies personal viewpoint. There is a space in between policy and guideline, and personal viewpoint, for pages which reflect information widely held within the community, but which is neither "just one person's thoughts on a theme" nor an official policy/guideline. the tag states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.", however being an essay and containing the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors how is this possible? --Hu12 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel fret to remove tags that you feel are inapporriate. Tags can be added by any users and its possible that the user who addrressed this tag to that essay did not know the proper policy regarding the tag. I dont think that you need to come to WP:ANIfor something like this. Smith Jones (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Stagalj‎ (talk · contribs · count) has been involved in edit warring and IP sock puppetry. I have warned them previously. A final warning has now been issued. If they cause any more disruption, they should be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Explains the tendentiousness of the POV claim. Thanks for the clarification--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CarencroJew

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

Keep an eye on this guy -- his User page (User:CarencroJew) brags of vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He's back. Not resolved. Bstone (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seancarlin84‎

Resolved

 – Blocked

Repeated vandalism, edit-warring, and incivility. Has left several unwarranted personal attacks on my talk page page, and continues to blank his own talk page, which is full of warnings. Enigmaman (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seancarlin84 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours by Sandstein. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x

He's hopped through three IPs tonight to avoid block (currently using 71.99.82.144 (talk · contribs)). Note that this vandal has accumulated 33 blocks in the last year, so I think all assumption of good faith is out the window. Maybe time for another range-block as he's carrying out retarded edit wars on multiple articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: He just changed IPs again and has blanked both this post and a relevant RFPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And what range do you propose? At one point, even I was in the 71.99.0.0/16 range. It's the entire Tampa Bay area with its 2+ million people. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tampa bay? I thought it was just 65000 addresses in Virginia...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's most of the Verizon FIOS network in the Tampa Bay. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See here: 71.99.82.144 = pool-71-99-82-144.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net. Note the "tampfl" part of that hostname. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Too easy. Block 71.99.82.* for however long is necessary. Edit Centric (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he can traverse too wide a range. I recently reset my router and wound up with a 72.x.x.x address! You need to protect whatever pages are targeted. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now on 71.99.81.182 (talk · contribs). You guys do whatever you want. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me back that one up a few steps. Now that I think about it, where in the IP schema is he jumping around? All over 71.*? Edit Centric (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at least over 71.99.x.x. Like I said, if you hard-block that, you might even get me! Plus several other people I know of. Too wide a range. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We could do an anon only rangeblock. That wouldn't get you are any other previously registered accounts. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know but that's a lot of potential collateral damage over one guy that only vandalizes a few articles. We don't usually block 82.148.96.68/31 because that covers the whole country of Qatar (actually now I see it has been blocked for three months!), but there are 3-4 times as many people in the Tampa Bay area as in Qatar. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check the report. It lists every one of his IPs I've ever spotted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you list the relevant articles, we can protect them. It only appears to be a few. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think nat actually protected all of tonights targets, aside from my talk page (1 act of vandalism), AIV (two acts), and the handful here, though I'm not suggesting any of those be protected. I just hope that report of mine actually fulfills its purpose soon so we don't have to deal with him anymore. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike that a bit, please protect my talk page for a bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that IS troublesome! I tend to agree that the best solution is locking the targeted pages, given the wide IP range. (Wouldn't want wknight94 getting locked out because of some nimrod with nothing better to do...) Edit Centric (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

hey! watch you language! no personal attacks. take a brake, have a tea.71.99.82.141 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This user cracks me up. Enigmaman (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Users: 70.149.54.8; 70.149.54.148; 72.148.141.77; 68.215.78.163; 76.119.17.209; and 76.190.182.205

Repeated vandalism on the Chinese Zodiac pages and deliberately editing inaccurate compatibility data on each page (Rat, Rooster, Tiger, Rabbit, etc.). These IPs are supposedly done by the same user. IPs never bothered citing their sources of inaccuracies with Zodiac pages and attempted to blank their own talk pages. Request that said IPs get blocked and banned from further edits.Dibol (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to follow up on it or not?Dibol (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible language issue

Resolved

 – Article salted

Could I get an admin over at Talk:Overdrive/Preamp 250. AN IP is disputing a completed AfD and it appears to involve a possibel translation error on their part. MBisanz ^talk 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the article has been SALTed. nat.utoronto 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With no explanation of why it was salted. DuncanHill (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been twice re-created after an AfD had closed as it being deleted. Also, it was an improper naming fork to use a slash subsection of Overdrive. Or do you mean that the IP address needs to have an explanation on its talk page? MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This quote may show a little spamy intent (and maybe a little dark magic trouble) behind this article: "If the person who has no right cause remove this article, he or she will earn judgement of hoodoo" not sure what's with that but the anon doesn't seem to get that this is the result of the AFD, perhaps someone should point him towards DRV? - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering where that quote is from, is it a deleted page, as I'm not seeing any non-deleted contribs by the IP. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That quote was added by Smallclone2 as a hidden comment to the article, when recreating it for a second or third time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre, too bad WP:NLT doesn't include a "No Religious Threats" subsection :) MBisanz ^talk 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, arbcom says any threat of off-wiki action can be prohibited, so I'm sure they'd consider hexing a violation ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

User:JimBobUSA is engaging in non-consensual deletion of referenced material from this article.

This is in spite of prolonged and torturous discussion of the above matters at the talk page. He frequently engages in wikilawyering, by making false accusations of breaches of policy, and/or asking for references, when they exist already or are not required. I recently refused to discuss the article with him any further, because appeals to WP policy, reason, compromise and consensus seem to carry no weight with User:JimBobUSA.

He has attempted to delete referenced material in two instances over the last few days. One attempt was reverted by User:Flying tiger.

Since then he has taken to removing another entire paragraph, which is also referenced.

I think a simple warning to the effect that he must:

• respect credible sources
• not delete referenced material

...might do the trick. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 08:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a content dispute for which the sources have been meaningfully challenged. If you can't arrive at a consensus, seek dispute resolution, with appropriate warnings to avoid violating 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy. Grant, please take a deep breath and engage with the valid criticisms raised. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you looked carefully at the entire discussion on Talk:Yamashita's gold, you would see that User:JimBobUSA has ignored my suggestions of formal dispute resolution. I find it interesting that we are now supporting the deletion of material from not one but two different reputable sources in one article. Anyway, I don't have time for this. I withdraw the "incident". Grant | Talk 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did look at it. You appear to be reverting more than just JimBob. Me, for example. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at it too, and weighed in on the talk page. Meanwhile, Grant62 appears to have left the project after four years thanks to this response. Relata refero (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He says he's taking a Wikibreak, not leaving. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On the article talkpage he says he's "out of here". I do think we shouldn't be sending away long-term contributors to diverse areas by being aggressive and/or accusing them of ownership, especially of articles that attract trolling. Relata refero (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If he can't stand the heat... John Reaves 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

...then we should try turning the thermostat down. Relata refero (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires

In the ongoing AfD located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires, Hu12 has twice edited out portions of debate relevant to the discussion. I reverted the first via WP:UNDO, then Hu12 took them back out. Hu12 left a note on my talk page, claiming:

Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning. Discussions which are general and unrelated directly to and not in response to Keep or delete !votes are better served on the talk page. This is acceptable in order to retain consistency. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Except in this case, the debate was directly relevant to the good faith effort on the part of the article creators, and their attempt to keep the article. I should note that as the nominator of the article in question, it is entirely inappropriate for Hu12 to "refactor" the supporting arguments, leaving four Delete !votes. I am led to believe that Hu12 is attempting to skew the debate by hiding the debate on the Talk page.

It should be noted that this "refactoring" would be considered discussion page vandalism anywhere else in Wikipedia, ({{uw-tpv2}}), I do not understand why it would be permissible within AfD -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(didn't realize the above was all posted by the same person, re-factoring and moving my own comment to the bottom) I agree that, as the nominator of the AfD no-one should be moving other people's comments in that manner. Hu12 should revert his/her edit. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Removal of discussion that makes it look more like a vote should be avoided. Kusma (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment of mine above was reposted here from Roninbk's usertalk. I brought this to Afd merely as a contested prod removed by an Anon IP ^[111]. My opinion was formed after further review. Here is the AFD prior to moving the anon discussions to the talk page. If there were !Keep votes those would have been left on the main as would any replies directly related to !votes. There is no malevolent adjenda, nor was I conspiring with the Forces of Darkness. The large chunks of discussions which were general and unrelated directly to and not in response to Keep or delete !votes were moved to the discussion page. I can see how this could be mischaracterize to seem unreasonable or improper, however my actions were in good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the discussion you removed was "please keep". Please at least note on the AFD when you remove discussion like that. Kusma (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My remaining question is why is this kind of refactoring considered to be an acceptable practice on AfD? Hu12 is not the first person that I've seen attempt to edit out comments like this recently. According to WP:REFACTOR, it's one thing to correct indentation and formatting, it's another thing completely to redact whole paragraphs. Where is this trend coming from? -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If its general argumentation between editors/off topic/not constructive towards the object of the AfD, then it is not unusual for comments to be moved to the talk page for clarity of the main page. This generally occurrs only in AfDs with long paragraphs of comments from multiple people where following the actual AfD discussion becomes difficult. ^Avruchtalk 15:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such moves should of course be done by someone who is totally uninvolved in the actual issue being discussed. For someone who is doing it who is actually involved in the debate and removing arguments that oppose his own, is clear disruption. Although I have not been involved in the discussion of this article, I have been in other similar discussions--so I leave it to some other admin to restore the material and propose sanctions. DGG (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR report ignored and violator rewarded

I want to protest against the action of some adminstrators: I filed a 3RR-report against an editor who had clearly violated the rule by reverting six times (and behaved like the article's OWNer to two other editors, me included).

What do adminstrators do? First an admin protects the page, safeguarding the violator's version against any further changes. The same admin then recuses himself. Then, after seventeen hour of inactivity, another admin declares that no further action would be taken as "the edit war has been stopped". Sure it has been stopped since the violator's version is endorsed via protection and discussion is getting nowhere anyway because of the violator's OWN attitude, now interspersed with personal attacks.

This is a either travesty of justice or a sick joke. Revert warriors and violators of rules get rewarded, their POV pushing gets supported in the process. I know I am supposed to AGF but I can't help myself of detecting favoritism in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content of your complaint, but I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: Phillipe stated "...I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue", however, he did not state that he was recusing himself from discussing the case or protecting the article. nat.utoronto 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it means endorsing the version when the page is protected (which nobody asked for) while ignoring the actual complaint. The perpetrator of the violation must feel that his actions are approved of as he has his way.

I can think of no justification for recusing as it was as a clear violation if there ever was one. I also can think of no justification for this taking 17 hours. Also, I don't know how someone can recuse himself from the requested (and required) action while meddling in favour of the culprit. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your humble opinion is in direct opposition to wikipedia policy, and obviously is based on you being upset the edit war has degenerated to the point where an admin has to lock down the page. I'd suggest you read m:The Wrong Version. As for this taking 17 hours to fix, perhaps if the admins didn't have to put up with a constant barrage of pointless whining and groundless accusations of bias, they could actually get to sorting through the article. Relax, this'll be settled eventually. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As Aecis already stated "I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version." nat.utoronto 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. The problem is the combination of this with the unwillingness to even acknowledge the wrongdoing on Benji's part, either by himself or - more importantly - by the admins. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would have been nice if someone had notified me of this thread. As Nat pointed out, I recused from blocks because I had previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party. I wanted to avoid a charge of impropriety. I also thought it critical to stabilize a high-traffic article, so I protected the page on the version that was there when I got there, in keeping with policy. Str's complaint - which I've now heard over and over - seems to be that I protected the wrong version (which he's been told about several times) or that I should have acted and blocked the other user. I felt that inappropriate. I stand by all my actions. While I appreciated that Str came to my talk page to ask about it, I am disheartened that he came here - without notifying me - when he didn't like the response that I gave to him and another person (presumably arguing on his behest).

To summarize, I stand by all my actions, and invite review. By the way - this is now the second time that I've been accused of either favoritism or advancing my own agenda on that page, which I find puzzling because - to the best of my recollection - I've never edited that page. I think by "favoritism", Str means "not deciding in my favor". - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please address this comment. I'm tired of being publicly accused of lying, slandering, called a "violator" (from above), "perpetrator", a "culprit", a "mudslinger" and numerous claims of personal attacking editors and attacking their religion. I feel any NPA and civility warnings I give will have very little effect but the comments do need responding to. Thank you. Benjiboi 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The insults are tedious, tiresome, and frankly, ridiculous. I slogged through a ton of the diffs and edits, and Benjiboi keeps preserving actual quotes from Rosie O'Donell, subject of the article in question, while Str1977 objects to Rosie's characterization of some Catholic priests as 'pedophiles', preferring, apparently, to use 'ephebophile', a far more obscure term which offers all sorts of opportunity to make it seem not so bad. Instead of arguing this material on the scandal's article (he may be, I didn't check), instead, Str1977 has chosen to push his POV whitewashing onto the O'Donell article by redacting and/or removing her actual spoken quotes to forms more in line with his view of the situation. This, of course, is not in keeping with any number of our policies. I also find it interesting that when STR is in dagner of hitting 3RR, Mamajulo shows up to carry on the fight. Clearly this was coordinated. Further, I note that as STR and Mamajulo kept hammering at this, they began to revert out other edits Benjiboi had made to the page, no doubt intentionally escalating the situation by attacking all of Benjiboi's efforts to improve the page. I note that benjiboi did in fact invite talk page discussion, which str1977 did not initiate till much later.

TO sum it up: I think Str1977 and Mamajulo coordinated an escalating set of reverts designed to piss off Benjiboi, make him less rational about the issue, and guarantee he'd revert over the 3 limit. Their intent was to remove him from the page long enough to establish their version on the page; a version which redacted actual verbatim statements by RO'D to fit their POV, which is highly PRO-Catholicism, and anyone who speaks agaisnt the catholic church is a troublemaker. Their behavior is reprehensible, and for such a level of baiting, any blocks given to Benjiboi should be equally handed out to the other two. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't see this as a coordinated effort as Mamalujo regularly removes material seen as anti-Catholic and regularly adds equally slanted material against those they see as anti-Catholic on many articles. I also don't think we can infer intent except that it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section, I still disagree as O'Donnell is quite outspoken about this issue and the material is well sourced. I've even found more while responding to Str1977 circular arguments on the talk page of the article. Also it was Mamalujo only ,as far as I could see, who was citing 'ephebophile'. Regardless I would like someone else to address this comment as it is yet another in a string of civility violations and I doubt anything I write would be taken to heart by Str1977. Benjiboi 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The comment is just the latest and most-public one not the worst. Benjiboi 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(in edit conflict:)

And I am quite sick and tired of all the bad faith assumed towards me while Benjiboi - who has violated the 3RR after all, even if he denies it and admins are doing nothing to stop him - can post all the insulting nonsense (* see the asterisk below) he wants.

I have no contact whatsoever with the other editor. I didn't even know he existed before he showed up on Rosie O'Donnel. I guess this bad faith accusation is a way out for those who wish to hide the fact that Benjiboi reverted six times or who want to somehow justified that no action has been taken.

The accusation is even more laughable given the fact that Benji in one of his earlier reverts in effect deleted a section-tag I placed. I informed him of that, that it was against the rules and that I assumed good faith that it was an accident (as he reverted the other editor who removed the tag along with the reason for - Benji reverted to the disputed version but without the tag). My good faith was confirmed at least in this case as he has never touched this tag again. The point is: if I wanted to set up Benji why would I assume good faith.

As for the "quotes": I never said that Benjiboi's version was not something one could legitimately advocate. In other words: one may well quote the actual word Rosie used (and about whether to include the 2nd quote there is actually no dispute, only about the introduction.) HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal"). And it is not illegitimate to inform the reader that Rosie's take that Ratzinger was in charge in 80s is inaccurate - without laying the blame on either Rosie or the filmmakers or anyone else.

NOW, we have to legitimate versions and three editors disagreeing about that. And yes, this led to an editwar. Happens thousands of times each day on WP. However, why does one editor get a pass for violating the 3RR big time?

As for inviting discussion. Benji did nothing of the sort. All he did was blanket revert with edit summaries along the line of "Don't change quotes". First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no). Second of all, it was I, already bothered by his repeated lack of discussion, that first initiated the discussion on the talk page. Finally, Benji seems to be of the impression that he has to approve of changes and those that fail in this must make their case on talk. That's only half-true: he has to make his case on talk just as well. We are all just editors. And we must all stick to the rules. Benji violated them and gets away with it, even gets rewarded by the page protection.

Benji complained about being called a "slanderer" and "liar" - actually I didn't call him that (only a violator - of the 3RR). I said he propagates slander by endorsing Rosie's comments. I said he issues false statements (not necessarily lies, I cannot know whether he actually knows about the falsehood) about my "changing of quotes" when I did nothing of the sort.

And around the time I reported him he started making an issue of mine and the other editor's religion (*), which is is no way to behave. I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either. And he makes questionable sugestions like "I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests.", as if anyone denied that some priests were involved in pedophilia (though it would be more accurate to call it ephebophilia) and if such a countering source would be needed to write the article in balanced, NPOV fashion. Less nonsensical but still not acceptable is his call for a source that Ratzinger was not in charge (thus validating the caveat on Rosie's comment) - as if there weren't already a source included that references along with Rosie's comments exactly this.

Finally, I do apologizes for filling up all this space here. The content dispute should be at the article's talk page and not here. However, since Benji now wants to turn me into the culprit I was forced to tell the whole story. As everyone can see, there is a legitimate dispute between him and me. I don't see how he is allowed to break the rules for that.

What I criticized here is not so much Benji's behaviour (nothing unusual on WP, expect maybe for his resilience in POV pushing and OWNership) but the behaviour of the admins that either did nothing or even rewarded the violation of the rules.

Thanks for your patience, Str1977 ^(talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, in fact, everything wrong about altering a quotation to fit your POV. You admit to doing it, you continue to feel that changing history to suit you is acceptable, and it simply is NOT acceptable. You cannot change Rosie's spoken words to fit your POV.

I quote you from above: "HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal")" and then you say "First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no)". There's a massive contradiction within your own statements. Finally, the diffs at the 3rr clearly show that you WERE changing her words. Here's just one [diff where you changed her directly quoted words. a 'no-no' by your own words. As for the level of coordination, it's true I cant' prove that there was active collusion, but the timing is certainly suspect. It is possible that Mamajulo just decided it would be a good idea to continue Str1977's efforts, but even so, that's a bad faith act, not thoroughly dissimilar to meatpuppetry. ThuranX (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A final note: "I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either" except when you do. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benji but you are still on the same bad faith road as Thuran above (though I do appreciate it that you don't go as far as him with the accusations). I obviously can't say anything in regard to other editor. As for my intentions: "it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section" - this is ridiculous. Pedophilia is a sexual act or desire oriented at prepubertal boys or girls. Ephebophilia is the same oriented as those in puberty. In everyday's language, the terms are usually blurred, with pedophilia being used (and that's why I do not blame Rosie for using the term - the issue is: do we need to copy her exact word.) Child abuse is the sexual abuse of children given into someone's care. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. The obvious problem is that priests unfortunately abused children, no matter what the underlying psychological condition may be. I cannot see how replacing "pedophilia" with "child abuse" can be interpreted as wanting to obscure pedophilia. I will address the comment Benji criticized in a minute. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, since Benji brought this up:

I made the comment in the heat of the debate when he brought up what I believe are irrational demands.

The dispute comment by ROD is the claim that Ratzinger was in charge throughout the 80s and 90s. Fact is, he was put in charge as the whole abuse scandal errupted, in 2002. He was put in charge exactly because of the failure of the bishops. These are undisputable facts. Benji however - against his protestations that he doesn't want to endorse ROD's view - keeps on posting things intented to prove her right. (And note: the point was never that ROD herself produced the false information - she may have done that or she may just have parroted the film.) Also a factor in my comment were Benji's repeated, IMHO nonsensical demand that I prove that there's no pedophilia among priests, something I never claimed or would claim.

That's my explanation for why I wrote that and I uphold these reasons. However, I know that these comments - made in the heat of the discussion and my frustration with the admin's failure to act - were unhelpful to the discussion. For which I am sorry. I hope that Benji may also acknowledge his errors and assume a more cooperative approach. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User removing comments from talk page

Resolved

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

Any chance someone can have a chat with Equazcion (talk · contribs), who's deemed it necessary to repeatedly remove comments [112] from an article talk page? The conversation in question is on-topic, especially compared to the average dialogue on that talk page. Thanks, Chaz ^Beckett 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The stuff he removed amounted to nothing more than schoolyard bickering. He did the right thing in removing it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Chaz has restored those comments and I'm at my 3RR limit, could someone please remove them again, since Chaz is now unresponsive to me? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:18, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Not a revert, but this is enough [113]. — Save_Us † 11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic, most of what's discussed on the page can be considered "bickering" in some way or another. In the past Equazcion has strongly opposed even the archiving of discussions [114], yet here he's removing comments he doesn't agree with. I support the closing of the section by Save_Us, but I strongly disagree that Equazacion repeatedly removing comments from other users (stopping only when he was up against the 3RR) is the "right thing". Chaz ^Beckett 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Equazacion has made borderline personal attacks on my talk page [115], apparently deciding that I was unresponsive while I was away from my computer. I'm not looking for him to get blocked or anything, but I think it would set a terrible precedent for this type of behavior to be classified as the "right thing". I really don't want to go through the hassle of WP:DR, so would someone mind having a word with him. I don't consider this situation resolved at all. Chaz ^Beckett 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll recommend to all of you, stop social engineering your talk pages! I archive may page time to time when it gets to big. If I do something stupid people will know matter how clean I make it look. Now if someone wants to clean and shine their Ass, let them do it, and do not get upset but make a dif reference to what they are trying to hide. If we going to try to enforce each other to behave certain way to meet the policy, the etiquette, and the respect that we think we should get we might as well go home. If any of you are here because of AboutYou, go home. It is not even AboutUs, but AboutThem, the users...now stop fighting and go edit some pages and have a good time. Igor Berger (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not quite sure I understand this comment (or at least its relevance to the matter at hand). Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaz, he removed my comments also, so what just leave him alone. It is his talk page right? Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an article talk page: WT:Spoiler. I wouldn't care at all if he removed comments from his talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaz, you continued replacing comments that didn't belong on the page, and even after I pointed you to the policy that defended my removal, you continued reverting me -- simply telling me to "stop" in your edit summaries and without giving any response on my talk page (I'm still waiting for one, by the way, as you can see). Igor, we're not talking about my talk page. I didn't remove any of Chaz's comments from there. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:08, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I wasn't at my computer (notice no edits from 10:50 - 12:49). Once you see that someone contests the removal of their comments, couldn't you get some other opinions before edit warring? Also you pointed out a section from an editing guideline, not a policy. I disagree that the comments were so off-topic that they required removal. Half of that talk page should be removed if that's the standard to be applied. Chaz ^Beckett 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oaky so just talk to each other and learn to agree and repspect each other..:) Igor Berger (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to remove anything else that doesn't belong. I tried to address you on your talk page, but you didn't respond and instead reverted me again. The argument I removed was regarding whether or not a comment was a personal attack. I pasted them on my talk page and continue to wait for your response as to what makes them relevant to WP:SPOILER. I can paste them here too if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:17, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm not letting the matter drop until there's some recognition that Equazacion's edit warring and personal attacks were inappropriate and not the "right thing" or something for which he should receive "props" [116]. Chaz ^Beckett 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You edit warred just as much as I did. We each reverted 3 times. If you had a problem with my initial removal you should have addressed me on my talk page to begin with. You can't revert someone and then complain about edit warring when they revert you back. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't feel that removing comments from article talk pages is helpful, except in the case of blatant vandalism or trolling. The conversation was on the spoiler template, which is on-topic for WT:SPOILER. Sure, it wasn't the most intellectual conversation I've ever had and I probably would have redacted my comments myself if asked. That doesn't mean I want someone else decided that my comments and those of others should be deleted. Chaz ^Beckett 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) In generel, article/wikipedia talk pages comments are not blank archived unless they are made by a trollish-editor, the comment itself is completely off-topic for the talk page or it is vandalism (or a possible fourth option for removing is for privacy). Regardless, the comments were unproductive and didn't need to be made, but they shouldn't be partially blank archived in the history since the discussion itself was on-topic enough. my suggestion would to take a time-out from each other and stop bickering over the usefulness of archiving or not. — Save_Us † 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

to Chaz: The discussion was on-topic but the range of comments I removed were not. To Save Us: I'm happy to drop it, but Chaz doesn't seem to be interested in that. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:26, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

How about you guys learn how to refactor comments on article talk page, not delete them? Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this, apologize for this comment and I'll let it drop. Chaz ^Beckett 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby apologize if any of my comments offended you in any way. You could also apologize for saying "what don't you get about removing other peoples' comments" even after I pointed you to the guideline that says users can do precisely that in this situation, but I don't particularly care. So can we drop this now? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:35, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That's a textbook non-apology, but I'll accept it as I'm tired of this dispute and have useful things to do. Chaz ^Beckett 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Unblock - January 29th

Resolved

 – Unblocked

The following blocked IP's were found to be not running Tor, or running tor with a no exit policy preventing open relaying. Regards, Mercury (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. User:SQL/TORUser2
2. User:SQL/TORUser2
3. User:SQL/TORUser2
4. User:SQL/TORUser2
5. User:SQL/TORUser2
6. User:SQL/TORUser2
7. User:SQL/TORUser2
8. User:SQL/TORUser2
9. User:SQL/TORUser2
10. User:SQL/TORUser2
11. User:SQL/TORUser2
12. User:SQL/TORUser2
13. User:SQL/TORUser2
14. User:SQL/TORUser2
15. User:SQL/TORUser2
16. User:SQL/TORUser2
17. User:SQL/TORUser2
18. User:SQL/TORUser2
19. User:SQL/TORUser2
20. User:SQL/TORUser2
21. User:SQL/TORUser2
22. User:SQL/TORUser2
23. User:SQL/TORUser2
24. User:SQL/TORUser2
25. User:SQL/TORUser2

 Done If you're going to be doing this every day, consider putting the date in the section header to avoid multiple sections with the same title. All the IP talk pages need {{blockedproxy}} removing. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Finished removing the templates from the talk pages. — Save_Us † 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Francis pullen

Resolved

 – Storm in a teacup

The above-referenced user was created solely for the purpose of creating a namesake article in what is manifestly WP:COI (see [117], [118]).

He/she brazenly and arrogantly used the same username, with no attempt to even make an effort at positively contributing to Wikipedia and evidently has no other contributions to make. Should be expelled from Wikipedia. 216.194.1.222 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that would help, and would refer this IP user to policy. The username, although indicating a possible conflict of interest, is not offensive so as to fall within the guideline here, but may be confusing or misleading. I will be watching for future developments. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

99.230.170.157

Resolved

 – Stale

Above IP vandalised after final warning. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a) that goes to WP:AIV, and b) you're topic-banned from posting in Wikipedia: namespace. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:40, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to have been blocked twelve hours ago by Mr.Z-man. Topic ban aside, the report looks to be stale. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats/Pure Hostility

Resolved

 – Blocked

Woke up this morning to find these gems in my history...[119] and [120]. More importantly, I noticed that after the first one, he was given a "last" warning...and proceeded to make some vague threat against my (nonexistent) children...He also left this one a few days ago on Spartaz's talk page. --Smashville^BONK! 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New problematic user

I had earlier posted on this page about a new editor who first edited in Decemeber who has been particularly belligerent and has recently gone so far as to explicitly stated that he does not care about wikipedia's policies or guidelines. This user is User:GabrielVelasquez. I regret to say that I have come to the conclusion that this editor is not so much interested in helping wikipedia achieve his goals, but rather in using wikipedia as a platform on which he can make unsupported statements. I have at this point lost all patience for this individual. In my previous thread here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks, etc. I was advised that this individual should be blocked for a week. Given his newness, I chose not to do so. However, since then he has continued in the same vein of attacks on me and others, refusing to provide verification of his own statements, and even making a comment on my user talk page that he didn't care about what I and my "admin buddies" say. I am at this point washing my hands of this individual altogether. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you did well to step back--the involvement was becoming over-personal. As for what to do about him, I suggest a final warning from someone else not to engage in further disputation. DGG (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this user creating Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References and stating at the top of the page "THIS IS NOT A TALK PAGE, They are all quotes. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE."? I was going to speedy/prod/MfD this page, but saw all of the drama on his talk page with John. For the life of me, I can't figure out what to do with this page now. Any suggestions? --12 Noon ^2¢ 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is that he is, as he says, a non-adherent of the Jehovah's Witnesses who has repeatedly stated that he believes that his nontrinitarian beliefs are being underrepresented by a cabal of trinitarians, basically including every Christian who adheres to trinitarian beliefs, or about 95% of them, I think. He has repeatedly indicated that he sees himself as being a fighter against systematic bias, and has even contacted Jimbo to complain that his beliefs are not being presented in the way he wishes. He has indicated that he believes that that page is a way to counteract the bias he perceives by the Christian cabal. I have repeatedly suggested that he move it to userspace, as it is eligible for speedy deletion, only to receive demands of what policies the page violates, seemingly believing that everybody is inherently obligated to answer each question he poses. I have come to conclusions regarding this person which I will not state here. My best guess would be to see if the page is still there tomorrow, and if it is nominate it for regular deletion. He has regularly expressed disregard for policy regarding his own conduct. I think it might be a good idea to indicate to him that policy applies to him as well, as would be demonstrated in the deletion discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro

Please check out Florentino floro (talk · contribs)'s contrib. I believe the editor has been acting in good faith, but has ended up adding a large number of irrelevant external links (need I say "spamming articles"). Sometimes it's in the form of a sentence or two blurb summarizing a recent news story, and sometimes it's just an external link to a news story. The main site being linked to is "gmanews.tv". Also, these links (or 2 sentence blurbs) are often being copied on multiple articles. I just a) wanted to run it by other editors to make sure that linking to the most recent news story on a given topic from a non-notable news cite isn't generally a good practice and b) ask for help in going through the edit history (and reverting where necessary), because it is quite extensive. What I imagine is going on is Florentino floro checks his favorite news cite every day, and adds links to wikipedia articles which are discussed in the news. While I can imagine some instances of this being ok, I think as a general practice, this should be avoided. Do others agree? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsl's behaviors

1. 28 January 2008, 16:08 - Deleted an image from an article, writing "fix" [121]
2. 28 January 2008, 16:11 - Very quickly afterward added an "orphaned" tag to delete the image [122]
3. 29 January 2008, 12:46 - Reverted to delete the image again, writing "fix" [123]
4. 29 January 2008, 13:07 - Deleted a good chunk of a talkpage [124]
5. 29 January 2008, 13:08 - 2nd revert. No reason given [125]
6. 29 January 2008, 13:16 - Added an "orphaned" tag again [126]
7. 29 January 2008, 13:22 - 3rd revert. [127]
8. 29 January 2008, 14:22 - 4th revert. [128]

Does he need a little warning or something, please? 123.19.34.196 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a three-revert rule warning. Technically, he could be blocked for having made four reverts. He also claims that the deletion of talk page comments was inadvertent. I'm not sure it's really a mistake, so if any other admins want to investigate, feel free. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Deleted a comment about image, saying "blah" [129]
2. Deleted the last warning pretty quickly :) [130] 123.19.34.196 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For me, there is no reason to keep those warnings after i've read them. You can also see that I wrote: "noted". Meaning that I understood what Elkman said. Thanks. Twsl (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Deleting warnings is allowed, and even good, because it shows that the user has seen them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure the editor might have seen them, but does not learn anything from them and continues to edit the way they have all along, like this Hashmi, Usman who just keeps removing deletion tags too but continues to add non-notable articles and categories, and ignores anyone who makes constructive suggestions to him without any discussion seemingly possible. Twsl is likely the same type but there is little we can do to get through to such people and hope their edits are reviewed. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's some great style you have there. :) Comparing me with someone else, while you don't even know me, or even bothered to look at my history to see things that I did to actually try to improve articles. And here you are, bragging about your knowledge of bad people and because of your experience calling me one of "those types" as well. :) Seriously, please post your frustrations somewhere else please. This part is about me and things that I did wrong. The talkpage-removal thing was said to be allowed, so it isn't an issue. Period. Don't try to debate here whether it should be allowed or not. There are other places where you can do that. Thank you. Twsl (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also. I deleted that tag because that fair use rationale was fixed. So the warning became invalid. If you bothered to investigate this matter a little bit you would have known. Instead of come here and act almighty :). Twsl (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you are offended, but I don't "act almighty", nor do I brag about my knowledge of bad people. Those are your inferences. Yes I did look at your history and to my way of thinking I suggested that you could "likely" be similar in type to the example I gave, I did not say you 'were one of "those types"; again that was your inference. Yes, indeed I agree that deletion tag removal is allowed on user talk pages, so please do not infer more than is in the words I wrote. You obviously had good reasoning to make the deletions you did but there are others around who unfortunately don't learn anything from discussion of such topics, even one-on-one on their talk pages. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Anybody have any idea what's going on with Stalkerbuster (talk · contribs)? The contributions seem a bit odd; they only include blanking two pages in the userspace of Jeff G. (talk · contribs): User:Jeff G./sockproblems and User:Jeff G./Tweety21 CS-Archive‎. Hope someone else is familiar with this, because I'm at a loss. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Tweety21 visited the hosiery department again. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you're right. Blocked for abusing sock puppet accounts. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalized userpage deletion request

Resolved

Deleted 2 revisions. Orderinchaos 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the following vandalized user talk page from my userpage history: [131]

Thanks, JGHowes ^talk - 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really a good reason to delete. John Reaves 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It is plainly a libelous statement and, as I do not edit using a pseudonym, should be removed per WP:BLP, viz., "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Please reconsider. JGHowes ^talk - 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you want the whole talk page deleted, or just the one vandalism edit? The vandalism was reverted and is no longer on your talk page. If it's a problem that it's still in the page history, an admin could delete the talk page and then restore every revision except for the vandalism and the revert. There's also Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, though I doubt they'd do an oversight for a fairly typical case of talk page vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just asking that an admin. delete that one vandalism edit. There's only the one page after that--the current reverted version. JGHowes ^talk - 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no technical means of doing that. (think single revision deletion is in development). Really serious problems can be oversighted but this doesn't fall into that category. It's childish vandalism only. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the issue, I've blocked the IP in question in light of the contribution history. — iridescent 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a reasonable request, I've deleted the two revisions. Orderinchaos 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aztec

Did I miss a renaming conversation somewhere, or is the move from Aztec to Aztes a simple case of move vandalism? It sure looks funny the way it is now, but since moves can get admin-level complicated, I thought to ask here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was moved, twice, to "Aztes", but I don't see that spelling (or transliteration) explained or even mentioned in the article itself. "Aztec" is good Nahuatl and is the spelling used in Mexico, where Nahuatl is a living language. Also, the mover seems to be a single purpose account. So I'd revert it as mere vandalism and post the usual notifications on the user's Talk. Incidentally, "c" is often soft in Spanish, as in "cena"; the user may simply be illiterate. Pete St.John (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

c is soft in Spanish when preceding an e or an i, but not at ends of words, and not in the Spanish language version of "Aztec", which is Azteca. This wasn't a mistake. The z, on the other hand, could be soft, in the Castillian version of Spanish. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the contribution history of the user (300winmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), and it looks like most of his edits aren't good-faith edits. Someone who's been working on one of the relevant WikiProjects would have a lot more credibility in renaming this article than someone who's only been here for a couple days. I warned the user. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JustAHulk flaming on Jimbo's talkpage.

User:JustaHulk is an edit-warrior for Scientology. He posted on Jimbo's userpage a couple days ago, complaining about anti-Scientology bigotry on wikinews. Then, today he posts another thread, entitled, "Wikinews is a crackwhore." [132]

He said that admins on Wikinews "pimp her out for the lulz" and called the people on wikinews /l/osers. I considered blanking the section and just sending him a warning for incivility or personal attacks, but I'm not an admin so such warnings don't carry the same amount of weight.

Plus, I didn't want to violate the whole "don't edit other people's comments" thing, and I didn't want to see him explode even more after seeing his comments removed.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be gone by the time I send this, but I'd actually be inclined to let that stand - JAH might be using some dubious language but it does look like a good faith attempt to bring an editwar to Jimbo's attention. (I know zilch about the subject and wouldn't trust Wikinews to tell me the time, so am not going to judge who's the Evil POV Pusher and who's the Guardian of The Truth here.) — iridescent 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have been dealing with this since last Spring. JustaHulk, a/k/a, Justanother (talk · contribs) has been put on notice many times that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. I suggest an uninvolved administrator place a block to stop this, and then remove the trolling from the talk page, per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and this recent thread. We should not indulge bad behavior or it will become more extreme. JustaHulk is not a new user. They know how to make a proper complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be removed from Jimbo's talk page because of the revolting language in the section header. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Squeak, move with the times... Everyone is saying "Wikinews" these days! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vandalizing by blanking out article talk page

Resolved

 – no action needed. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be corrupt and let an administrator commit a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=187779679&oldid=187776706

I reported it to AIV and someone blanked that request. Corruption? Fairchoice (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just like the message I just left on your talk page says. WP:AIV is not for supposed complex abuse, which you are claiming this is. It looks like a content dispute to me. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you noticed, but in this next edit that the administrator made, he reinserted your comment at the bottom of the talk page, where it should have been inserted all along. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Er It appears the user simply moved your comment to the foot of the talk page and then replied to it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And plus David Sousa also responded on your own talk page. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly making unsourced and POV edits

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs) has a significant history of adding unsourced information and POV to articles, especially Shoplifting and Winona Ryder. His style has been to write long essays in articles with no citations. This has been discussed repeatedly with him by several editors. Two editors have even tried to help him learn how to find reliable sources and make appropriate citations. A previous ANI was made here, resulting in a block. He stopped editing for a while. Now he has come back with the same problem. If Wikipedia policy is explained to him, he responds on his talk page with another long essay and complaints that Wikipedia and editors are trying to censor important information, then he continues with the same pattern of editing. He either can't understand, or simply doesn't want to comply with rules and guidelines. He has been given many warnings and several final warnings, the most recent from me a few minutes ago. Ward3001 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, to begin with, I'd stop spamming his talk page with final warnings. It doesn't seem to be working, and it loses its effect somewhere around the 10th time. It appears that the editor is working in good faith generally (albeit with a definite POV for the articles he/she edits) but can't seem to manage the referencing process or understand the importance of referencing. Probably a good case for someone to adopt (if he can be convinced to register an account) rather than escalating blocks, at least at this time. ^Avruchtalk 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left some messages on his page about accounts, referencing and adoption. We'll see what he says, if he responds. If he ignores the messages and doesn't improve appreciably, then perhaps blocking is in order. Otherwise it would be premature. I've also hat/habbed the long history of previous warnings. The warnings are still there, just behind a collapse box. Since it appears to be a static IP, this doesn't strike me as a problem. Ward3001 disagrees, however, and I've told him on my talk page that he is free to undo my edits if he likes. ^Avruchtalk 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Advice is requested on how to handle this edit, which invites the reader to kill a named person at a specific address: [133] It appears to be schoolchild vandalism. Kablammo (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Send a request to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org to have it removed. A block would be warranted as well. ^Avruchtalk 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Block is already done, just send e-mail to the list if you haven't already. ^Avruchtalk 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) - I have blocked them for 72 hours as a stop gap measure. Other admins are welcome to adjust the block. I have also notified the ISP's abuse address. - Philippe | Talk 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact the police department in the local down and inform them there has been an explicit death threat at that residence on wikipedia. Bstone (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit looks oversighted. The IP was 24.184.241.191 (talk · contribs) for anyone considering contacting the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it being an explicit or implicit threat. It was basically "Here is X's address, go kill them". John Reaves 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN

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

White Cat, wait for the arbitration case to end. This is outside of the purview of this board as he is currently the subject of a new ArbCom case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---

• TTN (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

User has been continuing to mass remove pages (redirectification) and revert war (such as the one on Bulbasaur) despite objections and disagreements. His actions are not based on consensus and are WP:POINTy at best. Admin intervention is necessary as wikipedia is not a battleground.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you want us to block all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft and then war with TTN's efforts to prune it down to manageable (and cited and policy-compliant) proportions? Good plan, but they will howl bloody blue murder, just as they do every time a massive uncited article on an item of fictional trivia is removed. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• I believe an injunction made by ArbCom to restrict these actions would be beneficial, in the meantime, I do not see precisely what admin intervention could be used? Please feel free to suggest something in particular, GDonato (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Lumberjake

Lumberjake (talk · contribs) is on a prod removal spree, using nonsense edit summaries and not even completely removing the entire subst'd prod template. I left a message asking for valid edit summaries, and was ignored. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. This might encourage some communication. John Reaves 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)