Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SYSS Mouse (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 6 February 2008 (→‎User:Jmccain: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Anthon01

    (Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

    It appears that this user is being subjected to remedies under the homeopathy probation, but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? —Whig (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without comment: [1] R. Baley (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? —Whig (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    East. [2] Anthon01 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. That makes sense. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? Anthon01 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, the reason given for the block is 'stonewalling'.... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (see here), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest briefly making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. MastCell Talk 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated reason for the block is "stonewalling". Was that accurate? or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? What is the specific reason he was blocked? Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. MastCell Talk 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results verified via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. east.718 at 20:02, February 2, 2008
    Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? Anthon01 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is your comment on the Checkuser report here? Why is it wrong? Lawrence § t/e 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a relevant link .[4] Quack Guru 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. [5] Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. Anthon01 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be Anthony Zaffuto, the partner of User:Ilena, I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation

    (copy from my talk page) You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only.[6] I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.

    Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.

    I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FT2: I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...

    I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (End of copy from my talk page) Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Commenting purely on the sock concerns (and not on any other article editing matters): Quick summary - The information available supports AGF on the sock concerns, with lessons hopefully learned about the perils of not logging in, that no harm was done with the Jacoblad account, and no malice seems to have been intended. The editing both logged in and logged out, and under multiple IPs (home, work etc) was problematic and might have led to further sock concerns, but hopefully Anthon will avoid that in future. I have taken steps in private to address that. (My comment). FT2 (Talk | email) 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a recent example where consensus is reached with mainstream editors, and not editors of [my] own persuasion.[7] I will find another. Anthon01 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I still want to know what 'stonewalling' is, precisely, and see the diffs in which User:Anthon01 engaged in this behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise how can I defend myself properly. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01

    In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny! I noticed the edits by JacobLad at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by Levine2112, both of whom are very strong advocates of chiropractic, a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of Physical Therapy.

    This diff is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." [8] The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.

    By editing the Physical Therapy article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.

    It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced. That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of some aspects in most mainstream medical professions, and most aspects of all alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.

    All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. Applied Kinesiology is itself a notable example of a pseudoscience being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.

    What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This definitely puts the use of the sock, together with copious volumes of other disruptive activites on the part of Anthon01, in a new light. Thanks Fyslee.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive? Prove it! Anthon01 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two comments: (1) are you not under some administrative restriction now? (2) your posts here speak for themselves. I rest my case.--Filll (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well consider me ignorant. I am under no admin restriction. Please clarify. Please consider WP is very new to me, and certainly this process of adminstrative review is. Anthon01 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Filll: Re: copious volumes of other disruptive activites. Prove it. This is hyperbole on your part. Anthon01 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The current situation is a bit too dangerous for me to engage in this sort of provocative and confrontational activity. I leave it to the admins who have already dealt with you and I suspect might deal with you further in the future if an attitude and behavior shift is not imminent. I hope so.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you consider striking out some of your inflammatory comments? Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully decline to do so, until such time as I am informed by some authority that this was a mistake or has been rescinded, and Fyslee informs me that he was mistaken. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fyslee: This is mostly a rant. Theres is absolutely no need to respond to most of what you have written here as it belongs on a talk page. If you would like we can take it to your or my page, or a talk page if you find that more appropriate. If there is a specific violation policy that you think I should be penalized for then state it and I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fyslee: Please provide diffs. Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it worth having this user around?

    Can anyone point to one positive contribution this user has made? If not, should we consider, perhaps, a community ban? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this editor actually do any editing? While communication is an important part of the wikipedia process, it has to be balanced with contributions to our primary purpose - that of creating an ecyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of this balance. I think before a community ban, the editor should be encouraged to spend some time doing some editing... --Fredrick day (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthon01 has done sufficient editing for the encouragement to be unnecessary. SA's point stands. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems a fair point, sadly. The sheer tendentiousness by which he has handled his "defence" here does not suggest future promise, either. Orderinchaos 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reaction by his opponents to requests for diffs to substantiate the accusation of "stonewalling" (such requests have been made three times above and twice below by User:Dlabtot and twice above by User:Anthon01, and answered zero times) can, ironically enough (unless I've missed something) be reasonably characterized as stonewalling. —Random832 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a diff. Did you miss it? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of all kinds of problematic edits

    • [9] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
    • [10] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
    • [11] Disregarding a study to suit his POV.
    • [12] Adding a red herring comment to further his disregard.
    • [13] Adding emotive language to further insult the person offering the study.
    • [14] Wikilawyering to push his POV.
    • [15] Jumping to conclusions about how a review's "determination" will affect future research (as if that's Wikipedia' concern).
    • [16] More Wikilawyering pretending that editors who are perhaps more steeped in NPOV than any other part of the encyclopedia don't understand it.
    • [17] Discounting a survey based on raw numbers rather than considering the sampling (a common tactic of POV-pushers who wish to denounce a less-than-flattering survey).
    • [18] Quixotic comment: perhaps meant to convey distrust of a source?
    • [19] Pure stonewalling.
    • [20] Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source.

    I could keep going, but will spare the reader. Just go through his contributions. It's not hard to see that this user does not so much disrupt discussions as much as he destroys them with questionable rhetoric and ridiculous repetition.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for providing diffs. I will review them and comment later. Anthon01 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ScienceApologist: Why did you feel you needed to comment on each the diffs? If they're so damning, shouldn't they speak for themselves? Anthon01 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why it is User:ScienceApologist, one of the main combatants in this WP:BATTLE, who is providing this 'evidence', rather than User:East718, the blocking admin... 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have personally checked all of the diffs that ScienceApologist supplied. None of them seem remotely problematic to me, all of them seem perfectly appropriate. The last one, which ScienceApologist characterized as "Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source" is particularly contrary to the fact that Quackwatch has been found to be an unreliable and partisan source by the Arbitration committee. —Whig (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whig, we know that you are not neutral on this issue. Please refrain from lobbying. I am unsure why East718 has not commented. The continued battling here is not helpful. Please send an email to East718 asking for a response, Anthon01. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody seems to be neutral on this issue, however. I am correct in pointing out counterfactual descriptions of diffs if nobody else will do so, as Anthon01 is entitled to have someone point that out. —Whig (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent him an email. ScienceApologist isn't neutral either as we are often on opposite sides of an issue. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    East.718 has not been online on 5 Feb, and only made one edit on 4 Feb. It's likely that he hasn't seen this thread. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE

    User:ChrisO gamed the WP:AE board rather badly yesterday. Here's the sequence of events that took place.

    After a fairly lengthy discussion on the Pallywood Talk: page, on Feb 1 User:ChrisO decides to make a bunch of unilateral changes to the article. [21] His changes are reverted [22] and the reverter explains why on the Talk: page: [23]

    Rather than discussing the issue further, ChrisO decides he needs an advantage. So, on Feb 2 he posts a comment to the Talk: page: [24]

    then at 00:18 he rounds up an ally on IRC, kylu, who offers to take action on WP:AE as soon as ChrisO puts up some evidence.

    At 00:52 Chris then reverts Pallywood to his version: [25] and at 00:56 Chris files his arbcom enforcement request: [26]

    And at 00:57 he then goes back to IRC, and asks someone to enforce his request, pointing Kylu directly to it.

    At 01:06 Kylu applies 1RR. [27]

    This is perhaps the most blatant abuse of the WP:AE board I have seen; he lines up a "neutral" admin, reverts the article, puts up his AE request, then his "neutral" admin puts a 1RR per week restriction on the page *after* Chris has just reverted it. It's obvious the 1RR restriction should be removed, but what other sanctions are appropriate for ChrisO? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the editor ChrisO went against, let me just state for the record that a) I'm not particularly proud of some of the comments I made to ChrisO, though (and I don't offer this as an excuse), they're scarcely worse than his to me; b) I actually do believe kylu when he claims (albeit rudely) neutrality; c) I stand by my comment to kylu that this is an area where, by now, angels fear to tread; d) as an act of good faith, I'll voluntarily comply with the 1RR ruling, whether or not is it upheld. --Leifern (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, abusive as heck. Chris, you don't get to do this; it's exactly the same sort of abuse as an admin getting into an edit war and then setting up his opponent for a 3RR block with the aid of a confederate. It's the same using admin tools to gain an edge in an edit war. It won't be tolerated twice, I suspect; for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence of the IRC conniving? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is evidence on IRC of conniving, but I'm not sure whether or not I should post IRC logs here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, probably not a good idea. I presume that they can be made available to arbiters as necessary? I'm happy to take your word for the fact that they exist. I'd be interested in Chris' views but, if true, I'd say that some kind of sanction is appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this whole thing befuddling. I see a dispute that has to do with some fairly specific isues of content, including the phrasing of some passages and the section headings. I do not see any notable violation of personal behavior policies that would justify ArbCom - is this some kind of diversionary tactic, or just an attempt to bully? - and I do not see any major policy violation that would call for administrative enforcement. I want to just say "Fellas, keep talking it out on the talk page, try to bring others into the discussion" but that would be half my response to an RfC. It's ChrisO's taking this to AE. I just don't get it. Why? The 1RR restriction is wholely unjustified. I'd like to hear ChrisO's justification and Kylu's justification but frankly I can't imagine what they would say. FeloniousMonk asks what sanctions are appropriate. I am willing to be generous with ChrisO and suggest that he got overzealous and just needs a cooling down period, say a 1 week ban from editing this article. But gaming AE - this is really serious, it undermines the whole process, and does call for some more serious sanction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Felonious for bringing this up. I saw the AE report yesterday and was confused as to why this article was put on probation as there didn't seem to be a huge problem here. Consider the restriction removed. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think your notion of "neutral" admin assumes bad faith on Kylu's part, and I would ask you to reword that slightly, as after inspecting the logs, I think Kylu is in fact fully neutral. On the rest of the dispute I can't tell much, but I don't think the minor discussion on IRC is much to worry about. It's not like the cabal is planning some evil takeover here. →AzaToth 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kylu didn't show bad faith; the only problem is that Kylu didn't notice that ChrisO was gaming the system. I wouldn't think it necessary for ArbCom to issue a clarification that this sort of manipulation of arbitration enforcement (not to mention this sort of manipulation of other administrators) is improper; isn't it just common sense? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A clarification: While ChrisO did in fact bring attention (in general, not to me specifically) on IRC to the AR request, I applied it and made sure he understood it applied to all participants, including him. The problem I see is that instead of discussing the situation, someone used revert to simply wipe someone else's edits and avoid discussion instead of using it to remove vandalism, which is not what Help:Reverting suggests it be used for.
    This sort of putting one's fingers in their ears and ignoring the other side in a content dispute is exactly why the whole Israel-Palestine case got sent to ArbCom in the first place, and the reason I asked those involved to not involve me further. I was trying to maintain my distance from what I see as a distasteful and mutually-disrespectful content dispute, however Leifern refused to allow me to do so. The enforcement needed to be done lest the article devolve into another pointless series of revert warring, but it certainly doesn't mean I need to be involved in the arguing after it.
    Was the enforcement timed to benefit one party over another? Of course. They usually are, when one of the parties involved is doing the reporting. Does the enforcement do more harm than good by minimizing the revert-warring and promoting discussion? I think it does, and that's why I set it for that article. Thanks to tariqabjotu for informing me of this thread, btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, you got took. ChrisO first looked for an admin willing to act (no problem there), then went and reverted the article to his favored version, then posted the request on AE, which you acted upon. That's the only problem -- his reversion before requesting the AE was not appropriate. If he had not reverted first, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two cases: 1. At the time ChrisO was reverting, he had already in mind the later enforcing of 1RR. 2. He reverted and then noticing that his revert might be followed with a series of edit wars as was normal in such articles, filed the AE request.
    This two cases should be also considered against the following context: It also appears that ChrisO was certain of the soundness of his edit and aside from the content dispute had found the reaction of the other editor inappropriate.
    I can not personally think of a test that can distinguish the case 1 from case 2. Either one can be the case but only one of them implies gaming of the system. Regarding the claim of Kylu playing the role of an ally, I don't know but it appears to me that it considers an event in the light of subsequent developments and is kind of akin to conspiracy theories. Just my humble view and I am the first to admit my mistake.
    Now, my suggestion is that: 1. ChrisO's version to be reverted. 2. The community decides the validity of ChrisO's statement that "User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits" and takes an action if this statement is correct. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's more a matter of case 3, if I can put it that way. I originally had in mind posting an AE request directed specifically at Leifern after I saw that he had reverted without discussion. I reconsidered after it occurred to me that Leifern's action was just a symptom of a wider problem - editors on both sides blindly reverting. I saw a danger of this happening on the article, as it had already experienced edit wars. I therefore decided to act in the spirit of the ArbCom's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which avoided targeting any individual editors and set general principles for the entire topic area. I reverted the blind revert solely because it was a blind revert and not permitted by custom; if he had justified his revert with discussion it would not have been an abusive revert and I would have had no reason to act. After I did so, I posted my request to AE pointing out the problems that blind reverts have caused on articles in this topic area and requesting that editors on all sides be restrained from abusing or overusing reversion (note that 1RR still permits reverts - it just limits their frequency). And I would add that there's no cause to revert my edits, as that too would violate WP:REVERT#Do not. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. My main point was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading was not the only possible interpretation of the bare facts; the only interpretation that makes you guilty. The reason that I asked for your edit to be reverted was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading is a possible interpretation anyways but at the same time I suggested that your statement be investigated by the community and a serious action is taken against the other editor if your statement is correct. That decision can also involve restoring your edit later if the community decides that you were making good faith edits and the other editor blindly reverted you. Just a suggestion, you guys know better than me. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I wouldn't support taking action against Leifern. As I've already said, he was simply acting in the same way that people have been acting on these articles for far too long. He wasn't a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, I don't think he made any statements in it, he wasn't informed of it and I'm not at all sure that he was aware that the articles were "under new management", so to speak. I wouldn't be at all comfortable taking or requesting action against him in those circumstances. The important point is that he now knows about the arbitration and (hopefully) understands what the ArbCom now requires of all editors in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys know better than me about this; I haven't edited those articles and don't know what's going on. I just saw an admin-against-admin case and that attracted me here :D because such cases are usually exciting and interesting :P. This is my last comment here. Have a nice time everybody... --Be happy!! (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'm not sure what he did was wrong from the point of view of encouraging people not to blind-revert. He'd just attempted a rewrite which was reverted without discussion. He asked for restrictions on all participants. What difference would have putting the AE request up and then reverting made, precisely? Relata refero (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really not accurate. I wish FeloniousMonk had bothered to ask me about it before posting accusations here (and it would be nice not to be burned at the stake in absentia, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors). There certainly is no "gaming" going on. The article has a long history of edit warring and disputes including two AfDs. After another editor recently added a "coatrack" tag to the article (an action with which I had absolutely no involvement), I had another look at the article to see whether it could be improved - I hadn't touched it since November last year, since when there had at least 100 edits by other editors. I had recently found some media articles which actually discussed the topic of the article. I decided that the article needed to be a bit more concise and would benefit from having some newly published citations - the changes I made are discussed in detail here.

    Leifern (talk · contribs) reverted the changes without discussion here. Now, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was an abuse of reversion. WP:REVERT makes it clear that reversion should not be used in such circumstances: "If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." Kylu took the same view (which is after all just basic editing policy) in this exchange with Leifern on his talk page. (Leifern's visible hostility and accusations of bad faith should be noted. Unfortunately it seems that any admin who intervenes on one of these articles can expect to be attacked.)

    I therefore restored my good faith edits; as Leifern had abused reversion, it would not have been appropriate to let the results of an abusive edit stand. I posted this request to WP:AE. In it, I pointed out the history of disputes on the article, the clear misuse of reversion in this case and the role that aggressive reversion has played in inflaming disputes. I requested 1RR on the article - not on any specific editor - for the sole purpose of restraining all sides from using reverts to edit war. I did not request any enforcement action against Leifern, so jpgordon's implication that I somehow "set him up" is off-target, though I did ask if someone neutral could explain to him the rules of WP:REVERT. My intention in doing this was not to "game" anything - don't forget I'm just as constrained by 1RR as anyone else editing the article - but simply to prevent a nascent content dispute from escalating into a revert war as it has done so many times in the past. At that point, as far as I was concerned, both Leifern and I had had the "1 revert". I had no intention of reverting again but given that editors on both sides have abused reversion before, I had good reason to believe that someone would do a further revert and spark an edit war. I took the view - and I stand by it - that it was better to restrain both sides from escalating.

    Kylu is completely innocent of any "collusion". As far as I know I've never had any contact with her before so I can't consider her an "ally" (see Kylu's own statement on this accusation). I simply asked on IRC if someone could review an AE request for me (log available on request - admins only). Kylu volunteered to review it and she was certainly under no obligation to act on my AE posting, let alone implement the requested 1RR. I actually asked the channel twice (at 00:17 and 00:57) and Kylu was simply the first to respond on both occasions.

    To put the issue in a nutshell - which is better, stopping a potential revert war before it starts, or waiting until the house in on fire before acting? I requested 1RR solely as a preventative measure to encourage all sides to discuss rather than revert. I made this point explicitly in my AE request: "editors ... need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point." It seems to be both an overreaction and rather an assumption of bad faith to construe a request for an even-handed discouragement of revert warring, on an article where that's been a problem before, to be somehow "gaming the system". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I guess I'm missing something. You first went to IRC to find an admin to help -- that's OK. You knew to make sure the help you were requesting on IRC was backed by an on-wiki request; that's also OK. But before you made the request, you reverted the article to your own favored version, to make sure that the article was in the condition you wanted before restrictions were placed on it. In what way is that distinguishable from an involved admin making sure their favored edits are in an article before protecting it from a good-faith edit war? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Relata refero asks above, would it have made any difference if I'd reverted the article after I had posted the AE request? As far as I was concerned, that was my 1RR. Bear in mind that under the 1RR regime I would have been entitled to restore my edits anyway. Or are you arguing that Leifern's reversion without discussion was a legitimate action and should have been left in place? My sole concern was that another editor - maybe Leifern, maybe someone else - would revert my reversion, and another would revert that, and so on to the point of an edit war. The fairest way of preventing that was to restrain both sides equally - including myself. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would have made a difference, because that revert would have counted as your 1RR. You should have just waited, and then this whole kerfuffle wouldn't have arisen. Small details change the tone of sensitive situations, and anything covered by the arbitration in question is necessarily sensitive. Just be careful, that's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. For the record, though, as I said above I did count that revert as my 1RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be best if "involved" admins (such as ChrisO) would just stay away from the enforcement of the arbitration decision. Completely. I think that's what the ArbCom really had in mind, and I hope they will take this opportunity to eliminate any doubt about that. I think the committee was trying to reduce the scope of the dispute, but if involved admins are constantly pushing up against the "line" of what they are permitted to do (and in this case, I believe, crossing the line), that will only expand the scope of the dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any "involved" editor can and should submit arbitration enforcement requests if they feel it's justified - note that I acted as an editor, not an admin (obviously I can't enforce the arbitration decision). Prohibiting "involved" editors from making AE requests would make the arbitration decision unworkable. Obviously the "involved" editors are the people most likely to be aware of disputes, and therefore are best placed to explain what the problem is and why enforcement is needed in a particular case. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Figures, I take a week break from AE and the whole place collapses! But enough about how great I am! One universal I'd like to narrow this down on, as a lesson to be drawn for the future, is that for enforcement which is likely to result in such probationary measures, it is important that the enforcement nomination itself remains disconnected from the nominator's preferred version being last due to their own efforts. Which is to say: the nominator should not have the article reverted to their own preferred version immediately before or after filing the nomination. Because that does tend to defeat the point of having enforcement as, ultimately, a balancing mechanism. El_C 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this is a reasonable solution. There's no real dispute that Leifern's actions were specifically prohibited by WP:REVERT. If a violation of editing policy like a blind revert is permitted to stand, isn't that in effect allowing the violator to get away with it? A revert that isn't a violation of WP:REVERT should of course be allowed to stand, but I don't think we should be encouraging or permitting editors to enjoy the fruits of a violation of basic editing rules. Oh, and don't feel too guilty about things going to pot in your absence - it's just that some people are too fond of drama. See where WP:DRAMA redirects to. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My approach goes so far as to even leaving counter-reversions to the closing administrator's discretion. The greatest difficulty, I think, is finding uninvolved admins that are clued-in and oriented enough to close these reports. This, since some disputes cannot be resolved by, robotically, following a set of rules. As soon as a facet of enforcement is oversystematized (like with last reverts), one side may play that to their advantage and then the enforcement platform loses its cohesion and the confidence of the community. That's why I want closing admins sometimes doing the unexpected, to keep the disputing parties on their toes, to motivate them to play fair. El_C 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've put your finger on the key problem - the need to find uninvolved admins. There's a related problem, which is that some editors are likely to attack even uninvolved admins if they dare to intervene in disputes on these articles. If you want examples, ask User:MastCell, User:^demon and User:Betacommand (who was an admin at the time). I said during the arbitration that I believed that a number of editors were doing this deliberately to discourage and intimidate admins into giving them a free pass. I still believe that's the case. It's certainly been true that outside Wikipedia, partisans in this conflict have been quite vicious in attacking individuals whose involvement they dislike - this guy, for instance, has reportedly been the target of death threats for his news reports. I fear that the same heckler's veto mentality is a factor here as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris, you went to IRC to find an admin, then when you had one lined up, you reverted the page, quickly asked for enforcement, and got that enforcement. That is the issue at hand; attempts to deflect this to a larger "key problem", involving intimidation of admins, death threats against journalists, and who knows what else, about which you are merely a disinterested observer trying to solve a vexing problem, become less and less convincing each time you play that hand. It is little different from the times you have protected articles over which you were edit-warring, except this time you did it once-removed. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Predictable nonsense. You're wrong about the sequence of events; I didn't ask anyone to review my request until after I had posted it (obviously, there was no request to review until that point). Don't rely on FeloniousMonk's timeline - it's inaccurate and out of context, like most of the rest of his tendentious accusations. And I might point out that you're in no position to lecture given your own record -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Predictably ridiculous deflection. You gamed the WP:AE board, and your attempts to blame that on everybody but yourself don't wash. And, by the way, the sequence of events is exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (reset indent) ChrisO, I did in fact discuss my revert after I did, but more importantly, your unilateral rework of the edit was in direct response to my concerns about the scope of the article. In other words, you thought the article should be about B, I thought it should be about A, and rather than discuss you just went ahead and made it about B. When I reverted and asked that we discuss before making further changes, you went running to a forum only you as admin have access to. And your request included an admonishment to me. --Leifern (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thatcher reinstated the probation because he believes I'm -- sigh -- "involved in the I-P dispute", so can we get some comments on whether the 1RR/week restriction should stay in place? -- tariqabjotu 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I said on my talk page "I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles...If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation." Why is this still an issue? Thatcher 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I do consider Tariqabjotu to be an "involved" editor as regards the I-P articles and I don't think he should be carrying out any actions to do with the Arbcomm decision. Tiamuttalk 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Uninvolved administrators ArbComm decision directly defines the phrase "uninvolved administrator" for the purpose of this case and its sanctions. If an admin has ever been involved in any content dispute on any article concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict at any time in their editing history, then they are not an uninvolved admin. Since this is a restriction on the person, for those with multiple accounts the rule also applies to their other accounts. This is intended to make sure that those implementing the case both 1) truly are neutral and 2) are perceived as being neutral.
    Tariqabjotu, reviewing your contribution history and talk page, it seems clear to me that you are not an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of the ArbComm case enforcement. This is true regardless of whether or not you are involved in any specific sub-dispute. GRBerry 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am acknowledging, GRBerry and Tiamut, that I have read what you two have said. However, I am sticking by this statement. Don't expect me to change soon. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this raises the issue of who decides who is an "uninvolved" editor, if it's disputed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are referring to "uninvolved" admins. If that is the case, the answer would still be the same... It is the community via discussions of this sort - preferably using appropriate venues. By 'if it's disputed', while still assuming you meant admins, i undersnatd that there would/should be a prior administrative action. If that is the case, please note that any discretionary sanction imposed under the provisions of the ArbCom decision (be it appropriate/acceptable/reasonable or not) may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. This appeal can be done by the community itself as well (including the sanctioned user). Please note the logic behind the sequence of the case's remedies. It all makes sense. The establishment of a working group (WG) will follow; which is another step to curve the bad atmosphere surrounding this case and many others. Appointments will be announced within a few hours. The ArbCom has closed the case and now is deciding on the WG membership. Probably and hopefully this group would come up with some good recommendations or views on who is "involved" and who is "not". For now, it is for the community to handle it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Can somebody explain clearly how this is not just a case of m:The Wrong Version involving a lot of experienced editors who should know better? It is already being worked out productively on Talk:Pallywood, which was the whole intent behind ChrisO's action; there's no pressing issue here. <eleland/talkedits> 09:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nauticalgalaxty and my talk page

    Resolved
     – Socks identified and blocked. MastCell Talk 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, it appears I've annoyed a silly billy.Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) has moved my talk page. This may well have to do with the mirade of users compaling that the made up william trellis ward was fake and which ended up getting users banned. Might an admin check IPs for Nauticalgalaxty (talk · contribs) and Hippytrout (talk · contribs) against TonyMcnam (talk · contribs) and Yoshi525 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. --Blowdart | talk 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins don't have the technical ability to check IPs -- that has to go to request for checkuser. - Revolving Bugbear 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You might want to file a request about this at WP:RFCU. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh the things you learn; thank you :) --Blowdart | talk 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it looks like most of these accounts have been blocked already, except for Yoshi525, who's indefblock I issued was shortened to 8 hours by User:AGK. We'll keep an eye on this user's editing patterns after the block is lifted and determine if reblocking is warranted. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AGK might want to rethink that block.  Confirmed these accounts and more are the same person. The question is, is this someone who could be a good contributor but needs a talking-to first or is this someone who wants to make trouble only. Thatcher 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've seen multiple talk pages of those users with warnings that were blanked, a number of hostile talk page messages, and some highly inappropriate page moves. I think the fact that they're using multiple already autoconfirmed accounts to do all these things points to disruptive editor. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (My point here is that as a checkuser, having commented on the technical evidence, I would rather not also comment on the behavioral evidence, but have someone else look at it and decide whether to give the master account one more chance. I will block the confirmed socks in a little while.) Thatcher 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Thank you for the technical confirmation, Thatcher. I have acted on the new information here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (reduce indent) As a brief response to Thatcher, I reduced that block solely on consideration of the user's unblock-request statement, and the circumstances surrounding the block, and in particular the fact that he had refrained from further ill-behaviour after the final warning was issued. I was not aware of any sock puppetry, although that angle was opened after I handled the request, and made the block reduction without any knowledge of such behaviour. I generally do not make a point of unblocking repeat sock puppeteers, is what I am trying to say :) Anthøny 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously I did not mean to imply that, rather, "in light of new information..." Thatcher 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

    The edit war continues - [28] Corvus cornixtalk 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    someone neds to something about this. it's clearly a disruptive and contentions article. Perhapst he best solution would be for the article tobe palced on probation similar to that of Homeopathy. Smith Jones (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the grandiose suggestions by Smith Jones, I merely semi-protected it for three days. We are far far far far far (add a far here) away from homeopathizing this article. Keeper | 76 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    okay fine but if a continuous edit war breaks tout again after the semi-protection expires it wont be on my head sir. Smith Jones (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't inject drama where drama does not exist, Smith Jones. Haven't you been warned about this in the past? Keeper | 76 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    where did i iunsert drama? it is obvious that semi-protection wont stop an edit war; it rarely does in sitautions like this involving editors who have been here for long and over conflicts that are unliekly to be resolved in 3-days. perhaps my solution was extreme for this situation but that is hardly the same thing was injecting drama. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warriors are established editors, semi protection won't stop them from continuing their war. Corvus cornixtalk 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, upon second glance. Any other admin to support a full protection and/or an article ban? Keeper | 76 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would anybody support a short article ban for Verklempt (talk · contribs) and Uuu987 (talk · contribs)? I suggested to Verklempt that he start an RfC, but it appears that he hasn't gone that route. Corvus cornixtalk 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    it makes better sense than semi-protecting the article, which wont stop established users from just continuing they're edit war. Smith Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm UNmarking this resolved, becaues until admins inform the users of the ban, it's not resolved, and that's assuming that all discussion is really finished here. I'd support the topic ban for a period of two weeks (I think, given the high level of editing, one week is too short) OR until an RfC is started, whichever comes first. If the editors choose to rev their engines on the starting line for two weeks, we can apply spike strips in two weeks and a day, and assign one year liberal topic bans, or whatever. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to find a way to resolve this and I have tried to find a way to resolve this before but user Verklempt seems to be unhappy with anything short of full deletion of everything that I have added to the article. He seems to have a pattern of long term edit wars with other users on articles that pertain to race somehow. He has edited many different articles such as, an article on the Lumbee tribe, Blackface, league of the south, etc. and I have questioned what his motivation in trying to censor pertinent information dealing with the subjects. Also, in this specific article he seems dead set on including that the MOWA's are Cajuns and in the area where the MOWA are located Cajun is used interchangeably with Nigger and I dont think that Wikipedia's purpose is to spread inaccurate incomplete info and propogate racial epithets and stereotypes.Uuu987 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad hominem is unproductive. The established procedure is to propose changes to the article on the talk page. I will continue to delete unsourced edits, per WP:RS.Verklempt (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you can fully source your assertions regarding the vocabularies of the area? If not, I think you'd have to be uniform in your application of policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the fact that these people used to be called "Cajuns"? That's already sourced to two different scholarly publications, and has been ever since I first created the article.Verklempt (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually, I meant that "cajun" and "nigger" mean the same thing in that region, that MOWA are Cajun, not native americans, and that the MOWA are, by extension, "niggers", to complete the probably offensive logical synthesis you're trying to get into the article. (and a strange synthesis it is, since my understanding is that Cajuns are pretty much Acadians. ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Im sure I can find you many racist studies that refer to african americans as niggers but we should not be posting it as fact on wikipedia and if we do we must clarify that this is a stereotype propagated by racists. I havent had time to work on the specific semantics and technicalities of my article. But as I am a wikipedia novice I would appreciate a small amount of assistance on cleaning up the article so if the specific grievances with the article can be cited I wll address the problem. Also verklempt what is your specific interest in whitewashing the research that seems to conflict the articles that you added specifically regarding numerous racial issues? I think this question is pertinent to the discussion because you have a pattern of censoring views that conflict yours by bringing up technical issues with the content. Uuu987 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-cleaning glass spamming

    There is a discussion about Self-cleaning glass on Talk:Self-cleaning glass, which needs third person imput, User:Mikkalai, removed the speedy delete templates on brandname SunClean and Pilkington Activ he started himself, wont agree on removing the manufacturer part on the article, however i believe its an active editor, so what to do. Mion (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What you didn't mention is that both are not articles he started, but simple redirects, one to the company that makes the brand and the other to the generic product article. Is it even possible for a redirect to be spam, or speedily deletable? In any event I don't see that this is spam at all. Plus, the user listed both competing companies - he's obviously not shilling for one of them or the other. I cleaned up the Self-cleaning glass article slightly to mention the manufacturers in prose (and avoid the links to redirects) rather than listing them so it would be less of a list. Beyond that, I don't see how this is possibly important enough to worry about. I'm not an administrator so I'll let the administrators decide if this is worthy of intervention. Wikidemo (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like i said, he started the redirects to extrapromote the brand, i didn't say Mikkalai started the articles, so i didn't mention that, now to prevent editwars, the speedy delete template states, you can add {{hangon}} and give your argument to an admin, there is no exception for that. Mion (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the new edits on the article from user Wikidemo, moving the disputed content from the left to the right of the article is not changing anything in my opinion. However it gets interesting, even if internal spamming is not seen the same as external spamming, the page is used as yellow pages, and for that, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mion (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Mion has to be explained that their notion about "spamming" are nontraditional, to put it mildly. What I am doing with the article is kinda "industrial espionage" rather than "advertising" or something. Also, I would ask someone to advice them that a better good is in expanding articles instead of messing with formalities and bickering in talk pages. 'Míkka>t 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does Mikka work for both Pilkington and PPG? I don't think so. I'd call those plausible search terms, and therefore reasonable candidates for redirects. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gone on long enough

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – no one seriously thinks this is a sockpuppet issue, and the other issue has been moved to the article talk page. No more to see here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krymson made a very POV edit at Woodrow Wilson, which I reverted. Then User:Bentheadvocate restored the edit about an hour later. Earlier today I added tags to the biased statements when it appeared as though it was more than one editor who supported the additions. A few minutes ago User:Bentheadvocate left a post on my talk page explaining the edit to Woodrow Wilson and then two minutes later User:Krymson removed the tag and added an even more biased statement. It is pretty obvious that this is the same user and I think its time this ends.--STX 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edits as unsourced, and started a talk-page thread, which is what SHOULD have been done before coming straight to ANI. I would agree that the edits need specific references before being readded, but at least INVITE the editors to the talk page to discuss civily before making sockpuppetry accusations and other demands on admins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is just basic trolling by a sockpuppet, which can all go away with a simple block.--STX 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But I haven't heard any quacking yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I heard it on my talk page. The "editors" have the same writing style. I'm not saying both should be blocked, just the sockpuppet.--STX 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Krymson hasn't even edited your talk page (at least, not in months if he did).
    Even if these two have a similar voice, one account dates back 4 years, the other one is about a month old, and appear to have widely differing article edit patterns and interests other that Woodrow Wilson.
    There is no duck here; the pond lies silent. Please remember WP:CIVIL and talk to these two people directly about your disagreement on the article. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any proof that this is not just two different people who happen to agree with each other? That does happen, you know? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The proximity of the edits and style of writing makes me feel otherwise. I don't have time to file a checkuser and go through all that mess, hopefully the master will just admit what he did but I doubt it. I'm finished editing for the day.--STX 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is there no proof that they're the same, short of a checkuser, which STX isn't willing to do; but they're not really wrong either. Wilson's behaviors towards race are well documented in the article, and this comes off like a content dispute, and should be taken to the talk page, where the need or not of that part of his life to be in the lead can be discussed, and what level of posthumous lionization is acceptable. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a content dispute to me. Wilson definitely was racist by the standards we apply today (and, to some extent, even by the standards of his own era). It shouldn't be hard to find multiple reliable sources saying this. Whether it belongs in the lead is a content question, not a conduct issue. *** Crotalus *** 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm a sockpuppet. ʟʘʟ. BETA 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually already looking at this dispute. I was reading through ANi last night trying to catch up on stuff that has been happening while I've been away/semi-away and via the suicide note threads, I ended up on User:Bentheadvocate's talk page where I noticed a post from User:Southern Texas telling Ben off for "opening up the possibility for future edit wars" and so out of curiosity I followed the links. Basically, I agree with Thuran and Crotalus this is a content dispute and the involved editors need to find a reliable source and nut it out on the article's talk page. Furthermore, I've given User:Southern Texas a warning about misusing rollback.

    • Krymson added the line, "Wilson was a strong proponent of Segregation, and held controversial views on blacks."
    • Southern Texas reverts manually with the edit summary, "do not open that can of worms" [29]
    • Bentheadvocate restores the line with the edit summary "We're concerned with truth here, not protecting the faint of heart. Besides, he's not living now."
    • Southern Texas then reverted Ben with use of the rollback tool. [30]

    I think this is an inappropriate use of rollback and the 'rollbackers' need to be careful not to use the tool in content disputes or on edits made in good faith. Sarah 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely NOT a place for Rollback tools, but for the talk page. If this isn't addressed as a content issue on the talk page, I'd support a week long block on STX for abuse of tools and refusal to follow procedure vis-a-vis consensus. This is a clear cut content dispute, and use of buttons to win is 100% wrong. I'll be there later for my own two cents. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This really wasn't the reaction I was expecting. I thought this was a case of clear cut sockpuppetry. I meant to press "undo" but I accidentally pressed rollback, it was an honest mistake. I am sorry for wasting everybody's time.--STX 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to allegations of sockpuppetry

    At first, I couldn't find a way to disprove these allegations, but I was flipping through my preferences, and I found something that let me see the server time for edits, to the second.

    server times for one of my edits, and for one of Krimson's:

    2008-02-05T05:35:24 krimson's edit to Woodrow Wilson
    2008-02-05T05:35:32 My edit to book of genesis

    If we were sockpuppets, I would have to log off immediately, log back on as beta, jump to book of genesis, click the edit this page button, find my place in the article, delete theoretical, add storied, then write "maybe this will work better", and save the page, all in only 8 seconds. That's highly unlikely. BETA 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Z1perlster

    Resolved
     – Blocked. — Scientizzle 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Z1perlster (talk · contribs) has become a troublesome headache for those editors working on the intelligent design, creationism, creation-evolution controversy and level of support for evolution articles. His behavior has the hallmarks of a disruptive editor and he is remarkable uncivil in his opinions about other editors. As everyone is well aware, these articles are troll magnets and these trolls keep coming back, time and time again. Here is a time line of his actions, only broken up with the parts about the warnings he received.

    I have posted a notice of this filing on his talk page. As everyone can see, the editors on these talk pages have tried to help this editor understand policy but to no avail. I personally tried to handle the situation by first posting a reminder but soon thereafter I had to post a more serious warning. I don't know if this editor will be able to contribute to the project effectively, as evidenced by his minuscule amount of positive additions to the articles he has edited compared to his large amount of disruption. I shall let the community decided what to do regarding this matter. Baegis (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you asking for a ban because an editor is tedious? If you are you may want to bring the case to WP:RFAR because there is nothing we can do here but impose a temporarily block for disruption if his actions are a threat to Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not true at all; we could certainly block indefinitely for tendentious editing and/or issue a community ban. I'm not going to take any action, though, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the articles' history to know what's a settled question and what isn't (I admit that it does seem relevant to me that the vast majority of Americans reject evolution. It may not reflect well on Americans, but it seems relevant). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Igorberger is not an admin. Of course, neither am I, although I do play one on television. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clear, this is not a case of WP:TE but a case of disruption. Taking this case to ArbCom with regards to an editor with a grand total of less than 75 edits seems like a waste of time. It is clearly an account that solely wishes to disrupt these articles. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sarcasticidealist is an admin and he is right. If we can get a consensus a community ban can be imposed here, if not then Arbcom. Igor Berger (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But as User:Baegis said 75 edits is not for ArbCom so I propse a 30 day ban and if that does not work or the user does not respect the ban we can block indef. Igor Berger (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1perlster clearly has some sort of hostile, anti-evolution agenda that he wishes to advance on Wiki, just read the history on his talk page to see the kind of anti-evolutionist comments he's made there. Angry Christian (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that this editor is unnecessary hostile, and is obviously here to advance a specific agenda. Their edit history makes it quite clear that their main point is to POV-push regarding evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. ArbCom is not necessary here, and indeed would probably not deign to here a case based on this until other measures have been tried. The one point that isn't quite clear to me, however, is why there is such opposition to including this polling information. I understand that the user's behavior is highly inappropriate and aggravating, but there doesn't seem to have been a civil, comprehensive explanation given to them regarding this statistical data and its exclusion. That's not to say that this hasn't happened, but I can't find it and I don't really see the harm in including this data, in the appropriate context.
    That said, it seems like a stern, final warning regarding his behavior towards and treatment of other editors is in order, followed by a short term (1-2 weeks) block. If he calms down and edits in a productive manner, then that's the end of the problem. If not, we can take it from there. But I'd like to here what the situation is with the polling data before writing such a warning. Natalie (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←This user has received several warnings: test1a, uw-npa, uw-vandalism2, uw-biog1, "do not edit others comments", "Please consider this your final warning about your editing on any and all evolution articles", & uw-npov1. These have only ever been deleted, sometimes with deliberate attacks against "evolutionists" left in their place. I've reached my AGF limit, but I'll take Natalie's comment seriously and leave a particularly stern (and comprehensive) warning with a one-week block. Further disruption really should not be tolerated and I will readily block indefintely following any future incident that fits with the above pattern. — Scientizzle 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support a few week block and then a trial period. Scientizzle blocked him, but not prior to him deleting the ANI notice on his talk page. A reasonable person could say that not even caring to comment on his actions here shows a clear lack of concern for adherring to community norms. That being said, the issue of the public support for evolution is covered in the Level of support for evolution article where the results of several public opinion polls from Gallup are discussed. Since these pages are all splits of former articles (level of support used to be in the evolution article, while the creation-evolution controversy article was a member of the creationism article) the exact same detail regarding public opinion is not given in the exact same manner. The C-E controversy article includes an EL to the gallup data from the level of support article. Plus, this article covers a much larger spectrum of ideas (court cases, philosophy of science, the disputes within science). Just a note. Baegis (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors like z1perlster are a dime a dozen. We get several like him a week on average I would say. Often they are sock or meat puppets, and usually single purpose accounts.

    We already have public polling data about evolution on Wikipedia at level of support for evolution and scattered through various articles, many of which are linked to level of support for evolution for more indepth analysis. The polling material we have is more detailed than what z1perlster is pushing, since it breaks down the data by population segment. It is not as though the material z1perlster has is wrong, but it is repetitive. At most, I could imagine adding one link to one article. But we already have this, and these results are not different than what we already have.

    I have suggested to z1perlster and others that if they wanted to do the hard work of actually writing a more extensive article concentrating on public attitudes about evolution around the world, it would be difficult but valuable. However, what I have noticed from over a year of dealing with disruption from similar editors is they only want a platform to announce some point or preach to us or to use our talk pages as a WP:SOAPbox. Few if any ever do any real work and produce anything. If z1perlster wants to produce an article we can use, great. Otherwise, he is just being a pest.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this likely to be an editor we've encountered previously, under another guise? MastCell Talk 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the background, Filll and Baegis. Scientizzle's block seems fine for now, but I guess I don't hold out much hope for this editor considering their reaction to the block notice. Natalie (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he is a former editor, partly because of his small handful of edits on the USC trojans article (though that would be a good diversion) but mostly because of his breaking up of comments, his total lack of policy knowledge, and the aggressiveness of his edits. I would wager that a reincarnated sock would tread much more lightly in order to put off any suspicion. Of course, that is my guess. In my brief time here, I have noticed that when indef blocked users reappear, they seem to try harder to remain civil before they eventually get caught. Unless of course they just want to disrupt for disruption's sake. Baegis (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems more like someone who has heard about the evil liberals on Wikipedia (maybe from Conservapedia?) and decided to come try and fight the good fight. The fact that he starts off very hostile indicates to me that he came looking for a conflict. Natalie (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adult-child sex. Yet again

    We deleted Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the grounds, as I read the debates, that it was essentially a POV fork of other existing articles on pederasty and related topics, under a title that is principally used by pro-pedophile activists to destigmatise sexual relationships between adults and children, a practice which is currently seen as problematic by most if not all jurisdictions, albeit with differing definitions of child.

    The deletion was reviewed at length and endorsed, with editors remanded to edit the existing articles rather than attempt to create POV forks.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)
    Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)

    Tlatosmd's fork was deleted as G4, but undeleted as not being strictly a recreation of deleted material; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed). So now we find:

    There appears to be a lot of Wikilawyering going on, but in the end a few editors seem to me to be refusing to accept the consensus that the title was problematic, and also seem to be unwilling to take the sound advice of the original DRV closer to edit instead the existing articles on the subject. I hope most admins will be aware of the history and sensitivity of problems with pro-pedophile activisim on Wikipedia, and I'm rather hoping people can help user:Calton and me (among others) to explain to these editors why their POV-forks are no more helpful in user space than they are in mainspace; you can fix problems of notability in a user space rewrite, but you can't fix problems with the subject itself having been rejected as inappropriate, which is what happened in this case.

    At the very least, we only need one copy of this; if the MfD decides delete then we actually need no copies of course. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck explaining! Sounds like a case of WP:SOAP. Maybe WP:CSD is the way to go for each user space article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the POV in this rant itself is worthy of MfD. And it appears from all those dead wikilinks, that there *is* only 1 copy. So what's the problem?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that they are only redlinks because I deleted them. We have a small group of users obsessively re-creating this content in userspace. As for "POV rant", I thank you for your kind and civil words and remind you that the problem of pro-pedophilia activism is sufficiently large that it has led to one (abortive) legal action against Wikipedia in Germany following a ban there, as well as the well-remembered "pedophilia userbox wars". If you don't think it's a problem, fine, please feel free to ignore it. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that you are mistaken in your assertion that "we have a small group of users obsessively re-creating this content in userspace." This is obviously not true, seeing as most, if not all, of these drafts were created prior the deletion of "Adult-child sex," and a few of them were worked on long before that article was even up for deletion. Next, please don't pull a red herring on us. This debate is indeed over policy, subject, and content, but there's no need to drag in the PPA scare. On a similar note, how do the "pedophilia userbox wars" have anything to do with this current debate? Please try to stick to the discussion at hand. There's no need to unduly complicate matters, or to throw people off by mixing in other controversial Wikipedia incidents. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to ignore it when you got people running all around here making a big deal of it. So what if he's got a copy of the deleted article in his own userspace. Big deal. Go write an article. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you want to do to the Crusaders? Igor Berger (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the nicest possible way, neither Guy nor Calton are known for their ability to be diplomatic. Are they really the best people to explain anything contentious to anyone? I can see the complaints now. Anyway - deleting all the recreations of the material, yes - the article was deleted because it was fundamentally unsuitable and no amount of tweaking will fix that. Continuing to recreate this stuff is disruptive. Allstarecho, "go write an article" is pretty much the lamest thing you vcould have said. By my count, just 32 of your last 1000 edits on Wikipedia have been "writing articles" (ie, edits to mainspace that weren't just vandalism reverts). Even Guy has more than 32 in his last 200 edits alone. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I didn't address you so you should keep your trap shut about what I do and say when I'm addressing someone else. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice... with comments like this, you should be able to quickly and easily win the hearts and minds. Rarelibra (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that this is a controversial issue to some regard, I would observe that it's important for all editors to remain calm and composed during discussion. This will surely facilitate the most civil, clear-headed, and constructive conclusion possible. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think I asked for help? Diplomatic I may not be, but I have sufficient self-knowledge to know that other people are better at persuading people to drop crusades for inappropriate content. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And why is this on the incidents board? Pairadox (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there are incidents (repeated recreations of deleted material) that require administrator attention. That's what the incidents board is for - incidents. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the pages, this is an obvious abuse of speedy deletion. As these items are currently listed at MfD, it doesn't hurt to let the debate run its course. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was extremely misguided. We do not need six userspace versions of something that was unacceptable in mainspace. Let's wait for the MfD discussion; if it survives they can all edit one copy, if it is nuked, then they should all forget it and walk away. Yes, it does hurt. It is very important for Wikipedia's public image to avoid any appearance of supporting or encouraging pro-pedophilia activism. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved, so my opinion has the appearance of impropriety, but since these pages were (invalidly) speedied once, then restored, then speedied again by the same admin, when does it constitute a wheel war? --SSBohio 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear improper behavior in the first place for an admin to speedy an article himself in an issue with which he is very much involved. that's why there are other admins. Restoring them would seem appropriate, though I would have asked here first, not afterwards. Redeleting them should be cause for desysop. DGG (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While fine, if Guy's deletion was improper, and an uninvolved admin should do it: I endorse the speedy deletion until the outcome of the MfD. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Guy's deletion may seem out of process, if the article was deleted, and these editors are holding onto copies for the purpose of recreating the article or SOAPboxing, then deleting all but one, and allowing it to MfD and set a principle isn't much different than setting all to MfD as a group for the same principles to be determined (i.e. - is there any good reason for the editors to hold copies in their userspace, other than to edit the valuable content into the existing acceptable articles and then self-MfD them?) In other words, if one OR all in the MfD leads to the same principles of finding and consensus, then does it really matter either way? He could have left them till the MfD was over, but that might also leave the door open for recreation of the articles and plenty more SOAPboxing. I'm not sure it was the best call, but it doesn't seem like a truly 'wrong' call either. ThuranX (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that by so doing, Guy effectively poisons the debate by restricting non-admins from seeing what's being discussed for deletion, considering that the pages aren't identical. It is another way to say: trust me, we have secret evidence (from a closed email list, IRC, etc) that justifies deletion. G4 (the cited reason) is inapplicable in this case. Requiring the community to discuss this while blindfolded gives free reign to unsupported opinion rather than factual analysis. --SSBohio 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is still one copy in userspace, and that is being debated. If MfD resolves to keep, the parties can all work on the same copy. If it resolves to delete, the same result would apply to all. There's no point having six versions of this, it serves no purpose whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My recollection is that they weren't identical. You want us to discuss at MfD whether to delete pages that we can't see, pages that have already been deleted? How is that supposed to work, exactly? It's bad enough that that's the standard practice at DRV, but the theory behind XfD (as I understand it) is that we're deciding whether to delete an existing page. I'm not sure what's gained by thumbing our noses at the discussion there by deleting these pages while discussion continues. --SSBohio 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If they aren't identical iterations, then I agree with those who say they all should've been MfD'd. Not because I particularly believe any of them should've been preserved, or would've survived, but just so there would be no ambiguity about the principle of the MfD, namely that 'no version of ACS is going to be welcoem here, no matter the minor variations on the theme'. It's unfortunate, and a bad idea, but not one I'm going to make guy 'pay for' either. ThuranX (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't blame Guy for the deletion in the first place--I think it was premature, but arguably the correct postion. And I expressed my doubts about the undeletion. But the re-deletion after that is what was a clear example of the definition of wheel-warring. The way I understand it, is that if you've done something as an admin--right or wrong--and another admin has reverted it, you cannot re-do it without consensus. DGG (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale for restoration had nothing to do with the rationale for deletion. These are not G4s, it's the spread of the same content to too many venues; I apologise to everyone, I did not make that clear at the time. I think it's now clear: how many forks of this do we need in userspace? To contain the dispute to a minimum number of venues is clearly the right thing. Note also that Allstarecho has been blocked by Jimbo, I think this dispute needs to be kept low-key and in as few places as possible to avoid more blocks and drama. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, you asserted above that the pages you deleted were substantially the same as the one that was undeleted by DRV. If A isn't deletable under G4, and A=B, then how can you delete B under G4? What's the idea? Shall we have an MfD & a DRV running on the same article at the same time? How about wheel warring your way into the preferred outcome? I have a very hard time seeing either the means or the ends as acceptable. My take: Let the MfD run. Leave the pages existing until it does. There's nothing to be gained by deleting all but the one copy that DRV overturned. --SSBohio 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's absolutely nothing to be gained by UNdeleting 5 essentially identical copies of a page on MfD. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why have MfD at all? Our last MfD could be to delete WP:MfD, if it's not too recursive. Instead, we could simply have admins wander the face of the wiki like so many ronin, hacking down whatever they thought they should. What could go wrong?
    To put it plainly, it's the thin end of the wedge. Saying these are essentially identical copies requires the same leap of faith as saying they could be deleted per G4. We already know that the G4 claim was mistaken (at best). If we're to replace good faith with blind faith, then why discuss or review anything? --SSBohio 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strange new meaning of "plainly" I was previously unaware of. The G4 claim failed on a technicality: the ACTUAL issue is whether the subject, POV fork, and or titles belong on Wikipedia, however the words are rearranged to avoid the exact "repost" criteria. Therefore, if one of them fails the test of whether the subject, POV fork, and or title belong on Wikipedia, then, you know, they all fail, however much various editors who can't take a hint try to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. This whole conversation reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a legal problem arose that ...taxed the minds...finally of the lawyers, who experimented vainly with ways of redefining murder, re-evaluating it, and in the end, even respelling it, in the hope that no one would notice. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm using plainly in its ordinary sense. It indicates that I wasn't going to elaborate on every nuance, but instead lay out the case without such niceties. Plainly, that's what I did.
    • The G4 claim failed because it was a false claim. That's not a technicality, unless truth itself is now a technicality.
    • The subject does belong on Wikipedia, as it is covered by multiple, verifiable, reliable sources and is a notable phenomenon in the historical, anthropological, and sociological record of mankind.
    • Yes, if one of them fails, thy all fail. That's what we're testing for here. Deleting the pages out from under their deletion discussion is a means of Guy's enforcing his preference in this dispute, rather than honoring community consensus. The MfD decides, not the JzG.
    • This whole conversation reminds me of the Army-McCarthy hearings, where supposed evidence, carefully hidden from view, allowed one man to pursue self-aggrandizement instead of truth, and victory instead of justice.
    • In term of redefining our terms, it appears that you, Guy, and others are engaged in a campaign to carve out this topic as an exception to policy, even to core policies like NPOV. It's a chapter straight out of Extraordinary Popular Delusion and the Madness of Crowds. We're either an encyclopedia or we aren't -- it's a bright line that, once crossed, stays crossed. --SSBohio 12:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) I cannot see the versions deleted (because I am not an admin), but the five deleted versions each had no edit history (1 revision each, according to the log history when they were restored), and three of them were in the same user's userspace. One version is sufficient, and if it is deleted at MFD, then consensus would appear to be that no versions are sufficient. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That the previous improper G4 deletion was overturned at DRV should have been a warning, but people for some reason still ignore it. I find it completely absurd to delete a bunch of user subpages just because they have the same content which one doesn't like. (Is redundancy in userspace a speedy criterion now?) It is terribly childish to start an MfD nomination, but cannot wait for the discussion to finish, and go ahead deleting every page except one, at the same time launch into a wheel-war (not the first time in a week, to be sure). And in response to an above query, if there's anything I expected to be gained by my restoration, it is that administrators have to be reminded that they are discouraged from making improper speedy deletion(s), let alone being stubborn and making up some bizarre reason that is based on no policy to argue in favor of their actions (while allowing themselves to call the opposing admin "Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid ..."). Of course, this didn't work. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant. We should either have one userspace copy or no userspace copies. Six (seven if you include another that I found) is ridiculous, counterproductive and of no obvious benefit to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be unreasonable. Since when are pages in userspace have to be of "obvious benefit to the encyclopaedia"? You might as well just delete all my subpages with your ludicrous criteria. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is supposed to be of benefit to the encyclopaedia, especially copies of problematic deleted material kept in userspace. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, blog or social network. Userspace exists, as does every other space on Wikipedia, to support the process and aim of building an encyclopaedia. Guy 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.216.219 (talk)
    Having a copy of an encyclopedia article in your userspace that you're working on to improve up to standards, or even to use the information and references in other articles, is a textbook case of using userspace to benefit the encyclopædia. From what's gone on in this case, userspace pages not only have to meet with that objective standard (per WP:USER), they also have to earn Guy's seal of approval, or else he'll delete them and call names, regardless of his having been overturned before, regardless of his wheel warring, and regardless of ongoing process. --SSBohio 12:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    G4 explicitly states "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space" Rich Farmbrough, 11:24 6 February 2008 (GMT).

    The operative word there is "moved". Not "copy and pasted". Neıl ☎ 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, content that has been moved. It makes no explicit reference to the mechanism for making that move, whether it be pagemove or copy & paste. I couldn't very well pagemove one section to work on, for example. --SSBohio 12:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Contributions by User:Goldenhawk 0 (Edward Said; Robert Caldwell; Indo-Iranian mythology)

    I am somewhat concerned by contributions for this user, who produces seem to be elaborately referenced additions to a variety of articles. When examined the references often turn out to say nothing whatever that would support the claims that are made in the additions. For example he has repeatedly added and readded the statement that Robert Caldwell "believed that no real evidence has been established to prove that the speakers of Dravidian languages are not members of the Indo-European language tree." In fact Caldwell stated the opposite, as anyone who reads the reference can see. Thjis has not stopped Goldenhawk inststing that the opposite is true.[31] He has recently added to the same article the bizarre claim that Edward Said stated that Indians are members of the "Hindoo Branch" of the "Brown Race". Anyone who has read Said knows that this is most unlikely (I assume Said is quoting an 18th-19th C writer). Goldenhawk has also added elaborately footnoted passages to Rostam and Div-e Sepid‎ in which he claims that these mythic figures were part of some ancient brown-versus-white race war. [32] The footnotes link to a bizarre jumble of texts some of which are accessible through Google books. When one looks at the relevant pages of these books (many of which are very old) they say nothing that in any way supports the claims that are made. I can't check all these contributions. Can anyone chack this user. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If these allegations are true, such systematic falsification of encyclopedic content would merit an indefinite block. Paul, could you please provide more diffs for the problematic edits you mention and inform Goldenhawk 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread so that he may comment on this matter? Sandstein (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, we do not mediate content disputes here, so all discussion should be focused on conduct issues, such as whether the user has engaged in a systematic campaign of POV-pushing and adding false citations. Sandstein (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This concerns conduct. Some edits may be incompetence rather than mendacity. It's difficult to tell. Others are OR by synthesis (the references say something linked to the claim but are wildly extrapolated to support the author's race-theory). For example: "The Div Sefid is believed by scholar Joseph J. Reed to have been a northern prince.[1]" The ref says (Link to Google books for this 1860 (!) publication) [33] The statement is not to be found on p.23, which says nothing at all about “Div Sefid” or northern princes. The ref to Caldwell states that "He even believed that no real evidence has been established to prove that the speakers of Dravidian languages are not members of the Indo-European language tree". The ref provided states the opposite [34]. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting edit summary. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears the user has declined to comment here and is continuing to make race-related edits which I frankly can't ascertain whether or not they are constructive or scientifically fraudulent. Any other thoughts? Sandstein (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible sock too? rudra (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. The general impression one gets of the above discussion and of this user's contributions and deleted contributions is that he is a single purpose account focused on obscure racial issues, has made racist comments, systematically falsifies references, engages in occasional sockpuppetry and edit warring, and has uploaded disruptive images. On the whole, probably not a net benefit to the project. I have blocked him indefinitely until convinced otherwise. A review of this block is, of course, welcome. Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Orderinchaos#roxbo_and_duggy

    Can someone please review this section and decide what to do re Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He has been edit warring on a user talk page (User talk:Timeshift9) with the owner of said talk page on several occasions over the past three months, following on from a dispute the two users had in late November. Tonight I gave him a warning for his behaviour, and the result has been semantic games, accusations and personal attacks. Some of his comments on my talk page suggest that he is gaming the system, and I feel that admin action is required but as an involved party I am not in the position to make that call. I should note in this that I am not the party being harassed, my talk page merely seems to have become a venue for the discussion. Orderinchaos 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An update - protection has become necessary as the guy will not cease no matter what I do. It's at times like this that the COI provisions of WP:BLOCK seem to be an impediment to the project at times. Orderinchaos 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned Duggy 1138 for the edits to the archived discussion. I can't work my way through the rest of it clearly enough to see the wood from the trees, so if other admins want to step in, I don't mind. Hiding T 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a mistake and didn't realise that the discussion was archived until after I made the change. When I realised, I apologised and acknowledged that you could remove it. What more do you want?
    Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Squeakbox - block after resolved?

    Enough already, who cares why Squeakbox wants User:Squeakbox deleted? Just delete it and done, it's his page. As long as the history of User talk:Squeakbox is easy for any non-admin to find and review for Dispute Resolution, why is this turning into a massive issue? Lawrence § t/e 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was just closed prematurely and I reopened it. If this guy wants to dump his user page, more power to him, for whatever reason. Anyone restoring a user page that was deleted at a user's request is out of line. If I ask for my page to go for threats, personal reasons, or because I like daisies today, it's gone, its my decision alone. There is still however a big problem here--the history on User talk:Squeakbox is completely botched from all the moves and deletions. Can we please get this fixed? This entire mess will then be done, unless someone disruptively restores his userpage again. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I asked Squeak here on his talk page and he says he is not doing a Right To Vanish. Once his user talk page history is fixed this can all be resolved. Does it require an admin to fix it? A history merge? Lawrence § t/e 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, possibly, but there's potentially edits that were previously deleted that should stay deleted, and someone more familiar with Squeakbox's talk page should do it. As an aside, if anyone wants their user page deleted for whatever reason or for no reason at all and a {{db-userreq}} gets refused, then drop a message on my talk page or email and I'll do it as soon as I pick it up. Neıl ☎ 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Userspace pages are still community pages. If a user has questionable edits in their history and to delete those edits could be considered by some as "covering their tracks" or "hiding the evidence", then there should be some further consideration in these cases before clicking the delete button. Particularly if said user has a history of such attempts to hide past behaviors. Lara❤Love 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a most compelling interest situation here - the community has some interest in seeing edit history retained, but in this case it has to be balanced against the risk attached to not deleting the page when the user is the subject of death threats. Protecting users from harm based on Wikipedia editing is a far more compelling interest than keeping some userpage edits. The page (in practically every revision) has personally identifying information (age, location, photographs etc.). Since no one has said "This edit is bad, and we shouldn't erase it" then there is no reason not to. The question now is - will someone just fix the talk page? If you were speaking generally, and not about the Squeakbox situation, then I would argue that db-userreq's should be granted first and reviewed later if necessary. Denying a request would, in my mind, require proof that granting it harms the encyclopedia. Avruchtalk 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion of the user page isn't the question here though. If there is offensive material we can delete or Oversight those revisions. Theres no reason to blow away 2+ years of talk page history. That's what is broken and needs fixing. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still confused. Are we talking about his user page or his talk page? Even this very thread seems to be jumping between the one and the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, it's confusing. User:Squeakbox is fine, he wanted it deleted, and it's gone for good. It now lives as a new redirect. The history on User talk:Squeakbox however is gone, and that's the mess. The talk page history needs restoring. He mentioned on his talk page today that he has no problem with that. Lawrence § t/e 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page! Argh! ;-) Avruchtalk 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I checked yesterday the talk page is not deleted, only archived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Its true that there is an archive of the talkpage - but the archive has the history, not the talk page. The history of the talk page is only 2 days long. Avruchtalk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing wrong with that, as long as the history exists somewhere. Better than those talk pages that crash the 'pedia when we have to delete an edit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should let SqueakBox do what he wants with his pages, because current accepted practice is very unclear, then we should clarify what's acceptable at Wikipedia:Right to vanish. We should include a section about when people simply want to remove information but don't actually want to vanish, and start applying the guideline right across the board. At the moment, some people are allowed to vanish quietly (or vanish, sort of, and re-emerge with clean talk pages or a new name), while with others there's a giant fuss, which is unfair. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slim, Guy, the issue with his user page is resolved--he wanted the old one and history removed, and it's gone. The only future problem there is if an admin restores it again like Swatjester did before, which would be out of line. The only remaining problem is his user talk history. I asked Squeak if he was going Right To Vanish, and he said he was not, here. He wrote:

    "I am happy to see the talk page history restored or to move my archive to correspond with it, its only my user history not my talk history I wish to see removed from wikipedia, so can we please resolve this issue amicably"

    That's all that is left, is to fix his talk page history that got completely mixed up from a series of moves, deletions, and restores. Its just a history merge admin housekeeping task now. And I agree with you, SlimVirgin. Anyone asking for their user page to be nuked should for any reason get that done immediately. User talk, not so much. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Talk page history seems to be associated with User_talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory, going back to late 2005. Issue a Wikitrout (or perhaps a small whale) for disruption because this kerfuffle has occupied the time and attention of waaaaay too many people and, intentionally or not, utterly confused the record of what history is where. SqueakBox really should know better after being around for at least two and a half years. Pairadox (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats the one, so it just needs a history merge from User talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory to -> User talk:SqueakBox and this whole thing is done. Right? Lawrence § t/e 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? There's absolutely no need. The history exists somewhere, and insisting on a merge is a pointless waste of resources and effort. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what JzG is alluding to, Lawrence, is that it is somewhat-acceptable practise to archive a talk page by moving it to a subpage. See WP:ARCHIVE#Move_procedure for some more detail. --Iamunknown 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I didn't know you could do that acceptably for talk histories. Seems fairly stupid, as it forks histories, and could allow for people to hide things with enough moves. And I'm used to bots just shuffling them around. My suggestion for that was to just bring everything back to the way it was before Squeakbox and Swatjester broke all the histories with moves and unacceptable restorations. Lawrence § t/e 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it forks histories. On the other hand, it also keeps histories short, which works well for heavily-trafficked pages that may need the occasional edit deleting, for example if an editor has been subject to a degree of harassment. It's no big deal either way, in my opinion. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and would an admin mind reviewing User:Raving Nutter, who joined Wikipedia to offer commentary on Squeak's privacy concerns? Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Was Squeakbox's blocking yesterday discussed in this thread anywhere and I'm just missing it? Since when do RtV people get blocked? Why would the mismatch of talkpage history necessitate a block? Even Swatjester didn't block him... Avruchtalk 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That was a particularly bad idea, but I see Arthur thoguht better of it after a fairly short while. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, SqueakBox isn't an RtV person; He only said he was when requesting deletion. His intent was to stay. --SSBohio 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would seem to be irrelevant based on the blocking reason. Avruchtalk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On a related note, would anybody care to mention to him the problems inherent in having an archive that is 1,074,894 bytes in size? Pairadox (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well [perhaps just tell this troll to back off [35] [36]. I do not apreciate being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than the unfortunate {{trout}}, Pairadox's description of what you said & how it differs from what you intended is pretty accurate. Really, I feel worse for the trout than anyone else involved. Catch and release is my motto.  :-) --SSBohio 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem here appears to me to be that some users immediately assumed, and continue to assume, bad faith. If folks had calmly asked Squeakbox what was wrong and how could they help there never would have been a problem here. And applying a "Trout" to a user is one thing, but posting it a second time is uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No assumption of bad faith at all - I find the entire situation amusing, actually. And I didn't post it a "second time," I simply moved the trout that Squeak gave me from my page back to Squeak's per my BIG ORANGE BANNER. It wasn't the same trout at all. :) Pairadox (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are trout spawning on your talk page, Pairadox?  :-) Seriously though, Will, if you'd check the talk page history (wherever it is today...) you'll find that I asked SqueakBox twice what he was doing. All I got was a (rather mild) telling off. The assumption of good faith doesn't require that it be carried on in the face of evidence to the contrary. The claim of WP:VANISH was false. Squeak had previously taken part in deletions that removed problematic edits of his, and it was reasonable to be concerned with what he actually intended, as it was at odds with what he told the deleting admin. --SSBohio 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd read the message that Squeakbox had already posted then you wouldn't have had to ask the question which was already answered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing your tone, if you'd read the edit history, you'd see that I asked my question in response to Squeak's post. A brief history: He made his statement. I asked my question. He deleted it. He told me off on my talkpage. Inconvenient facts, but facts nonetheless. --SSBohio 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it is rather disappointing to see that Squeak apparently has carte blanche to refer to other editors as trolls and assume bad faith without consequence. Pairadox (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stirring up trouble is a definition of trolling. Most of this issue appears to have been the result of people stirring the pot rather than seeking resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your justification for harassing me, looks to me exactly like trolling, is harassment for the sake of getting a reaction. If you don't wasn't to be called a troll you need to stop trolling, if you want to be seen as acting in good faith you need to act in good faith. But nobody has the right to be treated as a good faith user while acting in a bad faith trolling manner, as you were clearly doing. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Squeak, you denied trolling when you were making factually untrue statements about me. How is Pairadox's commentary trolling when yours wasn't? A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. --SSBohio 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is a demonstration of favoritism by admins. Hence, again, per standard procedure, could someone please slap {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates around it? At the very least, we need an unsigned {{Resolved}} template.

    These kinds of user grievances about administrative corruption do not belong on WP:ANI or anywhere else. Also, after this page is archived, I also hope that it is either hidden and\or deleted from the archives permanently, so that nobody else can ever bring this subject up again. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Corruption? What are you talking about? There's no corruption or favoritisim evidenced here. Any user, even an admin, is allowed to ask to have their user page deleted. It's not a big deal. The disruption seems to have come from folks who wanted to make a federal case out of a routine request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will, how was an untrue statement used to induce an admin to make a deletion any kind of routine request? There is a blind spot here exactly the size and shape of the user in question. It's existed for months. --SSBohio 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A) Did you read the link I posted? If you did you'd see that Squeakbox promptly corrects himself regarding the reason for the deletion. B) The reason for the deletion is irrelevent since no reason is needed. C) How does asking him the same question again and again help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A) My reading comprehension is up to scratch. However, you're misrepresenting what happened, particularly the sequence of events.
    B) When any user induces an admin under a false pretense, it doesn't matter if they needed to use a false pretense or not. They did, and that falsehood makes whatever rationale is substituted less believable.
    C) Your statment is at odds with the facts. I can't make a meaningful response to it for that reason. --SSBohio 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TALK: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context."

    People? What people? There were no people on User talk:Squeakbox before 3 February 2008. Hence, this policy seems to be totally irrelevant. Per WP:TALK, anyone, even if they engage in contentious behavior, has the limitless right to wipe their talkpage history clean. This is how Wikipedia has always been run. You're right, Will. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, no. They can wipe it clean visually, but they can't delete the history of others have contributed significantly. Avruchtalk 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the confusion continues unabated... Pairadox (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no confusion. That's been the case all along. User pages may be deleted, but user talk pages that have significant contributions from others may not be. There's nothing more to resolve. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And there haven't been pages of discussion all over the wiki? Any time action is taken under false pretenses, confusion increases. It's one of the reasons why process is important. And, regardless of who does it, how does keeping the history but obscuring it in an unlinked subpage serve the purpose of having an edit history?
    Finally, while I've hardly been heard out on this issue, I've been threatened with blocking if I talk about a particular involved user. As discretion is the better part of valor, I'm refraining from further comment to avoid incurring any more harm, dishonor, or retalliation. --SSBohio 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Intolerable intolerance (at Muhammad)

    I know this is at least the third section here on the fiasco over at Muhammad because of the images, but none of those sections seemed to get at the heart of the issue. So, I have to ask: is the block button broken? The support for the images goes back through months, and perhaps years, and are immortalized in our (caution: irony ahead) five pillars. And yet, when accounts, no doubt spawned by a 90K-signature petition come here to remove the images, we respond by protecting the article, calling this an edit war, and leaving the single-purpose meatpuppets alone. Why? We should remove the full protection (but keep the semi-protection), so good-faith editors on Wikipedia can make valid improvements to the article, and block the offenders. We should not be tolerating the type of intolerance coming from these disruptive users, who obviously have no respect for how Wikipedia works and are instead bent on disrupting the article into submission. They haven't succeeded (and won't succeed) in disrupting it to the point of getting the images removed, but they, in a way, have still succeeded by getting the article protected -- not just from them, but from good-faith contributors -- for the umpteenth time. Seriously, at what point are we going stand up and see this as an intolerable level of disruption that needs to be killed in the face? -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    and the flip to this is that some of our "good faith" editors want to more seriously consider their posts on the associated talkpages because a lot of the commentary from our experienced editors is just baiting, pure and simple and is not helpful. If we want people to have respect for how we work - let's not piss on their hands when they reach them out... --Fredrick day (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what or whom you're referring to. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, it's the nicest thing to do and the most political thing to do to let people have their say and move on. If you want to make edits to the articles, use the {{editprotected}} template. Cheers, WilyD 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking IPs or clueless newbies is unlikely to bring any positive results, but it is likely to bring negative results. Explain patiently what's going on, or ignore them - the comments will be archived soon enough. In the meantime, use the editprotected template for any edit you want to make. WilyD 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The comments will be archived soon enough"? I'm not talking about the commenters; I'm talking about the drive-by image removers, the ones who got the article protected. Those drive-by removers certainly should be pointed to the talk page, but if they have no interest to go there but continue removing the image, they should be blocked. And (as I said to Wily in a talk page comment), I don't see the negative results as a likely consequence. -- tariqabjotu 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you suggesting? Semi-protect the article and block new SPA accounts that remove the images? Perhaps this might work when things have died down a bit, but right now I'd say protection is warranted due to the numbers of individuals involved. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, the article is indef semi'd (for a variety of reasons) and various SPAs are blocked (although we try to be gentle with image removers, considering, and give them a goodly number of chances). Full protection is common there too, not much we can do about it. But we don't need to be any more draconian in enforcing order. Protections are fine, blocks are usually the wrong direction. WilyD —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is fully protected, and has been for several hours. The template was just incorrect (and I went ahead and corrected it just now). But, anyway, yes JzG, that's what I was suggesting -- downgrade to semi-protection and block the SPAs. (The last two SPAs to edit the article before protection do not appear to be blocked, which is why I came here to raise the issue of reconsidering our approach to this). -- tariqabjotu 18:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was already semi-protected the day before, so the SPAs were registering accouns and removing the images. All that happened was it was moved from semi to full. It's best left at full protection. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth mentioning that this business is getting major coverage on the mouth-breathing side of the blogosphere, notably this thread on Little Green Footballs. Expect a higher than normal amount of trolling and Islamophobic comments as a result. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You realize that it's been mentioned in places like the New York Times as well? -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do now that you've pointed it out. :-) However, I somehow doubt that hordes of pitchfork-wielding NYT readers are likely to descend on the article... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to note that the vast majority of the edits done in the past few days to remove the images in question were done by sleeper accounts, some of which were registered as far back as 2006. It's possible that some of them were created at the time to create articles that were subsequently deleted, because most of them have few or no other edits in their logs. Nevertheless, they have popped back up in an effort to continue vandalizing this article while it is semi-protected. See the following account creation logs if you're curious (for some reason, the last one doesn't actually have any entries in the account creation log): [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] --DachannienTalkContrib 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor using WP:IAR to excuse posting links to inflammatory links to his personal blog

    Resolved
     – everyone seems to be headed for the tea counter

    Hotridge has been placing Original Research quotes and links to inflammatory posts on his personal blog on Jose de Venecia, Jr. here: [51]. Unless I miss my guess, this is him too: [52]. Does WP:IAR apply here? I don't think so, but I believe a third opinion is appropriate. - Richfife (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you openly invoke IAR to do sometyhin unsavoury, odds are You're Doing It Wrong™ Will (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the user wrote the article he is refering to it is an inappropriate reference and as so it should be removed which I have done. The addition of the reference is definatly in violation of WP:OR and WP:COI and those are not rules that can be ignored or at least I hope not. Rgoodermote  17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts that they are very reliable. I forgot WP:VAIN. Anyways I think this issue is resolved for now.Rgoodermote  18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR covers actions which demonstrably benefit the encyclopedia but may run up against the letter of the law. Adding links to one's own blog in articlespace is definitely ignoring the rules, but I don't see it benefitting the encyclopedia awfully much. MastCell Talk 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we see illustrated the essential difference between ignoring the rules and defying them. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say the user wasn't defying the rules, but it is more likely the user really was just ignoring them. Rgoodermote  18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The user seems to have gotten the point or has logged off. But I think it best to continue to watch the user and the article. If it continues I would say count them as vandal edits. Rgoodermote  18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok it is not over with. I am on the brink of 3RR so I am stopping before this becomes a full blown war. But the user is not getting the point and continues to re-add the reference even though it has been made clear that it was inappropriate. Rgoodermote  19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wow! You guys really have a "forum" for this! Mr. Rgood, I deleted the questionable citations twice already. And you keep on reverting to the former history of the page. Review the history, please. And I find your reactions a bit overdone...reflects insecurity somewhere. (Only misfits magnify the insignificant trivialities." Robert Malthus) Let us move on. Time is invaluable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotridge (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Hotridge (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And lastly, Mr.Fife, on the use of the term "inflammatory" above, please clarify the imputation made on the questionable contents and/or links which may sound "inflammatory" in your perception. Are you referring to something seditious? Injurious on the part of the living person being discussed? Or the title of the links from which it was derived from? I am the author of the article contents that were published on the two networks properly cited in that page. The speech of the politician alluded to (quoted) is an exact transcript of his words. And such were written in my article as it happened and was subsequently broadcasted on the media that subscribe to my contributions. Naturally, since this was a live/current update, the only source I could proffer was my blog. And ethical journalism requires that you boldly and responsibly assume authorship of any article/document/or allegations of truth that you may express either in writing or orally and be responsive enough to address any challenge to it. I apologize: I am not aware that only secondary-source information is allowed in Wiki. I have already deleted the quotations and their references to my blog. The full story of it, I believe can be conveniently read by any user to their media sources, links of which are already provided in that same page and contents of which were also written by me. And there was nothing inflammatory to it. These are all exact transcripts of his speech, verifiable I am certain as of this date already as other networks have also written about it since it is a subject of national interest. And I find this whole discourse a waste of time. Please do not re-add the entries I made by reverting to its history, as this is already beyond the copyright I may allow.Hotridge (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Referring to the article subject, Fidel Ramos and another man as "Cancer Cells", for instance, is inflammatory, even if you are quoting someone else. - Richfife (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Fife, I appreciate the interest and the time expended in reading the "external link's" full contents (outside of Wikipedia's scope). To quote that very line which you refer to (and which are not included anyway in the wiki article)"...How sordid that none prove to be statesmanly at all, among all these so-called "leaders". Yes, ALL of them. They represent "cancer" cells to the system. Cells that pretend to be greater than the rest of the body's cellular aggregation...and behave in a manner so abnormal that would ultimately lead to the crumbling and death of the entire organism/body." I am certain, any writer or individual with adequate Anglican or American English comprehension would not in any way misconstrue that statement as "directly" inflammatory to either you or anyone for that matter, especially to Mr. Castro or the politician in the Wiki. Read comprehensibly, please. These are merely concluding remarks to the full article in my blog and are opinional in nature and do not form part of the citations in the wiki, or even claim to be factual or even directly injurious to anyone...not unless your lexicon has arrived at another meaning for the word "all" on those specific lines you are referring to as inflammatory. Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. If you were inflamed by it, then perhaps, it applies to you. But I do not see any reason why it should form part of this issue, as those "inflammatory" lines are not within the scope of Wiki or even attributed to by the lines quoted in that same page. Hotridge (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Hotridge (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotridge (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They are lines, written by you, in a link that you personally attached to Wikipedia. - Richfife (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected for three days. On m:The Wrong Version, obviously. That leaves time for people to start talking rather than just reverting. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Admitted without argument. Already deleted the references to the full article. But the lines you consider inflammatory are not to be found in the specific wikipedia article. The citations were specific only to the direct quotations from the subject politician (contents of which which were not yet to be found elsewhere in the net or on any published material besides mine at the time of posting, as these were added in my palmtop in the very halls of congress as it was spoken, minute by minute. Please review your accusations. Notwithstanding that this is already a moot and academic exchange. A totally unprofitable and futile end.Hotridge (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mate I fully admit that the second revert was an accident, I did not check the history in my rush to make it to class. On that note I will no longer respond to anything related to this matter. This is between you two...I just happened to walk in to try and end it. So till next time cheers Rgoodermote  23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Precisely, Mr. Rgood. In your haste, you failed to consider the very point of the issue at hand. And merely took the most convenient action without careful consideration of the "end goal." Again, in my opinion, such actions evince irresponsibility. And does not in any way reflect good faith on your part. And neither could you claim this as accidental or even just a minor lapse in judgment, as the mental and behavioral processes that motivated you to do that, was not in anyway beneficial to Wikipedia, but merely a personal grandstanding (trying to make a quick-fix and perhaps come out heroic in the end). Careful editing requires attention and full understanding of the nature of the issue at hand...Not a simple click of a button...expediently undoing the works of others. Hotridge (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, shut up with the obnoxious pseudolegalese bombast 'admitted without argument' being the most obvious, you're not giving a closing argument in the courtroom, you're sounding like you just finished 'the Big Princeton Review book of SAT words'. Your links were bad, you claim to have stopped, now move on. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thuranx, the best way to deal with wikilawyering behavior such as in your case is to address your ilk with the same obnoxious pseudolegalese bombast and behavior that you exhibit. Psychology researchers may classify this as "situational irony." I think, there's a wiki for it, so just look it up, and how to best apply that same technique to your advantage when faced with another creature like yourself. Trust me, it works on your kind. 82-95%... You recognize this as obnoxious because it is in fact the very same same spirit that moves you to act in a manner so obnoxious also to others...perhaps in a less diplomatic and refined way, either due to sheer exasperation or mere inadequate scholastic aptitude. Perhaps, you do need for yourself, "the Big Princeton Review book of SAT words" as the pages you claimed (went to your userpage) to have built are merely straight copies of other legitimate sites. ("Only misfits magnify the insignificant trivialities." Robert Malthus)Hotridge (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I am unaware of the ground rules of Wikipedia. So, I apologize for any infringement I may have committed with regards to it. I admit, Ignorance is not an excuse. I am not also privy to the prevailing organizational culture or net attitude here. But after, having read most (if not all) of the Wiki guidelines contained herein last night. I am in the opinion, however, that there have been more graver violations with how you treat "newbies" as opposed to preserving the ultimate goal of building a good encyclopedia. To quote: "...Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage..." "...During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions..."

    I think the last line is expressly applicable here. And it is a sad note, that the same sentiment would be felt by all other "newbies" who may be interested to contribute to the proverbial "end goal" of Wikipedia. As I see it, the only end goal engendered here is intolerance, power/ego lifting, assumed supremacy over others (or merely unresolved childhood conflicts of bullying)/irresponsible policing, "system-gaming" and veiled hypocrisy of civility. It doesn't take a genius to instantly observe this. Multiply that effect to hundreds (maybe even thousands) of other newbies. I think, it would be statistically safe to say that such culture would ultimately lead to unproductive results. Keeping in mind that the supposed "reliable" editors who bully newbies only comprise the "minority" as opposed to the vast number of users who may be classified under "newbie."(The goal of any argument is not victory but progress.) Hotridge (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orthodox Judaism

    A series of IP addresses have repeatedly removed a photo, [added: making comments] with strong language on the talk page (See the bottom part of Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo) including personal attacks on the photographer. The IPs, who have been taking over an existing edit dispute, are claiming they constitute a consensus. I removed the attacks, blocked one of the IPs, and semi-protected Orthodox Judaism. I suspect sockpuppetry to evade the block, and possibly a previously banned editor, but don't have proof or time to look further into the matter today. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the photograph, of identifiable private individuals who would not ordinarily let themselves be photographed in the circumstances, and which the photographer admits taken with a telephoto lens, is in this use a clear privacy violation. It would be right for any ed to remove it, and wrong to reinsert it without clear consensus. I think it would be covered by the spirit of WP:BLP. I can understand the frustration at having to repeatedly remove it. The language is not all that nasty considering its a WP talk page. You should not have semi-protected the article; you should rather have removed the photograph under BLP and sanctioned anyone trying to reinsert it.DGG (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely ridiculous. First, photographing people in public places, especially next to a tourist attraction like the Western Wall (check out that page - have all those people given consents) is not a privacy violation. Second, this IP has been engaged in a series of vile personal attacks that if DGG can identify with this IP's "frustration" then perhaps DGG should not be an admin ([53],[54], [55], [56], [57], [58] et. al.). It's strange that DGG is siding with what amounts to a troll over a photograph that is no different than the multitude of photographs we have on this project of people in public places. Perhaps DGG should actually look into an issue before commenting on it; because clearly the edit summaries of the IP alone on the Talk:Orthodox Judaism page should have clued him in better. --David Shankbone 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support month long IP blocks on all IPs making the attacks, since apparently a rangeblock won't work? or would it? I can't figure out IP stuff like that, but since it's all different after the 72, I'm guessing no? and thanks for the link, it added some thoughts on the OJ page about the photo. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted content cited by David Shankbone was not visible on the talk page when DGG commented on it, it had already been deleted. The edit summaries all come from different IP's. Thus, being unknown to DGG, DGG was not speaking of the frustration of a specific editor or what others perceive as one sigle editor, but of any good faith editor who seeks to legitimately remove unwanted content, only to have said content restored over and over. The evidence for trolling is circumstantial -- IP's of such large ranges can carry tens of thousands of persons simultaneously. An attempt to block such a range would be, frankly, laughable. Fortunately DGG's candidacy for anything is not being decided here, moreso that such decisions won't be undertaken by persons seething with anger and teetering on instability. --72.76.100.181 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A suggestion:

    • Delete the photo
    • Re-upload it without any crap about it being taken on shabbat

    Problem solved. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of whether the photo was taken on Shabbat or not seems to have fizzled out some time ago and been hijacked by general attempts to remove the image altogether. I'm not sure why: taking a photograph of someone in a public space (possibly one of the most public spaces in the world) is not an invasion of privacy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the discussion involved is legitimate and suggest letting it proceed to its conclusion. Rational people can disagree about matters of privacy vs. free expression and have, both here and on the talk page involved. The purpose of posting here is not ot stop the discussion but to prevent it from being disrupted. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    * Newsflash, kids - As was just clarified on the article talk page, David took the photo on a Friday during the day. I'm pretty sure this clears up a major portion of the problem here (with the possible exception of the woman not wanting her photo taken, which we can't really assume confidently). Avruchtalk 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, taking and publishing a photo of a private person or persons is a privacy violation, and illegal in many countries (see e.g.: de:Recht am eigenen Bild). This is not a case of some people incidentally in the way while photographing the landscape - the two people are clearly the subject of the images. I'd be very wary of using them without an explicit release from the people pictured. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the German Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. That German law applies to Germans, not to Israelis, or Americans. Germany is also one of the few countries that has such a law. --David Shankbone 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    please dont bite the newbies. if sure it was just amistake. Smith Jones (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a beautiful photo in a wonderful setting, why can't we take Zenwhat's suggestion and be done with it?--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Smith Jones, Stephan Schulz has been a member of the English Wikipedia since October of 2003. He is not making any sort of "newbie" mistake and no one is "biting" any newbie here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I'm fairly bite-resistant. Back to the topic at hand. I'm not a specialist in various laws, but our article on model release indicates that even in the US there are privacy concerns with publishing (not taking) a picture of somebody without his or her explicit agreement. And the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a right to privacy in much of Europe. Whether any of this applies to this case is an open question. But it is obvious to me that this is a reasonable position to take. I don't think we should use explicit pictures of non-public figures without their agreement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reasonable question, and here is an article in USA Today that will likely answer every basic question you can have about US photography law relevant to the Wikipedia project. Israel's freedom of panorama laws are more liberal than the United States; it includes public artwork! --David Shankbone 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest that folks wishing to offer an opinion on the merits of the photo dispute do so at Talk:Orthodox Judaism#Recent photo. My purpose in posting here was only to address disruptive behavior. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Over there, there aren't good arguments to remove it, so if you've got one ,go for it. Here, we need to resolve the actions of a bad editor. What are the options? ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user?

    Please read Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Wait_a_moment this section. Is this a photo of a banned user? Lawrence § t/e 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, I'm half blind and apparently due to upgrade my eyeglass prescription again. Old age is a terrible thing. Lawrence § t/e 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-motion edit warring on Wikipedia:Search engine test

    On January 12th, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard made a substantial, undiscussed change to Wikipedia:Search engine test. diff The primary source for these changes was a self-published website he wrote. I partially reverted the change at 21:40, 12 January 2008. He reverted the change with only the log comment "Have the correct information again" - which he would use on every subsequent revert without any further explanation. diff (From here on, the versions of the page are essentially the same; see the edit history for more detail.)

    I reverted at 02:30, 14 January 2008 with the comment (rv - To talk.) and initiated a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Search_engine_test#Jonathan_de_Boyne_Pollard.27s_revision. Several other editors have replied in agreement that the changes need to be discussed; Pollard has read these, but has not responded on the essay talk page. He has responded only on his talk page (and rather tersely and dismissively). There have not been three reverts in a 24 period, so this is not eligible under WP:3RR, but clearly the same principles apply. Several users including myself and others have asked for discussion on this, and have been totally ignored.

    Here is the remainder of the applicable revision history:

    • 12:53, 5 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 12:22, 4 February 2008 TimidGuy (Undid revision 189004026 by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) Please see Talk page)
    • 11:11, 4 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 18:59, 2 February 2008 JohnInDC (rv per Talk consensus - please comment there before restoring self-published link again)
    • 13:15, 2 February 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 09:28, 30 January 2008 Torc2 (Talk | contribs) (rv - no consensus for change.)
    • 20:38, 22 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 08:51, 21 January 2008 Torc2 (rv again - I have asked on the user's talk page to discuss this before changing it again.)
    • 03:30, 21 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard ((Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 21:47, 18 January 2008 Torc2 ((rv - You going to discuss this on the talk page, or just keep linking to your own website again?)
    • 13:03, 18 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information, and the links to the scholarship, again.)
    • 19:16, 14 January 2008 Torc2 ((rv - This change does not represent consensus. I have asked for discussion before it is added.)
    • 11:13, 14 January 2008 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (Have the correct information again.)

    Torc2 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, it's a very good well-informed essay of his, but it can't be used as a RS. Could be an external link. DGG (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno. It jumps from evidence saying Google results can be faulty to 'search engines counts are totally useless and you should never use them ever' a little too easily. I don't know if it would qualify under WP:EL or WP:COI restrictions either. Links directly to the studies he cited seem like they would be acceptable. Torc2 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected. I note also that a good deal of it does not concern use of G counts in WP , but in other contexts. You're right that it's not the best of links. DGG (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.140.52.41

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has revieved multiple warnings about the deliberate introduction of false infomation but continues to do so. [59] [60] [61] Three edits made after the final warning. --neonwhite user page talk 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV? D.M.N. (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no certaintity that this is vandalism. --neonwhite user page talk 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:VAND: "change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Pure and simple, and seems resolved to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's vandalism, and appears to match the pattern of the banned sockpuppeteer AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs), though it could be unrelated. I've already blocked the IP for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps violating copyright and image use policy

    Resolved
     – blocked after further problem editing

    User:Alex 8194 keeps violating copyright and image use policy even though I've warned him several times. He insist on claiming that images like Image:Lay-z Homer.jpg are his to release rights to (and they blatantly are not). I personally have removed a fair use image (the same one, over and over again, just in different image formats and names) from his userpage *six* times, and another editor has removed it once as well. Regardless, this user insists on putting the image on his userpage. I strongly recommend blocking this user to stop this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • User keeps going on and on. He's now claimed that Image:Familyguy2006 Peter Griffin.jpg and Image:Lois.jpg are free licensed, and has used them to replace properly licensed and rationaled images on the articles related to those images (Peter Griffin and Lois Griffin). He's also now removing warning templates without fixing the problems they represent [62]. This user needs to be blocked, immediately please. Trying to keep up with him is a pain. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Final warning left on talk page. A block will be next. Black Kite 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then block. He just uploaded another image claiming he had rights and he most blatantly does not. [63]. He's already had a final warning before this. --21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That upload and my warning were pretty much simultaneous, so let us AGF. He has removed your warning, so I'll assume he's read it and hopefully digested it. Black Kite 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Blocked for 31 hours; the user made an "apology" by uploading another copyright violation. — Coren (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah well, it was worth a try. Black Kite 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New user, all AFD noms?

    First contributions are AFD'ing Online skill-based game and Online reality games. Anything related been deleted recently or any overtly upset users in this area of the wiki? This seems a little iffy..--Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • His talk button above is still a redlink. Have you tried talking to him/her before bringing a brand new user here? Thanks Hu12, I saw your welcome message and question.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Have you notified said user of this thread? You're probably right in your suspicions, however....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of IPs have tried to PROD one of those articles a number of times and had it removed with a message to go to AfD, so it could be that one has now registered in order to do that. Black Kite 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... such as Special:Contributions/64.231.195.228 . The situation is a bit wierd, and I think I diagree with the AFDer, but they legitimately appear to be trying to follow procedure so WP:AGF (and an oppose on the AFD) for me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When did we get this usersummary template? That thing is frightening. Googling usernames...? Lawrence § t/e 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    11 October 2007, apparently. The "What links to user talk" link is a little odd, as I can't see anything there that contribs filtered for talk or usertalk (where sigs would include links to the talk page) would provide. I'm also concerned that it takes up more than one line - but that's the OCD talking. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it..Its used on project spam--Hu12 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user replied[64] EdJohnston has invited him/her here--Hu12 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this ok these days?

    Resolved
     – Deleted as vandalism

    User talk: 207.144.146.145 Tvoz |talk 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope - hence the 72 hour block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the tirade. [65] No need for it to stay. Blanking warning may be considered okay, but that ain't. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I deleted the page too - it will be easy enough to recreate but why bother with having a history they can revert to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the block, just got the tirade on my watchlist. Tvoz |talk 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the talk page (Less and I are discussing this on our respective talk pages - if somebody else wants to selectively delete the offending edit, I'm fine with that, although I don't see it as necessary) and semi'd the page for the same 72 hours as the I.P. is blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for block review

    I normally wouldn't do this, but I'm here to request a review of a block I made on User:Durzatwink. According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Durzatwink, he is a likely sock of User:Nku pyrodragon. He's spent most of his time alternately playing games with User:Styrofoam1994 (also blocked by me for incivility and violating 3RR, also requesting unblock) and attacking Styrofoam. He requested that his block be reviewed. I do suspect he's a good hand account, after all the bad hands have been blocked. You may view discussion at User talk:Durzatwink#February 2008. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink? Conclusion was the opposite of what you've just said. -- Kendrick7talk 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Durzatwink, sorry, got the link wrong. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. nvm! -- Kendrick7talk 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve been following this case and it seems to me that both blocks are well justified. —Travistalk 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong with this block and I believe that it was perfectly justified. — Wenli (reply here) 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lee King Daughter

    Resolved
     – blocked for 3RR--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee King Daughter (talk · contribs) is an spa who is edit warring on Crown Prince Euimin‎ and Bangja, Crown Princess Euimin of Korea, repeatedly adding unreferenced claims to the articles. The editor has been repeatedly warned of edit warring and addition of unsourced claims, but she removes the warnings from her Talk page, continues to edit war, and doesn't use the article Talk pages to explain why she feels she doesn't have to follow Wikipedia rules. Corvus cornixtalk 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ‎ How do I do a 3RR report? The process is far too complicated. Corvus cornixtalk 04:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... 3RR's go two ways. Even if you believe YOUR version to be the right one (and EVERYONE believes their personal version to be right) it is inappropriate to play revert-tennis with the user in question. If his version is the wrong version, then leave it visible. Don't revert it. Instead, seek outside input, even if it means leaving the wrong version visible... There are many means by which to get uninvolved editors to comment... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have no problems with the racist comments she's leaving in her edit summaries as well as in the edits to the articles? Corvus cornixtalk 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. Your right on that one. Upon looking closer, a 3RR block was clearly warrented, and so I did so... Carry on... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A final note - This seems to meet the BLP exceptions for 3RR - although the subject of the article is dead, the subject of the edits is apparently not. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I noticed. Corvis is clearly in the right here. This was a total one-sided deal... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to everybody, I appreciate the second opinions. Corvus cornixtalk 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Burger Baron

    Resolved
     – indef blocked while legal threat stands

    Ronnotel (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    This user made a cease and desist threat here, about this edit here. I have contacted the user at their talk page, and replied with this message, making a further legal threat. At the time of writing, neither have been withdrawn. Not much more I can say really.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 02:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    YaraE has been blocked by Ronnotel until they retract the legal threat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "Unless you are able to produce a legal trademark " even mean? —Random832 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just a lurker, but it occurs to me that WP:DOLT might apply. I mean, the person might have a legitimate issue... Dgcopter (talk)

    Block of Gp75motorsports

    A month ago, Gp75motorsports was placed under a topic ban by the community limiting him to editing only articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages. Relevant discussion on the ban can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request_input_on_topic_ban. Since the ban was put in place, he has been blocked 3 times for violating the scope of the ban (see block log). Once by me for 24 hours, once by Daniel for 31 hours, and then today by me for 2 weeks. During the block by Daniel, Daniel agreed to lift the block to give a second chance if Gp75motorsports agreed that his next offense would wind up with a 2 week block at the bare minimum. He assented to this and you can see the notation in the block log as such.

    I blocked him today for his edit to Image talk:Nuvola apps kteatime.png. I have laid out why his edit there was inappropriate at User_talk:Gp75motorsports#Blocked_for_two_weeks. For anyone who cannot see the former content of the page (i.e. non-admins) it was him writing the word "Cute" and signing it. No productive relevance to the image. And something that was clearly outside the scope of his ban. After I blocked him, he posted with an edit summary that I feel to be a personal attack, see this, where he calls me a "commie admin" with "nothing better to do".

    After all this, Keilana reduced the block to 48 hours. After some discussion amongst ourselves, we have brought it here for community input. Metros (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said at his talkpage - I think that GP has made some significant progress. He has a coach (Riana) and has made some good edits to articles since she has begun working with him. His transgression consisted of a single edit to an image talkpage. It wasn't constructive, and it does violate his ban - but I don't think a prior agreement of 2 weeks for the next violation is binding if its clear that the transgression was utterly minor. Metros made the point that we don't want to allow minor transgressions while he's making progress (for fear that he might believe the restrictions are being weakened, I assume). I think a 48 hour block, or even a very stern warning, would be sufficient to this task. Avruchtalk 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the 48 hour block. Yes, he violated the ban, but to block for 2 weeks for this utterly minor violation is draconian even given the agreement. Let the 48 hour block stay. —Kurykh 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that even 48 hrs is overreaction here... The objective of the topic ban shouldn't be to actually restrict him to ZERO article / talk / user talk page space edits eventually - it's to get him to be a contributor who's balanced appropriately in total contributions, and not someone focused on community / social stuff only. He's never been disruptive in the project as a whole, and being this strict in interpreting it given that he's never abused anyone or the project is abusive admin behavior. We have sockpuppets who have been massively trolling longtime users, real vandalism problems, and you focus this much attention and inflexibility on him for that small an edit? Jeez. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I find this totally inappropriate too, and I almost always agree with Metros. I didn't realise we were being such hardasses about this ban. It's just a very minor, completely inoffensive comment on a talkpage. 48 hours, for something that doesn't hurt anyone. His previous behaviour did piss off a lot of people. This is just... y'know... silliness. I'm really concerned and hope that Metros lifts this block by himself. Gp's doing alright with coaching and he's on the right track, and things like this will just send him back off into previous silliness. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, in the last 10 days, I'm counting 9 non-vandalism patrol edits in the mainspace. I know real life can intervene, but thats out of 148 total edits in the last 10 days. Even minor work (copyedit, spelling, wikifying) would tend to indicate a desire to work on articles, as opposed to the "social" aspects of the encyclopedia. Not saying a 2 week block is the best solution, but maybe extending the namespace ban to also preclude vandalism patrol/reverting would be in order. In that vein, Riana, I'm just wondering if this is a traditional admin coaching relationship (with a goal of RfA), or if its like an adoption, or a mentoring? MBisanz talk 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we, with a straight face, suggest that banning someone from vandalism patrol and reversion, is in any way a good thing? I understand the point of the topic ban, but as soon as said ban begins to hurt the encyclopedia, then it is, and should be, invalid. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No goal of an RfA. Just trying to keep him on track. Within reasonable bounds, of course... ~ Riana ⁂ 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, if it was an RfA goal, my comment would've obviously been self-contradictory. MBisanz talk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going neutral on this one. Sure it's a very minor edit, no real harm. However, he was fully aware that he was on topic ban, and he violated it for no real reason. Definitely leave the block shortened. Justin(c)(u) 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. It's like telling a little kid to keep his eyes closed and slapping him in the face when he takes a peek. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to agree with Riana here. Yes, Gp75 is on topic ban... but this seems overly heavy handed. Giving him an only warning first may have been more appropriate. krimpet✽ 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An "only warning"? Isn't the actual ban and the 2 blocks prior to this one a fairly sufficient warning? Metros (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He absolutely should not have made the edit. Period. Also, at some point, this community's patience will be exhausted and it's important that he know that. I think 2 weeks is too strong, but I absolutely advocate at least 48 hours. At what point will he get the message if we don't send a strong statement? Obviously, he hasn't gotten it yet. - Philippe | Talk 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The message being sent at the moment is that WP admins are dicks. The escalation here, whether it was stated beforehand or not, was inappropriate. He isn't causing problems. If you want to assert that the topic ban should be that strict, I'll be happy to propose that we drop the topic ban entirely and limit him to normal anti-disruption rules and mentoring for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We want him to get the right message, not a message. The right message is that he needs to contribute to the articlespace constructively and stay away from treating Wikipedia like a social event. The wrong message (and yet still a message) to send is that we want him gone, gone, gone. Avruchtalk 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Avruch. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. I think the message being sent is "we meant what we told you." Nobody's saying that he can't be a productive contributor, we're just saying he needs to be monitored - for exactly this time of reason. He's showing a lack of maturity and is - yet again - a disruption to the encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Philippe, I would completely agree with you, had he done something actually disruptive. His sketchy efforts at RCP - I would agree. His silliness in userspace - I would agree. But this is such a minor edit. I'm just having a hard time understanding why anyone would find this disruptive in the least. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're treating him worse than we treat actual vandals. That's grossly disproportionate. It borders on abuse of administrator powers - he does not vandalize articles or bother people. Yes, we are not a social networking site, and users who show up here and primarily do that need to be properly handled and not allowed to turn us into WikiMySpace. But this sequence of events leads me to conclude that the topic ban needs to be reversed, because the community is not capable of enforcing it in a reasonable manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Philippe, if admins tell him that his next questionable edit will mean a two week block, and he makes one full well knowing that, he should get a two week block. An admin's conditions to an account that's already been blocked a couple of times should be upheld. If the user is sorry, he'll have another chance in two weeks to show that he's interested in contributing on a regular basis. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wikistalking

    Dance With The Devil (talk · contribs) has been stalking me across a number of pages violating numerous wikipolicies and making veiled threats. This account seems like an WP:SPA.

    - [66], [67], [68]

    The violation of Libel policy on HFB is very egregious. The fact that users like him are wishing to slander this org (in spite of policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:WTA) is disconcerting.Bakaman 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned Bakasuprman for making uncivil edit summaries and various minor threats, beyond what he brought here to ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Under common law, one can defame only living persons, not organizations. Please avoid making baseless legal threats. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.245.194.183

    Keeps adding credits for an non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s".--Hailey 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

    User:Carlstar3 Single purpose account, edits going against consensus

    User:Carlstar3 is a single purpose account (edit history here), exclusively editing Sanjay Gupta. In particular repeatedly attempting to remove a particular piece of sourced information: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

    it's getting old having to monitor the page for this one thing. Carlstar3 is the only one submitting this edit, whereas several editors including myself, User:Andyvphil, and User:Orderinchaos have been reverting his deletions. See here, here, here, here for attempts to express that his edits did not have consensus support or to educate him on wikipedia policies and guidelines such as consensus, NOR, & civility. Several of his responses in those sections are uncivil. He recently expressed here his intention to continue submitting his edit despite the fact that nobody else supports it. Ripe (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a content dispute. Have you attempted to get the opinion of uninvolved editors by means such as requests for comment or requests for third opinion before coming here to ask for admin action against this user? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Requests for third opinion is pretty much not an option, since there are three people reverting the contributions of one editor. requests for comment might be appropriate, but for the article, or for the user? Horologium (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the article. Right now, I don't see consensus has been established in either direction on this one. If one party is clearly acting incorrectly, an article RFC will clearly show that, and establish which "version" of the article is right... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block-evading IP trolling David Shankbone

    Resolved
     – The user has been blocked. — Wenli (reply here) 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done An editor who's been blocked on several IPs evaded the block again to post this at my user talk. Please intervene with the tools. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. ViridaeTalk 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Constant harassment from Banned User Paul Barresi's Sock Puppet

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for continued harassement--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sincerely request that IP: 71.110.255.19 be banned for at least 1 year. This user signs many vulgar and abusive statements with the name "Paul Barresi". He also vandalizes pages (my talk page very much included) and he makes threats! If you study the spelling and usage of this IP with that of banned: Paul Barresi you will see he is indeed the same user. Per his own talk page, he attempted to vandalize my page today! I also request semi-protection on my talk page from future abuse! THANK YOU. This is my second DESPERATE request for help / protection! Fuzzyred (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no desperation needed here. The IP hasn't posted since the 4th and is currently blocked. GlassCobra 05:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked the IP for one week. If they return to harass after the 1-week block expires, notify me or leave a message here at ANI, and the block will be escalated to a longer block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I don't see the need to protect your talk page. Only one IP address has abused it, and it is currently blocked. If this becomes spread across many IPs, let us know and we can try other measures, but this appears to be a confined incident, and the block should do the trick. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the 3rd time in less than 1-month this IP has been blocked! Every time the user is free to edit again, he abuses me and/or Durova and has vandalized articles "Tom Cruise Unauthorized bio" and "Paul Barresi". I think it ridiculous he only gets blocked for 1 week! He has used vulgarity, threats and abusive comments. He also attempted to vandalize my page on Feb 5th, most recently, not Feb 4th. And, Paul Barresi has a history of threating Wikipedia! This IP signs often the name "Paul Barresi" and his word choice, typos, spelling, semantics and usage are the same! Barresi is banned for about 6 more weeks - I can only imagine the abuse Wikipedia will experience in mid-March should this situation continue to be taken lightly! I believe it was Durova who blocked Paul Barresi in the 1st place. Fuzzyred (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, if it starts again, a longer block will be issued. We have no idea if this guys ISP shuffles his IP address once a week, once a month, or more or less often. A 1-year block, as you propose, could produce too much collateral damage, and it would be equally ineffective at stopping him should his IP change. Again, the first harrassing edit he makes, let me or other admins know by posting on my talk page or here, and he will be blocked for longer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times does it have to start up again before more serious action is taken??? His ISP is AOL and they rarely ever change IP addresses. He can be e-mailed at: (redacted) - If Durova was an administrator immediate action would be taken. I also do not feel it fair that I should have to put up with more vulgarity and abuse ever again!

    Fuzzyred (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Or you could NOT ask for him to be blocked again, and get all pissy instead. We will work with you, and do what we see as prudent and appropriate to control the situation. You can trust the admins to handle this. Making demands and acting indignant at those who are trying to help you is not a wise course of action to take. If in one week, he makes one more edit to your talk page, I will personally block him again. He's blocked now, if he returns, he will be blocked again for a longer time. Case closed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I removed the e-mail address from Fuzzyred's 16:45 comment. It is not appropriate to post another person's e-mail address for any reason. Horologium (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Homosexuality is a cult"

    Some folks keep putting "homosexuality" on List of cults without a reliable source.

    Boodlesthecat and Benjiboi have been reverting this. Boodles even put in an RFC, which is hil-a-rious. [71]

    Why on earth should there be an RFC on blatant homophobic vandalism? Do me a favor: Be a good admin, Per WP:POLICY, please semi-protect the page, and block the next person who restores "homosexuality" to the list. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection would be both inadequate (since it seems usernames are doing the addition) and unneeded (since it seems like a small number of usernames). A block for repeatedly re-adding the homophobic crap may be in order, but I don't see where any protection does much good without uneccesarily restricting good edits to the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that sort of addition, unsourced, count as vandalism? Lawrence § t/e 06:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if the persons making them believes this nonsense. Vandalism is solely edits made with the intention of harming wikipedia. Not sure what AGF means in this case though, either they are vandals or they have a severe homophobia problem. Taemyr (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFPP wasn't just with regard to homosexuality. Look at the page history. The article is heavy vandalized, period. Brahmanism (spelled as "Branhamism") was listed. [72] Sunni Islam and Shia Islam was also added a while back. [73] And, of course, there's random vandals that come along every now and then and add blatant nonsense. Do you want me to list those diffs too? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, pardon me. It appears Branhamism is something different from Brahmanism. My mistake there. Still, the article is a mess and you do have vandals coming along a lot. You have Missionaries of Charity listed there as a cult, with Christopher Hitchens as a source, rofl. And you have Wikipedia listed as a cult, with an opinion piece on the Guardian as a source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the sort of thing that honestly should need more than one random source for any entry there. I can probably find a perfect, WP:RS compliant page, article, or book calling anything a cult to add there. Did you know that Zenwhat is a cult?[74]. Lawrence § t/e 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sprotected, obviously. El_C 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh noes, we've been found out - I'll meet people down the homosexual clubhouse later and we can work out a strategy of suppression. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked an IP address for 3 months, and a user for 2 days, for edit-warring here. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility, Talk page violations, harassment, despite warnings, sock puppeteering, User:Griot

    User:Griot is repeatedly inserting inappropriate content on my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.87.47.110&action=history, despite warnings. User has deleted my comments from article talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader%27s_presidential_campaigns&diff=189055562&oldid=188984445. User continues to revert content on Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, despite warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=189080131&oldid=189078953. Sock puppeteering, evidenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MiFeinberg&action=history and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:MiFeinberg. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I make no comment to the charges of talk-page violations or of harassment, however I see no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. Useing two separate accounts is expressly ALLOWED, except where the use of both accounts is an attempt to disrupt or to evade a prior block. I also don't see much evidence that these are the same person at all. They don't appear to edit in the same sorts of articles for the most part... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    POV Pushing, revert warring

    User:Unknown Unknowns keeps making what appears to be a vanity edit to Saving Private Ryan http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saving_Private_Ryan&curid=28269&diff=189484266&oldid=189385718 I'm not sure of his insistance in adding this re-enactor group's name to the film article but it APPEARS to be little more then an attempt to gain publicity for this particular group. At least 3 different editors (including myself) have removed it (Dudesleeper and Spartanphalanaz8588 are the other 2) but he's reverted the edits and accused us of vandalism. I've attempted to engage him in discussion via the article's talk page and he responded by accusing me of being a shill for Touchstone. He also suggested I bring the matter here so I'm doing so. My reasoning for removing the material is spelled out on the article talk page. I'll refrain from removing his edit at this time as I don't want to edit war nor violate the 3r Rule. Thanks.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a content dispute. Personally, I don't have a problem including a mention of a notable group such as Second Battle Group, but the external link is unnecessary. Either way, this is not an issue that requires admin tools to resolve, just more discussion (and if that fails, Dispute Resolution). If 3RR is breached, please report that to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. — Satori Son 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:100%freehuman request for unblock

    Resolved
     – User has been unblocked. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    I have recently received a message on my user talk page from an IP identifying herself as "Kate", the name of the above user, requesting unblocking. I had previously offered to adopt this user. I acknowledge that there are individuals who have reservations about allowing this editor to return, but I would be interested in knowing if there would be any objections to unblocking and adopting this individual. I also request that the protection of the editor's talk page be lifted, so the individual can communicate with the rest of us there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend that the user talk be unprotected first, so the user can discuss the terms of adoption, probation, what would be expected, what will get them into trouble again, etc. Once that is decided and agreed upon, an unblock would be in order, at your discretion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm. According to my viewing of the blocklog, 100%freehuman has been unblocked for about 10 hours. Am I missing something? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have unprotected the talk page, since the user is unblocked. -- lucasbfr talk 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User page vandalism

    User:Ngchen and User:User1688 recently had their pages vandalized by the same registered user. Readin (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave the vandal a 2nd level warning, and it doesn't look like he/she has done anything else yet. If they keep it up, report it to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jmccain

    Probably a reference to John McCain. His first edit is to send Keating Five (McCain is personally involved) to AfD. Given that McCain is a US 2008 president contestant I asked this account to be considered to be blocked. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

    1. ^ P. 23 Outlines of universal history: in three parts; with a copious index to each part, showing the correct mode of pronouncing every name mentioned ... by Joseph J Reed
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=189574504"