Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

Indef. block for NorbertArthur

In early October, NorbertArthur (talk · contribs) was blocked by Alex Bakharev for personal attacks (after coming off a one-month block by Mets501 for this comment). I unblocked him later that month because he assured me that he would not make any more. Since then, Arthur has made comments such as, pizdaFATHERFUCKER Named: KHOIKHOI whithout testicles now he becamed a fucked admin after liking everybody's ass wants to intruce his shit of russians policies here. my words: FUCK RUSSIA AND UK, TO FUCKED COUNTRIES THAT SUCK OUR DICK. Fuck your mother all here. Bogdangiusca had to warn him to stop, or else he would get "get banned and this time for good". About a week later, Arthur made the following comment in an edit summary: i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I unblocked him last month, he promised me here that I can re-block him if he makes other personal attacks...but how many more blocks should he be given? I say, one more, and hereby propose that NorbertArthur be blocked indefinitely. Comments welcome. Khoikhoi 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but repeated posts like that, after multiple warnings and blocks, certainly seems to warrant an indef block. This one either doesn't understand our framework, or is simply uninterested in working within it. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an indef block in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

After the last offense I reblocked him for 6 months. If this is an age problem; let us see in 6 months whether he grows up. Only this time without parole. `'mikkanarxi 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's unlikely to grow up at 23 years old. Two years older than me. Grandmasterka 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Standard 24 hour blocks, one for each set of personal attacks from now onwards should be more than sufficient to get the message across (unless there is an actual problem, e.g. vandalism). Also, if you do permanently block him, don't forget to delete his userpage; it contains personal information.--Euthymios 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, I think a one-month block is more than enough of a message, and I consider personal attacks to be an "actual" problem. Besides the fact that Khoikhoi was the one who unblocked him. Grandmasterka 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Play nice or play elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks like that aren't even subtle; he even promised he could be banned for such behavior. Khoi, you say one more attack gets ban, I say negative one more attacks gets a ban. This kind of personal attack is not OK, and clearly a 24 hour block does nothing. Give him 6 months or indef. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see the point in any more chances, and aside from the personal attacks, his editing itself has always been problematic at best; a permanent block seems the only reasonable action at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely block now. And caution User:Euthymios that inappropriate comments like that will lead to a block of his own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Khoikhoi, he never bothered using English to curse me out. Believe it or not, he's said even nastier things in Romanian than the example cited here. Concur with indefinite block. - Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I would like to add my comment: NorbertArthur has for sure been asking for it, and he has been repeatedly engaging in inexcusable behaviour - the worst part of it was in Romanian. I was the target of such an outburst after I had asked him (for a second time) to write family name first in category brackets for articles on people (where he kept intervening). Judging by other users' talk pages, I see that he has done most of his trolling in Romanian.

Let me add that there is not a single piece of writing which could be cited as valuable from this user. In fact, all he has done was to create forks, use personal guesses to replace data, and create a problem in many articles by confusing and confounding Romanian people who live abroad with Romanian-born citizens of other countries and with Romanian ethnics who have lived their entire lives in foreign countries. Refusing to pay attention to guidelines, he has also uploaded copyrighted material - knowing full well that it was not public domain (this IMO, equates vandalism). As far as wikipedia is concerned, he is merely a habitual troll. Dahn 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just looking through the edit summaries of his 30 or so contribs this month I find

1. Joffrey Lupul is Romanian at 100%, you stupid!
2. MOLDOVAN NATION DOESN'T EXIST STUPIDS!!
3. i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And more, he's already evading his block: [1] Khoikhoi 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:

1. what a fuck is your problem mtf KHOIKHOI TO REVERT MY EDITS????? SUCK MY DICK
2. YOU JUST SUCK MY DICK MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!

Ba da ba ba ba... Khoikhoi 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just feel the love? I think he's got a crush on you : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think than and indef block would be in order though... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I can definately feel the love, see his latest comment:

I came here and I say the following things: you are all a gang of hipocritic racists against the Romanian nation. I tried now for almost an year to do something, but with people like you there's no way back to recuperate. I'm not sorry at all for what i wrote and I'll be never! This wikipedia is for me just a shithole on Internet and I will tell you why, because its based on lyings and on point of view from other people (ex. Mikkalai, Khoikhoi). I not a accusing you user DC76 at all and I respect you of what you did. I know me too to use a polite language for people that I respect and for people that I don't respect like 95% of the wikipedia i usa that language. The respect is deserved. And for my future I will continue to edit wikipedia for one purpose: to destroy it. Nobody here knows that beyond my username NorbertArthur I'm the "owner" of an another 15 usernames that I edit on and no one of you will can fin out that 'cause its very good hidden. I'm not sorry for what I'm doing and you don't have the right to judge me ok? I proposed not one, not ten but hundred ideas, I think even more then 70 sources that where prooving what I was sustaining, you ignored all. to arrive a common point but I realized that you people are too low-minded to understand and that there's no purpose anymore to help just to destroy. The stupid admins like Khoikhoi they juste see the things against me, they don't see what me I endured from all you others by insulting my country and my people. But, there's always a way of neutral point. If everybody here will try at least to be one time in their life to be sincere and to listen to the other and not being racists, I promise and personally engage to stop all this and colaborate in good aim. But that will not happen I'm sure. I think I said all I had to say and explain.
Arthur 24 November 2006

I think this is more than enough evidence for an indef. block. Khoikhoi 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A guy evading block with proxies and confessing to have socks? Indef and checkuser please. <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They're not proxies, he just has a dynamic IP. BTW, I just blocked one of his socks a few minutes ago, although it wasn't active. Khoikhoi 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I would like to point out that User:NorbertArthur's remarks coppied above were in response to my post here. User:Khoikhoi has pointed to me this response of his above, and here is our discussion.

I do not know NorbertArthur, because I am relatively new on Wikipedia. But I noticed his first rude remark he made a couple days ago in the subject line of the article Romanians, resulting in that article being blocked. Prior to the incident I also edited a little that article; there was a dispute, some people agreed to come to some middle solution, but several others continued their prefered warring, and everything we suggested was immediately reverted. For example, me and Khoikhoi supported diferent POV, but somehow we were able to talk and find common ground. If it were just we two, this article would have been long settled. I guess the simple fact that some users supporting differnt POV try to talk to each other is perceived by some as "treason", and even in majority by number, we are being dismissed. Despite the fact that there are 10+ editors in that article, the edit war was basically between three users: NorbertArthur against tow others. The propositions from both sides were going to the extreme from edit to edit until NorbertArthur perhaps did not resist, and started his famous now remarks. You know the rest of the story. Just as the extreme edits by the three users before, NorbertArthur's remarks after the block increased exponencially in rudeness from response to response. In an interval of less than 3 day to go to such lengths, wow! I agree with Doc Tropics's comment above, he had a very-very passionate crash. :-)

I don't know wikipedia policies well, I am new here, so I don't "recommend" anything to the person who'll be taking the decision. You know better.:Dc76 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to object to the idea of a ban, I've extended it to indefinite. Khoikhoi 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should throw in a checkuser as well... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 Legal threats

Having recently come back from a 10 day block for "violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA." and for recuting "...meatpuppet editors off-site", User:Will314159 has now issued not-so-thinly-veiled legal threats against User:Isarig here, here, and here. Armon 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Isarig had been blocked on 13 Nov for "Personal attacks on Juan Cole" -all the threats have been after that, 14 November 2006, 21 November 2006, and 22 November, respectively) Armon 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Will didnt make legal threat. All what he did was warning isarig not to WP:LIBEL. I think Isarig should be blocked instead because he libelled Juan cole here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Cole&diff=87446122&oldid=87402322 Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's opinion is unlikely to be enforceable as libel in the US -especially as he would be able to point to published charges of antisemitism/antisemitic comments made by others against Cole. This does not mean that Will, as a lawyer, could not make life difficult for him via a frivolous lawsuit. Isarig has been blocked for violating NPA, however, that was apparently not enough for Will, and his legal threats amount to harassment of his "opponent". Will should be blocked, ideally permanently, as he's shown no acceptance of WP's mission, culture, or processes -or any progress towards it. Note the accusation below that I am Isarig's sock or "meatpuppet" because I find his behavior unacceptable. << armon >> 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should avoid libel whether or not it is technically actionable - armon's claim that a libel claim may not be enforceable in one particular country is hardly a reason for Wikipedia to endorse libelous statements. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that opinions can be actionable as libel -- the case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. held that opinions can be libelous insofar as such opinions "may often imply an assertion of objective fact." (In this particular case, the "opinion" certainly does imply such an assertion and would be actionable if someone chose to pursue it). I find armon's insistence that Will be blocked permanently to be distasteful, as he appears to be trying to use Wikipedia policy to remove an ideological opponent. Will's statements that Isarig should avoid libel do not appear to me to be threats or personal attacks. csloat 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

csloat accuses me of using policy to silence my ideological opponent. I have no problem with "ideological opponents", I do however, object to the non-stop page disruptions since May 06 which both csloat and Will have engaged in. csloat is rightly worried that Will being banned will further isolate himself on Juan Cole, because without him, csloat will be the only intransigent party, regardless of "ideology". Further to the charge, if I really wanted my "ideological opponents silenced", I would do better to "go after" those who present a real challenge, not those who troll and produce low-quality, POV edits which have no real chance of remaining. << armon >> 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any page disruptions that I have been engaged in since May 06 (or any other time). I've been a very constructive Wikipedia editor for a couple years now. Will's participation is not my concern, but I do object to demands for permanent blocks against users who may be misguided but who clearly want to improve wikipedia. csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That he wants to improve WP is problematic in itself. His improvements entail scrapping NPOV. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• My computer has been out for a while because of a worm. I have previously warned Isaig of a gross violation of civility and libel. I have had no respone from him or others on this matter other than this preemptive action from Isarig's sockpuppet. there are some other complaints I need to make against other persons for gross incivility. if this is the proper place to make it then here goes. It is the grosses violation, and entirely uncalled for. Because it is in the edit line, it's permanent and can't be erased. It's for keeps. He's constantly noticing people and wikilawyering. i think Armon is his meatsockpuppet.

WP:CIV for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.

• • (cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here) Unless somebody else has already done it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some claims are so laughable they need no response, but i got suspended for another laughable claim for which i never had an opportunity to respond. So I better respond to this one. I deny I made a legal threat to Isarig. I advised him that he had subjected the Wikipedia foundation to libel with his namecalling and he needed to stop it. And I also said that if others didn't report him that I would. I put it on my talk page because he has a habit of deleting warnings on his talk page. I put it on the Cole talk page to get feedback to see if somebody had already noticed it because I had no feedback from Isarig about it and I didn't know how to notice it. And I will tell Professor Cole about this because he is a friend of mine and it's funnier than hell that Isarig would get so vulgar. Here is somebody that is wikilawering and turning people in all the time for the slighted imagined rule violations and going aroung libeling people in the grossest way. He can't be allowed to get away with this. Maybe he's already been punished for it, I don't know. Please advise. I have had no feedback. And as for Armon, to each his own. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment about how you would "inform" Cole about the matter together with the other comments seems like a legal threat. Please stop. JoshuaZ 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Will asserts that he is a lawyer- see here, therefore the phrase: I will advise Professor Cole if the Wikipedia community fails to discipline you. suggests a more credible legal threat than simply telling on him. << armon >> 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I suggest a block. << armon >> 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Will may be a lawyer, but it is a stretch to claim that "advise" is being used in such a legal sense in that sentence. It is doubtful that Will is Cole's lawyer and it is unlikely that Cole would accept Will's counsel under the circumstances. But I believe the problem here is not Will -- if Wikipedia is sued because of a statement that Isarig published, it is Isarig and not Will who is at fault, whether or not Will is the lawyer who initiates such a lawsuit. csloat 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If was pretty obvious what was being implied. How else would a person (Juan Cole) who has no professional or personal contacts with another person (Isarig) do anything to negatively affect the second person other than through a legal matter. I really don't see how Will can deny what was clearly being insinuated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "advised" is very common and is often used in non-legal settings. As a university professor, for example, I often "advise" students. In another example, I often "advise" friends (or seek "advice" from same) on personal matters. I believe this may help clear it up. I have no way of knowing whether it was Will's intent to use the term in a particular way, but I assure you that it is even possible for lawyers to use the term "advise" in a non-technical sense. Will may have simply meant that he intended to send Dr. Cole an email. That doesn't necessarily excuse the action, but it does make it a lot less sinister than is being implied here. I would add, again, that the legal problem, if there is one, lies with the party posting illegal content, and not the party who takes action (or who informs someone) of said content. After all, we don't need a legal adviser to expose something that has already been posted to a public website.csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then Will's threats were utterly unnecessary other than for trolling and/or harassment. As for the "ultimate meaning" of "advise" or "inform", we might as well argue about what the meaning of "is" is, rather than putting it in the context of Will's posting of WP talk page debates on Cole's blog to solicit POV warriors, his "ends justify the means" approach to editing here, and his complete lack of regard for any policy other than WP:IAR. His "deniablity" is far too implausible. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been contacted to step in, as the blocking admin, but I am home with my family for Thanksgiving, and will have no time to step into this dispute today. I am sorry. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

These are clearly legal threats, regardless of the apologetics, and should not be tolerated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As such, I have blocked the user for 45 days, considereing that legal threats are a fairly dramatic step up in poor user behavior and will not be tolerated. As always, I appreciate admin review of my block, and will abide by any changes the community suggests. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newby and there's a lot I don't understand. But I don't think legal threats have been made. In my neck of the woods one might "advise" someone of something, and you'd only be telling them it happened. You'd not be suggesting they sue, nor would you be "advising" them of how to go about sueing someone.

What is much, much more worrying is that Isarig is apparently free to post "(Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here)" [2]. This would be a deeply unpleasant slur even if it was genuine - and to accuse supporters of Israel of potential "dual loyalty" is not (on the face of it) jew-baiting.

I trust Isarig doesn't mind others referencing the fact that particular people are Jewish - oh, look, he takes considerable objection [3] "what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?Isarig 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)".

PalestineRemembered 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about any prior history with this user, but in this particular case it looks like an overly aggressive response to the patently inappropriate comment by User:Isarig. With regard to this incident specifically, a 45 day block seems excessive. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx; this is over the top. Particularly when you consider that proportionally, Isarig was apparently blocked for only 1 day for the inappropriate content itself. So the message is that it may be bad to post libelous comments in edit summaries, but it is 45 times worse to "threaten" to advise someone about inappropriate things being said about them on a public web page. Had the editor simply informed Cole rather than "threatening" to inform Cole, we would consider his actions common courtesy rather than legally threatening. csloat 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

His prior history was taken into account. << armon >> 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

His request to be unblocked has been denied. He is now circumventing the block by not logging in. << armon >> 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no legal threat was made. 'advise" is not the same with "sue". Unblock request was denied, but it was denied by a probably non-neutral editor. Will requested another admin to review. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :Quote from will ...I am very serious about this. What credibillity is there to WikiP when a call for more neutral editors is called sockpuppetry? When an admonishment to Isarig and an effort to protect the inegrity of WP from libel is treated as threating a lawsuit? When advise is stretched to mean "sue?" When Humus can threaten a muslim with involluntary servitutde at the service of Israellis? Come on James Wales wake up. Where are you? Where are the officers of the foundation? How can you let this stuff go on unchecked? Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UT...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination) needs input from unbiased non-SPAs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 19:56Z

Anonymous AOL user adding spam links

An anonymous user from AOL is constantly adding spam links and bogus information to numerous articles related to ghosts and the supernatural. So far, I've seen the one and the same link added to Ghost, but from these IPs:

• 172.143.166.70 (talk · contribs) - Edit with link added
• 172.201.12.187 (talk · contribs) - Another edit with the same link added
• 172.142.57.188 (talk · contribs) - And a third edit with the same link added to the article

When adding this link, this spammer immediately follows up with another edit elsewhere in this article. I don't know why, but it seems like an attempt cover up his tracks, so to speak, since a simple check on the difference between current and last edit won't show the link added. By now, I think it's about time that an administrator had a look at this matter, since this spammer really doesn't seem to get it when warned by other editors. /M.O (u) (t) 14:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another IP used by this spammer:

• 172.188.162.120 (talk · contribs) - Another edit, same link added

/M.O (u) (t) 14:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• 81.145.241.154 (talk · contribs) - Spammer has returned to once again spam Halloween with the same link he always adds. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Other instances of same link added:

• 172.143.166.70 (talk · contribs) - commercial link
• 172.201.12.187 (talk · contribs) same link

Comment - Perhaps a range block would be a suitable solution here? I have feeling that we haven't seen this spammer/vandal for the last time, although the site (ghosttracker.50webs.com) is now blacklisted and can't be linked to from Wikipedia articles. He seems intent on damaging the articles in question, when he can no longer link to his site. Abusive spammers like this one has no business on Wikipedia, thus a range block might be the most pertinent action in order to prevent further damage? /M.O (u) (t) 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

These are AOL IPs and the problem I've always seen is that there is so much collateral damage... but I'm going to go ahead and block these specific IPs for anon access only, 48 hours, account creation allowed. (note WinHunter already blocked 81.145.241.154) as always, comments welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edit

By WhiteEagleSerbianPride (talk · contribs) wich is a suspected sockpupped of PANONIAN (talk · contribs). --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Related-seeming troubling threat here from anon IP 212.200.175.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [4] to Vince Dina 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked WhiteEagleSerbianPride indefinitely - only one edit, and it's a death threat. I'll leave someone more experienced to deal with any sockpuppet issues. --Tango 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP address for 24 hours. I can't see any point warning people not to give death threats... --Tango 16:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Particularly threats as ominous as that one...Dina 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That is upsetting, but someone should run CheckUser on User:PANONIAN, he speaks Serbian and that is the country from which the death threats supposedly were voted on. Cbrown1023 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a CheckUser request pending. Newyorkbrad 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser has come back an "unrelated". The accounts that made the death threats are blocked, so I guess this matter is now closed. --Tango 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan

I have blocked Seabhcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for another of his increasingly disruptive personal attacks.[5]. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. I would appreciate review and feedback. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Would have blocked for longer than 3 hours. An admin should know better. An admin who finds himself editing numerous contentious articles with numerous contentious editors ought to set an example, or back away until he can. Thatcher131 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys really need to find a sense of humour somewhere. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, I take exception at your one-sided warnings and blocks. Your conduct today is fit to produce as many Seigenthaler incidents as possible. The accusations raised by Morton Devonshire were substantial, bordering on the legally relevant, and unsubstantiated in any way. Your protecting them is tantamount to promoting them. --OliverH 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The only thing I remember saying to you is to not make personal attacks. Is there something else? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

Some anti-Hindu propaganda links by mischievous non-Hindus were included in the article Hinduism. The same were removed and strong support of all editors recd. These links found it's place on talk page which is nothing but subversive way of forcing viewers to view these idiotic links. Abecedare is trying to have it in subversive way by citing vague Wikipedia policy. Admins knowledgable of Hinduism must intervene to remove these links from talk page and cite proper policy. swadhyayee 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mischievous non-Hindus" ? El_C 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a word with swadhyayee regarding his mis-worded complaint above. He's new and a bit confused, but he's a good guy and makes a valid claim. Some anons have been editing tendentiously there [6].Hkelkar 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HKelkar, I was and am short of words to express the nefarious activities of some anonymous editor and Abecedare's striving to support the nefarious activities. I have not grieved against the link you provided. I have objections against inclusion of some external links suggesting that Hinduism has it's roots in christainity or like things. While, I said non-Hindu editors, I meant the mischievous elements of other religion who try to downplay Hinduism and promote one's religion. No sane policy can support such nefarious activities. I fail to understand when everyone involved with Hinduism find it appropriate to remove the un-realiable links, why someone should be interested to have the same on talk pages? My earnest appeal to all here is help in preventing nefarious activities in the name of Wikipedia policy. swadhyayee 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:srkris

• contributions) has unreasonably left vandalism messages on my usertalk page even after there was agreement on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnatic_music to delete such content. Further, he has suggested that I am a puppet of User:A4ay on the same page for A4ay's agreement with me, and so reverted back to his old changes on the Carnatic music page. In this process, I believe I have been defamed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LIBEL . Ncmvocalist 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist (above) is removing content from Carnatic music without holding any discussions and against repeated requests. He has in the past blanked out Carnatic music related pages like this and this, and got warned by other editors. He has also removed pictures and content from Carnatic music a number of times as per his own admission - [7], [8], [9] and reverted the page very often - [10], [11], [12].

He seems to have violated the Wikipedia:3RR between 24th and 26th November on Carnatic music article. I cautioned him about it, and placed the Template:Test1a on his page. User:A4ay does similar acts on the same page (removing images etc), who might be a sock puppet of User:Ncmvocalist. User:Ncmvocalist responds to me by placing a template warning on my page and saying that I defamed him. He says above that there was an agreement on Talk:Carnatic music to delete content from the article, which is false and absurd. And now, this report on Admin Noticeboard seems to be funny, if nothin else, since it should have been I who should have sought admin help against him. Since he and User:A4ay have been doing extensive edit warring and destructive edits violating Wikipedia:3RR, hope they are warned suitably to participate in a constructive manner. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to Assume good faith in Srkris, however, his constant disrespect seems to signal that he is not at all innocent. I hope he is warned to not only participate in a constructive, NEUTRAL manner, but about his overt disrespect towards other Wikipedians (evidenced above from the humour he finds in something obviously quite serious, as well as when he rolls on the floor laughing ("ROFTL") and "Haha" in [music discussion page].) His attitude needs to change.

Srkris' version of the facts are somewhat distorted compared to what actually happened - it seems he is not innocent. There is no absurdity or falseness. There was indeed agreement in deleting images of Modern artists in the article Carnatic music, as is evidenced in [music talk] - it was agreed that the images would be deleted until the issue was resolved - the issue of WP:NPOV with why some modern artists pictures were on the article rather than others, and whether such images are appropriate in an article that does NOT focus on modern artists). Instead of signalling his disagreement, or respecting the wishes of another WP:Wikipedian to let this issue be resolved by discussion before reverting, he chose to revert AGAIN [[13]] to the version with images in question, and ONLY after this, does he bother placing warnings on my page and the Carnatic music page concerning WP:3RR. He then puts a warning regarding vandalism too. He then has the audacity to claim I am dictating views on others, when he seems to be guilty of the same.

His latest reply in Talk:Carnatic music is further evidence. He misleadingly states that all I do is "undo other's painstaking work" - this is both disrespectful, unreasonable and defamatory. He suggests I haven't tried writing an article on Wikipedia from scratch before, and also explicitly states that the only reason the reverts have continued was because I think "The article doesnt need images other than what I upload" - which is untrue, regarding the latest edits and reverts, as can be seen in [of reverts]. His defamation didn't stop after the first warning, nor did his assumption of bad faith, after my first warnings. His failure to assume good faith in dealing with other editors is a serious issue.

He seems to have violated WP:NPA on several occasions, notably and openly when requesting intervention WP:PAIN against another member. He has blatantly insulted their behaviour, when he needs to have a look at his own from a neutral point of view.

I hope the administration will warn him about his behaviour so that it will improve in due course, without interfering with his and others contributions to Wikipedia.

Ncmvocalist 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please use dispute resolution. Also, this is difficult to follow. My advice: only wikify each specific item once and aim at a concise account. El_C 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

srkris is a constructive editor, and placing bogus warnings on talk pages is meaningless.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bakasuprman, both for your faith in me and your support. I hope Ncmvocalist has more constructive work to do. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The defwarn templates are ridiculous. They look ugly on Kris' page. I request an admin to remove it. Sarvagnya 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The label is quite appropriate. Ncmvocalist 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Sarvagna also for the support and faith in my actions. Yes, I dont want to remove the warning messages myself, I request an admin to do it, and ask User:Ncmvocalist to start behaving. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet, the hypocrisy continues.... Ncmvocalist 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

64.107.1.251, etc.

• 64.107.1.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.220.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.1.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.220.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.99.1.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.99.3.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User uses same grammar/mistakes in comments on history page of Hollywoodland for their duplicate changes, replies to posts directed at one IP as if they are that IP (64.107.1.251 answering my response to a post made by 64.107.220.170 in the Hollywoodland discussion page --see subsection "Hollywoodland"--) and makes threats/insults to others who disagree with them: "also I suggest you keep your hands off good links," and "you support each other, like cops and donuts [14]," etc.Gnrlotto 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a little help-help?Gnrlotto 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?Gnrlotto 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Have you tried requesting page protection at WP:RPP? Danny Lilithborne 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or report him/them (I dunno) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism--SUIT 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "I suggest you keep your hands off good links" the strongest threat that has been made? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, actually this is a long term problem. A very long term problem. The full history is here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person, and also, more controversially, here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward. ([15]). Both of these pages were deleted by Jimbo himself as part of a negotiation with this person. What his part of the deal was I do not know, but if it involved leaving us alone, he's broken his part. We may wish to get Jimbo himself to weigh in on this. I believe that several people were on the verge of opening an ArbCom case against this person because of his persistent abusive behavior and POV-warring, in addition to his general inability to get along with any other editor in any manner at all.

I put the first of those links on my scratchpad in my user space so you can see it; I'll take it down if asked. Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This particular user also left notes on my user talk page like "learn what movies are" along with posting: "==Enough== Of Deleting good links, this time you have no explanation, this deals with the movie, not actor,I AM WARNING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU WILL NO LONGER STAY ON WIKI IF THIS CONTINUES, i am on my public IP this time." Not only do I consider this a personal attack, I consider it a threat, even though it's probably not an actionable one on the part of the user who posted this. Rray 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor offtopic comment, can the page on GRP be deleted? I highly doubt it'll be recreated by the subject if it was deleted by Jimbo during talks with him and SW hasn't be recreated yet. A suggestion... 68.39.174.238 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the dispute over the Hollywoodland article, I tried reasononing with the anonymous user (who did jump around on various IPs), I tried explaining the policies, and I tried explaining that reverts are not meant as personal attacks. They seem a bit paranoid, and they don't seem to place much value on civility. They are very defensive of their edits, and I think their conduct is unbecoming of a good faith editor. Verkhovensky 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply, verkovesky was told what to do, then when one of the people left a note on his page i am a troll i lost my cool, i did not mean to, and yea, i understand these things sounds mean, but again, when will one nice administrator look into suggestions,i am sick of being accused for all these months of being vandal, i may be uncivil at times (but mostly i am not), BUT I CAN NOT TAKE THIS ATTACK AND ATTACK AND SO ON. I simply try to improve few links on wiki and you call me troll, shame on you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.166 (talk • contribs) .

Not typing in all caps would be a great first step in achieving a more collaborative spirit with the other members of the community. Rray 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of us have tried to reason with this editor. God knows we've tried. I for one am weary of it. We've tried to explain civility, NPOV, calmness, no personal attacks ... he has responded with extended campaigns of vandalism, revert wars, "I WIN I GET MY WAY,YOU ADMINS ALL VANDALS," other similar comma-spliced invective, torrents of e-mail to Jimbo (which is why the pages are deleted), --and yet he keeps coming back. Again, again, and again. This time I noticed that many people were colliding with him but none seemed to notice that they were not alone, and that there was a long story here. He seems to have valuable knowledge on a lot of topics, but a complete inability to work with other people in any kind of collaborative enterprise. It seems to me utterly hopeless.

I undeleted the last revision of his long term abuse page on my scratchpad, so you can all see the whole history. If anyone has any suggestions on how to deal with this, I'd love to hear them. Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks by User:PMA

In the course of looking through Category:Requests for unblock, I've seen two instances within two weeks of what I think were rather blatantly inappropriate blocks by admin PMA (talk · contribs). Today, he blocked Elsmlie (talk · contribs) for 36 hours for "POV edits, article degradation", based on a total of five edits by Elsmie made since 20 November, all evidently made in good faith, with which PMA happened to disagree. Not only is this an abuse of blocking policy by penalising editing in a good-faith and entirely undisruptive minor content dispute, but in addition it's also a blatant case of using admin weapons against an opponent in a dispute the admin is involved in. For all I can see, no other editors were involved in the dispute at all; there was no prior warning or even discussion, nothing.

Given these rather extraordinary circumstances, I've unblocked without further consultation with PMA (but notified him, of course). I invite further review of the case by other admins. I must say that, looking into PMA's prior admin log, I can see a couple more cases of what seem at first sight to be rather questionable blocks, so I'm considering whether an admin RfC would be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming there's nothing more to it than those edits, I endorse unblocking. I can't see any justification for the block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Like User:Jtdirl i feel i have been penalised by a small band for fighting POV warriors and cranks. I have been here for many years and experience has given me perhaps a "second sight" for potential problems. I admit my judgement is not always perfect - having an autistic disorder like Asperger's does that - Adam Carr acknowledged this some months ago when he and I were fighting POV warriors at Cuba-related articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 - but i should not be persecuted for trying to do the right thing - in addition it seems that i am being wiki-watched by Future Perfect at Sunrise which i do not like and feel is unjustified.

PMA 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't watching you, I was routinely patrolling the requests-for-unblock category. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it's unwise for an admin to block a POV warrior that they've been actively fighting. It's better to report them and let someone else block them. --Tango 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, it wasn't even a POV warrior to begin with. PMA had changed something in the article, and the other guy had reverted it - once. And I can't see how this person should be related to a "small band of fighting POV warriors" either - he seemed to have no previous history of clashes with him PMA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What is up with these questionable blocks (of leftists?) on the part of PMA? El_C 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PMA, this isn't about penalising or persecuting you for trying to do the right thing. It's about your use of the block tool in a way that seems manifestly inappropriate. I've noticed before that when you're challenged about admin actions, you cite your service time, however, I feel that service time should give you a greater understanding of policy and community expectations for blocks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Acting on the belief that Police one another is a necessary collolary of Defend one another, I have opened an RFC against PMA here. Thatcher131 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been voluntarily de-sysopped. Issue closed. Thatcher131 12:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For those who may be interested, there is a related thread in the archives here. Grandmasterka 09:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioning Occam's Razor a threat?

Admin User:MONGO just threatened to block User:SalvNaut indefinitely for playfully suggesting that User:Tbeatty misuse use of the logical principle Occam's razor may "cut something important."[16] Mongo left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm" and that he will block SalvNaut indefinitely." [17]. Can someone have a word with Mongo about this? He either doesn't understand what Occam's Rasor is or he has seriously lost perspective. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin Seabhcan was blocked for making a personal attack on an editor just yesterday[18]..so his perspective regarding personal attacks is somewhat askew is seems. Your perception that SalvNaut was being "playful" is a matter of perspective. Tbeatty said that Occum's Razor applies and SalvNaut's full comment about Occam's Razor was [19] " Be careful with razors, you can cut something important." which I see as an implied hope of physical harm. In addition to that, SalvNaut also had to cross out a comment where he called Tbeatty a liar as shown in that diff.--MONGO 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, your own block record isn't a pretty sight either, so I'm surprised you raised that issue. Comments which are "a matter of perspective" are not crimes worthy of an indefinite. I suggest you are using your admin powers to bully SalvNaut. You have been in a content dispute with him for quite a while. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the wrongful block for 3RR which was retracted? Or the block for 15 minutes by now departed Kelly Martin which she even admitted was a poor thing for her to do. I now see you have also decided to call my efforts to keep people from posting comments that suggest bodily harm as "idiotic"...just more food for the record I guess. Perhaps the threat of an infe block is a bit much, but we routinely do block those who make a death threat and I prefer to go firm rather than be passive agressive...I'll rephrase it.--MONGO 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Word of advice, Mongo: fallacies work better as attacks than as a defense. (I see a Many Questions and an Ad Hominem here for starters.) — NRen2k5 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That comment about being careful with razors is a pun, a play on words. We indefinitely block people for puns these days? --Tango 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The "pun" is a matter of perspective...that talk page is always heated, so it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another...also, the threat wasn't about Occams Razor as the heading of this shows, itr was about the comment made by SalvNaut...that is the issue. If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument.--MONGO 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, watch it with the fallacious arguments. Ad hominem "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument." — NRen2k5 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think he was suggesting any kind of violence with that comment? It's a pun. There's no matter of perspective, it's just a simple pun. --Tango 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no threat in the edit at all. Occam's Razor is the well-known philosophical/scientific principle to prefer the most simple explanation consistent with the facts. I see the suggestion that it might "cut something important" is a witty way to warn against miss-application, not a threat with bodily harm. Occam's Razor cuts crap, not meat. Also, may I suggest that all involved keep WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and in particular WP:COOL in mind? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The article talkpage is always heated, so comments where one is incivil suggesting that they are even indirectly suggesting physical harm are at the very leats incivil. SlavNaut also struck out his previous comment to Tbeatty where he had called him a liar. Why don't both or either of you watchlist the talkpage for a few days and as neutral parties, ensure civility is maintained.--MONGO 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I think you should admit that you are an active participant in that talk page discussion and at least partly responsible for some of that `heat'. It is improper to threaten your admin powers to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, your alteration to this new username you are using is an obvious pun on Osama bin laden. It borders on a WP:POINT violation.--MONGO 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mongo, it isn't. `al' means `the' and `bin' means `son of'. Its actually a tip of the hat to Ibin Battuta, who I'm read and enjoying at the moment. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument" - don't WP:BITE people commenting on the case. As for SalvNaut and saying "it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another" - that sounds like a monumental failure to Assume Good Faith. Most worrying is that you are very far from being a dispassionate observer of the SalvNaut-Tbeaty conversation. You are deeply involved in a long running content dispute against SalvNaut and for Tbeatty. It looks like you are threatening your admin powers in order to win that arguement. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean as in cited here...[20] whrre you protected a page and then edited it?--MONGO 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what other people do, and besides, protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SeabHcan shouldn't throw stones, is the point. "protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously"....I'll remember that line when you decide to become an admin...it is not a friviolous block if someone is being repeatedly incivil...as clearly demonstrated...first calling the guy a liar, which he struck out and then in the same edit, added the comment about the razor, which had nothing to do with the argument.--MONGO 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you do know that Occam's Razer isn't an actual razor blade, right? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, User:Seabhcan's previous record is irrelevant for this dispute. He is just the messenger. As I see it from the history, User:SalvNaut made a point in the discussion and called the opposing view by User:Tbeatty "lies". This was arguably incivil, and Tbeatty called him on it (and made a counter-point, invoking Occam's Razor). SalvNaut then struck out the "lie" part and replaced it with a more neutral phrase. He also took up the Occam's Razor term and warned against blind application. I see no reason for your warning at all. --Stephan Schulz 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Mongo has again threatened SalvNaut with a block [21] but seems to have changed his mind about the 'indefinite' part. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Mongo has now warned User:Tango [22] ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if Occum's razor were a real razor (and it's clearly not), I cannot possibly comprehend how that statement could be perceived as a threat. I'm sure you've been told at some point in your life not to run with scissors because you might cut yourself. Is that a threat??? No! -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter of perspective. The perspective is that that talk page is full of heated comments, so under the cuff commentary between two editors in constant dispute that alludes to anything suggesting physical harm is something to take note of. As shown, the previous comment was stuck out.--MONGO 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone else with this perspective? Should you really be threatening to block a user you are having a content dispute with in such a debatable case? Wouldn't a polite warning or request for clarification be enough?... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then again, this is an issue of civility in which an editor has alluded to personal harm. I may very well be the ONLY one who sees it that way. Thanks for the clarification and of course, no block has been issued or will be, at least, not by me.--MONGO 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So you won't be blocking this user? Perhaps you will remove your threat to do so from the users talk page? An apology might also be propper.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

wow. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A silly and somewhat inappropriate pun -- agree that it's something that SalvNaut should remember can be interpreted the wrong way, particularly on the talk pages of contentious topics. But MONGO, the indefinite block warning was a little over the top, don't you think? -- Samir धर्म 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry MONGO, I'm just not seeing it. Occam's Razor comes up an awful lot in philosophical discussions and the most common admonitions to someone using it are "watch out, it cuts both ways" and "don't cut something important". It's certainly not a threat of physical harm at all; it's merely an intellectual play on words, with Occam's razor being imagined as a literal razor that is snipping through overly-complex ideas. It's not a "matter of perspective"; you're simply trying to twist the meaning of an innocuous statement to turn it into an actionable threat. I would suggest that, in the future, you don't threaten to use admin actions against people you're involved in content disputes with; if you're so involved you cannot accurately interpret what they're saying, you certainly shouldn't be blocking them for it. Please call in a third-party observer next time. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people "conspiracy theorists", another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and threatened to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. --CBD 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioning Occam's Razor a threat? (cont.)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Moved_from_ANI as suggestion by Tom. Travb (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Serial WP:POINT violations on my talk page

I'm involved in a content dispute with vintagekits (talk · contribs) (see discussion at [23]) which has spilled over onto my talk page. I gave them a polite warning for canvassing [24] due to this edit. Now they have added an entirely spurious canvassing warning to my own talk page (actual edit they're referring to is a {{prodwarning}} template) and are edit-warring to keep it there [25]. This also happened yesterday when I put a civil0 and civil1 tag on their page after these uncivil edits [26] [27] — they placed the exact same tags on my own talk page and edit-warred to keep them there[28].

This is starting to come close to harrassment, so can an administrator have a quick word and tell them to knock it off? Thanks! Demiurge 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually would like you to knock it off, you are never off my talk page, you are just bitter because people dont agree with you on every issue Vintagekits 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is total bull, you come on my talk page accusing me of things that you have been doing also. A case of the pot calling the kettle black imo Vintagekits 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Him doing bad things doesn't mean you're allowed to. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are say but the guy follows me around on every page I edit and make all sorts of accusations when infact the verse is true. I would be more than happy to stay off his talk page as long as them same is done for me. That editor seems to be winding up editors daily, its just my turn today! Vintagekits 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, you're right. I encourage any admins, before taking actions, to carefully review both talk pages' edit histories. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. I in no way meant to indicate that he did anything largely objectionable. Nobody did, and I don't see why this needs administrator attention. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Amarkov Vintagekits 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to review my edits to User_talk:Vintagekits. The civility warnings I added (in good faith, I might add) were blanked; I reverted them back once then decided not to revert again after they were blanked again. I then asked Vintagekits to stop breaking WP:POINT on my own talk page. Demiurge 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this, and then looked a little bit more. It appears to be a case of malicious nit-picking on all sides. Recommend sending both editors to bed wihout dinner, and no dessert for a week. Doc Tropics 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm hungry - anyway I am off line for a bit now so hope it is sorted out soon Vintagekits 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• So exactly what nits have I picked? Are you disputing that the edits [29] [30] were uncivil and thus didn't warrant the civility warning I gave? Are you saying that [31][32][33] are not canvassing? Are you saying that the prodwarning tag is inappropriate canvassing? I have to say, as a good faith user I'm pretty disappointed with the reponse I'm getting from the admins on this. Demiurge 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm not actually an admin, I'm just trying to suggest (with a bit of gentle humor) that the best way to handle this situation would be to step back and take a breather. So far, no one has committed a violation worth issuing a block; the best way to avoid escalating the situation would be to edit elsewhere for a while before returning to contentious areas; consider it a kind or "working wikibreak". Doc Tropics 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't even want anyone to be blocked! What I actually requested (see above) was for someone independent in a position of authority to have a quiet word with Vintagekits and tell him to quit it with the WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL violations. I've tried resolving this with him on my own by leaving messages on his talk page (first step recommended by Wikipedia:Resolving disputes); you can see above how well that turned out. Demiurge 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'someone in authority' on the site (other than ArbCom and the Foundation staff I suppose, but they are not used for this kinda thing). Everyone is equal - some just have extra mopping up abilities. As Doc Tropics says, the pair of you should just take a step back and calm down (try and think about this as if it were real-life. Would you continue to argue until it ended up as a punchout and then being arrested? Or would you break it up and walk away?). Looking at both talk pages I see both users being uncivil to one another - the only thing that will come from persuing this is blocks on both parties, as far as I can see.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the guy needs to chill out, he seems to think that all his edits are to be taken as law. I will take a week out before even looking at any of his articles. p.s. thank you for the advice Vintagekits 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what would you suggest as the appropriate response to someone who is blatantly uncivil to you, then edit wars to remove your civility warning tag from their talk page while simultaneously edit warring to put the exact same tag on your own talk page? I can't go to WP:PAIN, because they require a npa3 tag which if I put it on his talk page will trigger another edit war. I don't believe I have been uncivil myself (certainly nothing on the scale of [34] or [35]), can you be more specific? (In response to your analogy, I'd call over the bouncer and tell him "hey, that guy over there is being rude to me, could you tell him to give it a rest please?" which is exactly what I'm doing here.) Demiurge 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say that Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in - you need to check your attitude and how you deal with and handle other editors - it in no wonder you attract so more trouble and vandals! is uncivil to the same level as you state there. I would also point out that removal of warnings on a users talk page is not against policy but can be seen as indication of problems. Also, an edit war requires 2 parties or more to be a war - which indicates that you also edit warred.

As you say above, you should have put an npa3 warning on the page and seen where it went from there - if he removed it, so be it - that in itself is not a 'crime'. If he continued with incivility you could then have taken in to WP:PAIN.

So, as far as I can see - the situation spiralled out of control due to both parties taking things personally - take some time apart, don't interact and the problem will fade as far as I can see.

Also, my analogy above doesn't mention anywhere with bouncers... The arrests would be the equivelant of being blocked. We don't have bouncers here as I said.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"'Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in..." is not my comment, it's another example of incivility by Vintagekits. See [36]. Also note that Vintagekits continued incivility above at [37]. I'll stay away from his talk page and keep the npa3->WP:PAIN advice in mind if there are more problems, although I was more worried about him edit-warring to add it to my talk page than remiving it from his own talk. Demiurge 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, D give it a rest for a bit - let back off each other. My last word on it for a bit Vintagekits 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, indeed it wasn't, my apologies. Ok, I will adjust my advice then - Vintagekits, stop being uncivil and adding warnings, incorrectly, to Demiurge's talk page - it will get you blocked if it continues. Although, I will stick to the 'avoid each other' advice though, as I have seen it solve many a problem on the site as it gives editors time to calm down and do something else.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I was looking for. Demiurge 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Hazzard

Please see edits to Johnny Hazzard: [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42], as well as [43], Talk:Johnny Hazzard and User talk:Chidom#Warning threats. User:Wjhonson insists on reinserting an unreferenced claim regarding this pornography actor's real name, even after the extensive quote on the topic I left on the article's talk page.—Chidom ^talk  19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the unsourced material, explained on the talkpage, and will continue to monitor. Doc Tropics 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the message gets through.—Chidom ^talk  06:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tannim

I have permanently blocked Tannim (talk · contribs). He has been blocked several times, and on November 10 blocked for one month for repeated edit warring and insertions of POV edits. I had no dealings with him up to the point where he repeatedly wrote anti-admin screeds to the unblock-en list. When I finally replied to him that his block seemed appropriate, he replied to me, As the administrators seem to be given favored status and are allowed to abuse editors and their rights even though Wikipedia is supposed to be a free editing source, I will do as I see fit.. For that reason, I have blocked him indefinitely, until such a time as he indicates his willingness to edit as per Wikipedia norms. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Also, his username is too close to that of User:Tannin's. Khoikhoi 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong hunch that Preform (talk · contribs · logs) is user Tannim and is editing again, immediately defying his block.--Zleitzen 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the repeated abuse of the unblock list by this user I support a permanent block for this user and any identified socks. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. His posts to unblock-en-l gave me a strong feeling that we won't be able to work with him, even if we want to. Luna Santin 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Miracleimpulse, Talk:American Greetings, and Sweetest Day

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) has previously been cautioned and blocked (by three different admins) for disruptive activity with regard to the U.S. greeting card industry, including POV edits to the Sweetest Day article (formerly the subject of a mediation) and more recently, allegations concerning the relationship, if any, between the two largest U.S. greeting card companies, Hallmark Cards and American Greetings. This user is operating as a single purpose account with regard to criticism of the greeting card industry and appears to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. He has continued to press this issue on Talk:American Greetings to the point I am concerned he may be defaming these companies. Could someone please take a look at this. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose account nothing, this looks like the makings of a community ban. He's obviously exhausted several editors patience (I remember going onto the commons to find a way to delete his idiotic Sweetest Day rant that he puts into the article, itself). He has done no constructive editting, and he is defaming the companies, claiming that they are one in the same and that they have a stake in Wikipedia's articles on them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a long chat with this user off-wiki about a month ago, but apparently, it did little to no good; his abusive, paranoid, and all-around disruptive behavior has not abated. --InShaneee 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is very interesting that these posts have been made here without any notification to me whatsoever. Once again, the Hallmark Cards and American Greetings articles remain completely unsourced. The Sweetest Day article uses extremely dubious advertising websites as sources. Miracleimpulse 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:American Greetings will reflect that I made several attempts to discuss these issues with the user before bring the matter to the noticeboard. Whether the articles (which I have not written a word of) are optimally sourced is irrelevant to the issue of whether unsupported allegations should repeatedly be made that one of these two companies is a subsidiary of the other or that they are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind, especially throwing around words such as "mafia" and "cartel." Newyorkbrad 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I personally am not particularly concerned with defamation of these companies (I'm not sure anything Miracleimpulse has said could reasonably be construed as defamation, it's all in the talkspace, and besides, Wikipedia has no culpability for what he says) but my own experience with Miracleimpulse has been that his edits are a fairly textbook case of Tendentious editing that several editors have spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with. A user RfC may be in order here.--Isotope23 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that fear the project would have legal liability is the reason this is a problem. It's inappropriate to make untrue or unsupported negative statements about a person or a company irrespective of that. In this instance, I'm not sure that a user RfC would be productive after the user has learned nothing from three progressively longer blocks, but Isotope23 has been dealing with this situation longer than I have. Newyorkbrad 02:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation (Nilfanion and I have encountered this user before on Wikimedia Commons), I think that a RfC would be useless, especially given the user's persistence. It's clear from the contribs that he is a single purpose account - he has almost no edits on articles unrelated to Sweetest Day, and has a history of accusing users of being part of a conspiracy and WP:POINT assertions. The extra incivility does not help, either. A community topic ban or a long-term block would probably be appropriate here. --Coredesat 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Something very highly deceptive is happening on these Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes on the Sweetest Day page. Information about the origins and the promotion of Sweetest Day is being managed and blocked by various editors. My edits are being construed as "idiotic paranoid rants" on this page, and yet these statements are not being seen as a personal attack. Amazingly POV. Yes, something is seriously wrong at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia management should take a very close look at what is happening here and on the pages in question. Miracleimpulse 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  No. They are just articles on two companies. The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo both have pages, but you don't seem to have any complaint about them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo both have pages which list their references. The Cola wars are also pretty well documented. No such competition between Hallmark Cards and American Greetings. Nope. More like Anti-competitive practices in the Greeting Card Industry. Give me a day or so and I will report back on exactly what that article in The New York Times says...unless of course someone out there already knows. Miracleimpulse 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know (I know nothing about the greeting card industry), but I just checked. According to the article, the Federal Trade Commission apparently complained that American Greetings and two other companies (not Hallmark) were engaged in price-fixing activities (nature not specified). Um, in 1952. Quick follow-up research indicates that this complaint resulted in on-again, off-again litigation between the FTC and American Greetings for several years (citations available). It's even conceivable that this dispute deserves a sentence or two in the American Greetings article, if someone looked up exactly what was alleged and the result of the litigation, although this would be appropriate only if the entire history of the company section were expanded so that this anicnet issue is not given undue weight. However, what this episode in the 1950's has to do with alleged conspiracy between American Greetings and Hallmark in 2006 remains beyond me. Newyorkbrad 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, something is definitely very wrong at Wikipedia. The level of sophisticated attack here is astounding. I have made no edits to any of the pages in question in weeks, and yet it is being suggested that I be banned from editing. I guess some subjects are just off limits on talk pages. Hmmm... Miracleimpulse 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that original research is not allowed, and to continually bring them up when there is no verifiable proof for such allegations irks many editors, no? And I find it equally astounding (not!) that you are hiding yourself from the fact that there is consensus against your current actions and instead scapegoating a nonexistent conspiracy/"cabal" among editors hellbent on persecuting you, allegations that are frivolous, if not outright absurd. Perhaps you should view your own edits and read some of our policies (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V come to mind) and start following them instead of complaining about nonexistent phenomena. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't feed the trolls, especially with delicious Valentine's Day candy from Hallmark stores. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't we usually have someone go through the motions on a RfC on these things? Georgewilliamherbert 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an article RfC (not a user conduct RfC) on the suggestion to merge the Hallmark and American Greetings articles on the now-abandoned suggestion that American Greetings was a "public subsidiary" of Hallmark. This was dropped when no one commented beyond the people already on the talk page. There hasn't been a user-conduct RfC though there have been three blocks. Newyorkbrad 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three blocks without a RFC isn't an issue; the discussion of a community ban, without a user conduct RFC, seems like missing a beat. I agree there's a problem, but can we dot the i and cross the t? Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a full-fledged community ban at this point. If the community sanctions proposal is in effect, this could be a perfect case for a narrowly tailored article or topic ban. As for RfC, I can imagine several purposes for holding these: (i) to gather facts as to a given user's conduct; (ii) to ascertain community sentiment as to the merits of the user's contributions; and/or (iii) to educate the user as to the fact that consensus is against him or her. Which of these, if any, would be served here? Newyorkbrad 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why I suggested that a RFC would be useless, because months of talk page discussions between him and other editors, as well as the contributions themselves, seem to shine a bright enough light on the problem. However, I didn't think about the possibility of a narrower topic ban when I commented earlier earlier, so perhaps that would be a better solution unless a RFC or ArbCom case were to be opened instead. --Coredesat 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a community ban would be majorly excessive at this point.--Isotope23 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The merits of my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves: Virtually every image published in the Sweetest Day article was supplied by me. Most have been blocked by editors who never edited the Sweetest Day page before I showed up to introduce the facts. Also, virtually every reference in the article which is not an advertising website was introduced by me. Gosh, I should be banned immediately. Miracleimpulse 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• We've been over the image galleries numerous times on the talk pages. Most of the images are of auxillary interest and should be collected in a Wikicommons gallery with a link in the article. The sources you've brought to light have been valuable and added an aspect to the article that was missing from it before. However, in my opinion this has been tempered by your editing style and your refusal to adhere to (or perhaps misunderstanding of) WP:NPOV & WP:NOR (and to a lesser extent WP:V in relation to claims made on talk pages) as well as your unfounded insistence there is some sort of cabal here working against you. Your usage of article talk pages to sometime go into tertiary topic conversations that have no bearing on the article doesn't help the situation.--Isotope23 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user editing

87.78.186.200 (talk · contribs) (otherwise known as Subversive element (talk · contribs), Tit for tat (talk · contribs), and Jan Jakea (talk · contribs) - all blocked indefinitely) is editing again. Could someone deal with this? Jakew 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You should probably briefly explain why you believe it's the same user. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Please take a look here. Near the end of that section, 87.78.186.200 (talk · contribs) states "From the contribs I made with the Subversive_element account..." Jakew 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Diff for above quote here. Jakew 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 1 month Alex Bakharev 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Obscene edit summaries

User:66.36.156.91: only 2 edits, but one with an obscene edit summary addressed to another user. Given the context, I believe I know who this is, and that it is a registerd user who has been threatened with a ban for this sort of thing before. I don't know the drill on this, but can we get a checkuser or something, in order to establish this? We really need to stop this, it's been creating a poisonous atmosphere on topics related to Romania and Moldova. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem dealt with by KhoiKhoi. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is not edalt by khoikhoi. It was swept inder the carpet. The real problem is that certain Romanian admins continue to communicate in wikipedia with banned users, thus reinforcing their desire to mess with other people. Until the feeding of pet trolls continues by Romanian wikipedians, especially by admins, these trolls will be getting an idea that they are valiantly struggling for their Romanian motherland against anti-Romanians. `'mikkanarxi 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my ignorance. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe mikka was referring to this and this (125.63.65.52 & 213.148.5.103 = Bonaparte). Khoikhoi 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mwai Kibaki personal and legal threats

I was looking for a legal threat I thought had been posted on the Talk:Mwai Kibaki page when I came across this other threat "Cherry WE HAVE OTHER MEANS OF DEALING WITH YOUR TYPES":[44] Here's the legal action threat.[45] Could someone look into this, it appears the first one is a sockpuppet (new word I've learned just for Wikipedia) of User:Patch77, or anon-IP used by Patch77, but my sock puppetry knowledge is nil--in other words, it's my guess.KP Botany 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous account is blocked for 48 hours for making legal threats. `'mikkanarxi 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit more concernd about the personal threat, though, and that user has not been blocked. I can't imagine a Wikipedia with a place for users who issue personal threats to each other. KP Botany 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered

As his name indicates, User:PalestineRemembered has joined Wikipedia for the purpose of advocating for a specific political position. This often becomes problematic in terms of the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV, and in particular because of the WP:BLP, as he often writes about Israeli leaders (e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu) or those he views as Zionists (e.g. Alan Dershowitz) solely for the purpose of vilifying them. While this would be problematic enough, he seems completely unable to understand the concept of original research, no matter how many times the concept is explained; some examples include [46], [47], and [48] He seems to have no compunction about replacing cited information from reliable sources with his own speculation and arguments, using dubious sources at best. In addition, his Talk: page comments are intemperate at best, and often highly uncivil; see, for example, [49], or the entire Talk:Flag of Israel page starting at Talk:Flag_of_Israel#Separation_of_Church_and_State. I am currently unaware of a single edit of his that has actually managed to stick in an article, though one or two might have slipped through, and most of his Talk: page comments consist of political rants. At this point I'm thinking a significant block of some sort would be in order, if only to give him time to read and understand WP:NOR and WP:BLP, though I despair that it will help. Any other suggestions? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his contributions, I'm hard pressed to find more than a couple that aren't dubious. He does appear to impervious to reason and policy, so an attention-getting block seems justified to me. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty justifiable to me. Hopefully now PR can understand how Wikipedia policy works, and he/she will be able to follow them. Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a one month time out. I was leaning toward 2-3 weeks, but the WP:CIVIL violations pushed him over the top. FeloniousMonk 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also support this. I've seen some bizarre edits that are pure OR, yet he doesn't seem to get it no matter how often it's explained. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's weird: I've seen some completely POV and OR comments from PR, but then I've seen some that are ridiculously the opposite and pro israel. I do agree, however, with Felonious Monk and SV that the majority of the edits are bizarre. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familliar with PR, but on a related note, am considering changing my username to Israel intro chnages remembered, alebit briefly. El_C 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few more problematic editors haunting Middle-East-related pages at the moment, such as User:Amoruso and User:Shamir1. PalestineRemembered has some good contributions, unlike them, so I would suggest dealing with the irremediable first and then coming back to the cases of doubt. Though I should add that most of my experience of them have been in the opposite situation to that cited here, i.e. Amoruso et al making ludicrously POV changes and PR disputing them. Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you offer examples of PR's good contributions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When a quick action was taken against PalestineRemembered, the slowness of action against Amoruso and Shamir who have same (or worse) behaviour is highly questionable. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP POINT (Schools and notability)

Trying to assume good faith but this editor seems to be engaged in WP:POINT. - Unless someone wants to suggest this school does not have some level of notability? --Charlesknight 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the speedy tags that have been placed are often "no reason given" I think this is indeed point making. Endorse a short block if the user will not listen to reason. All those speedies in his contrib history need undoing too I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's no pointmaking, that's blatant vandalism. Should still be blocked, though. - 131.211.210.17 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure problem

The editor who opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season(2) now wants to close it as Keep. S(he) has twice added '(VOID)' to the AfD header and removed the AfD notice from the article page. While the AfD has a couple of days to run, it does indeed look like a unanimous Keep. As I've reverted this user twice now, I think an uninvolved admin needs to look at this and decide if the AfD can be closed as a 'speedy' Keep. -- Donald Albury 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought/seen that nominators could withdraw their AFD nominations if they believed that the nom had been a mistake. This one seems sort of clumsy, but is there a problem with closing it? Georgewilliamherbert 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD closed as Keep. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My mop is barely damp, and I was uneasy about closing the AfD early myself as I had commented on the article talk page about what to do with the article. -- Donald Albury 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is SNOW 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, I disagree with the notion that a nominator can unilaterally close an xFD discussion, since there may be others who support the nomination. I have no opinion on this particular case. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Page disruption on Juan Cole by User:Commodore Sloat

Hi, I would like someone to look at the recent history of the page and note csloat's continual page disruptions. At the moment, it hasn't got to 3RR, but it's frustrating to deal with an editor who incorrectly thinks his veto trumps the consensus on what is, or isn't to be included, and engages in ad nauseum arguments on talk which will only result in incivility and further frustration. << armon >> 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ad nauseum comments on talk are how disagreements are supposed to get resolved. Csloat seems to be making a good faith effort to document the source and reasoning behind their input. At the moment, I see a lot of talking past each other on the talk page; it's a little disruptive on both sides, but there's nothing on first inspection that's a policy violation. This doesn't seem like it needs any ANI involvement. Try harder on the talk page in good faith, please. Georgewilliamherbert 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK well do think this is a good case for mediation? Seriously, the discussion has gone nowhere for months. << armon >> 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is never a bad idea, or maybe an article RfC. I don't disagree that it seems to be a long running nonproductive argument, but there being a long-running nonproductive argument doesn't equal a policy or abuse issue. These are what mediators and article RfCs and such are for. Neither side on first inspection has really abused anything, but figuring out how to perhaps come to an actual understanding with someone else's help might be worthwhile. Georgewilliamherbert 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation and/or RfC sounds great to me -- really, I would be happy about any way of bringing other voices into the discussion, which has become dominated by people with an agenda. I don't think it is productive for editors to continue making misleading statements about "disruption" to WP:ANI or throwing around false charges of vandalism. This is a content dispute, not a dispute about violations of Wikipedia rules, and it is not a good idea to pursue content disputes as if they were rules violations. It's also courteous to let someone know you are reporting them (or to warn them beforehand) -- I think the goal should be to encourage disruptive editors to edit more productively rather than to "discipline" them. In any case, it's clear that I have not been disruptive on the page, but I look forward to bringing more voices into the discussion; I certainly agree with Armon that it has become unproductive. csloat 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an opinion on what is and isn't notable, I do not have a nefarious "agenda". csloat (and Will, below) appear to have trouble making that distinction, or understanding that whatever your agenda happens to be, it's not appropriate to edit according to it. IMO if this was a simple content dispute, it should have be "fixable" via reasoned debate, and appeals to the evidence before now. Instead, csloat has engaged in continual edit-wars, attacks the motives of those who don't agree with him, and simply dismisses any attempt find common ground -all the while, demanding everyone else AGF. At some stage, it seems to me, that this needs to be addressed as page disruption. << armon >> 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever used the word "nefarious" or that I singled you out as the only editor with an agenda. There is no evidence of "disruption" in any of the comments you have cherry-picked out of those discussions. There is evidence only that I have tried to vigorously defend WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. You may see those rules different from me and that is where the content dispute arises. I am welcoming additional editors to the content dispute who don't have a "horse in the race" since I think both of us (and Will and Isarig and Elizmr) have pretty clear opinions on the issue. You are raising charges of "disruption" - which have now been rejected by an admin who looked at the page - in order to prevent one side from participating in the discussion. As I said, the Wikipedia rules are not there to be used as a hammer when you feel you can't support your arguments in a content dispute. Personally, I think it is disruptive to claim "vandalism" when there is none or to post charges to WP:ANI that are invalid on their face. Let's discontinue this nonsense and get back to discussing the article, shall we? csloat 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess i've gotten unblocked. Armon thinks the Cole page biography needs to be about Karsh smearng Cole with the protocols of Elders of Zion qote. this has been going on for about a year and a half. the page was protected at one time because of this. Even jimbo wales made an appearance. The matter was resolved by starting a separate page for V&C where the invidious Karsh Elders of Zion quote could reside. Now the V&C page has been done away with. And the Cole detractors want to make the "Protocols" live in spite of WP:BLP. Cole is not an ant-semite or new-anti-semite. However, he is a critic of a greater Israel or denial of the rights of the Palestinians. This puts him squarely in the gunsights of certain people. Juan Cole deserves a fair shake on Wikipedia and fighting for a fair page is not "disruptive." CSloat just happens to be of the Jewish faith. Moreover, he is a university professor. I don't know why he wastes his time reasoning with the seemingly unreasoning. More wikilawering to silence perceived ideological opponents. Sorry, I just have to tell it like I see it. It's called integrity. Will65.184.213.36 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shadowbot

Could we get an admin to look at the concerns over Shadowbot raised here and here? Given that it is seriously biting some users who are making good-faith edits, I kind of think we need it shut down temporarily. Heimstern Läufer 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly not behaving as it should. I've blocked it for now. Grandmasterka 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this ! --pgk 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Pgk. Thanks for your help, Grandmasterka. Heimstern Läufer 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good that shadowbot is blocked. It used to revert (major) rv of contributory editors and used to give spam notice. swadhyayee 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily shut down Shadowbot and removed any and all web sites that can cause problems from its spam blacklist, such as Livejournal and Geocities. Judging from Shadowbot's contributions, it appears that the problems encountered on Steve Irwin and other pages were caused by these rules. I plan to do an overhaul of the blacklist tonight to ensure that these problems will not happen again. I also think that Swadhyayee should note that Shadowbot has also been making good anti-spam efforts, along with the occasional bad revert.

Most of the problems that resulted in the block were caused, in part, by the bot supplying Shadowbot's edits. This bot is the one that maintains the initial blacklist, however, it is hosted by several users, and we often are forced to change hosts due to ISP problems, among other things. Due to the host switching, most of the bot clones are not kept in sync with each other, which means that I might remove livejournal from one bot, but the next one isn't aware of the deletion. I'm definitely going to fix this syncing problem before I even consider bringing Shadowbot up again. Shadow1 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No idea about the good edits of shadowbot but it created some problems by reverting rv yesterday. Was not wishing permanent block but just till things rectified. swadhyayee 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to unblock the IP address 203.144.160.248

Hi Guys

User 203.144.160.248 has recently been blocked. The user has only recently visited wiki site and learned that the user's name - "Pongsak Hoontrakul" appeared on the list of Economists. It The name was in red and was blocked as well. Please see the details below:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Winhunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Continuation of Centrx's block; AB Your IP address is 203.144.160.248. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siripen (talk • contribs) .

Single purpose accounts on Opus Dei

There are a number of single purpose user accounts that seem to have been created just for the purpose of promoting the religious group "Opus Dei". For example, User:Pradeshkava who seem quite well-versed in Wikipedia for someone who's got less than 100 edits. In the case of that user, for example, his contributions reveal that every single edit has been related to Opus Dei. I wouldn't be shocked to learn he's a sockpuppet, but given how many single purpose accounts, tendentious accounts there are promoting Opus Dei, I wouldn't really want to single out any one user to point the finger at being a puppetmaster for the purposes of checkuser.

Anyway, as of right now, Pradeshkava has been reported for 3RR violation, but that seems like it doesn't get at the heart of the matter-- which is to say, this user seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an agenda.

As an aside, there's a content dispute at Opus Dei and its related pages. There are a few experienced wikipedia editors on one side of the dispute, while a very dedicated group of OD members who edit only OD-related articles are on the other side. I'm doing an RFC now, if anyone wants to comment (or help) on dealing with this situation, it would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user Lightbringer evading block by using sockpuppet

Hi.

User:Literaryagent is a confirmed (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer#Lightbringer_and_Literaryagent) sockpuppet of Lightbringer - a user banned by Arb-Com (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer) - that has escaped blocking so far. I request that the sockpuppet is blocked. For more information on Lightbringer and his use of sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix Portier again

Felix Portier was mentioned here last week for uploading images with obviously false copyright tags, which he now appears to be doing again. Could somebody please review and take appropriate action? Cheers --Pak21 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one month and a final warning issued - he has been warned about this. Well spotted. Proto::type 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• ( At least I tried to tell them about copyright. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Tools

I would appreciate somebody looking into the recent history of Panorama Tools. An external disagreement seems to have spread to this Wikipedia article and there are issues about whether to link to the .org or .info site. I would look into it myself, but I'm currently getting ready for a long business trip so cannot give it much research. Thanks/wangi 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Still? I thought that particular lame edit war fizzled out months ago! 155.208.254.98 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user concerned about his behaviour on his talk page and posted some comments on the article's talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 comments in my e-mail.

This message was in my e-mail when I logged on:

JonMoseley <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net> to me

I demand that you TERMINATE Raul654 from any rights or authority at Wikipedia. Raul654 is pushing a left-wing BIASED perspective on the page for Global Warming. There are numerous false statements which I corrected -- backed up by clear citations for each point. I allowed those statements to remain but BALANCED the discussion with CITATIONS to hard facts. And rather than confront the hard citations that I provided, Raul654 HID FROM HIS ATTEMPTS TO LIE in the Wikipedia article by blocking me. He did not identify anything incorrect about the corrections I provided. He did not counter with any other citations to the contrary. He only LIED and said that the matters had been previously discussed on the Talk page. THEY HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. The first mention was today. If Wikipedia is exposed as being a nest of left-wing activists, it will harm the entire enterprise. Trust me when I say I have the news media connections to make the truth clear.

Does anyone know the background to this and is prepared to comment/resolve the issue? I will post a message linking to here to Raul654 as well. (aeropagitica) 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's only one thing that can be said about things like this: oh my god! Not another pov-pusher trying to accuse wikipedia of a left-wing/right-wing/communist/fascist/terrorist-loving/treehugging/appeasing/anti-American/anti-Semitic or any other bias... Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a bird, its a plane, its the Cabal! Shell ^babelfish 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Aecis, it appears User:JonMoseley has been reverted several times by User:Raul654 et. al. (and a quick look at edit history would suggest User:JackMcGuire is the same editor). Looks like another case of "NPOV = My POV and I have powerful friends if you disagree".--Isotope23 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

At least one other admin emailed me to ask why he got this. I wonder how many he sent out? Here's the love note he sent to me:

I have also just realized that you have violated Wikipedia's CHECK USER policy.

I will be contacting Wikipedia's board about this violation of the established policy.

Why don't we use this opportunity to go and vote for my bug so the developers fix it, and we don't have to put up with this nonsense anymore. Raul654 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

why do we even discuss this here? People should delete such emails on sight. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no physical location for Wikipedians to gather after an "interesting" period of interaction here & swap war stories over their favorite beverages. (I've been told Jimbo's been seen in the brew pub down the street from my house, but I doubt he goes there on a regular basis.) --llywrch 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• They've been reverted by at least 3 different users. There's no conspiracy here, let alone abuse by Raul. Keep them blocked. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Did he also threaten to SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? --Slowking Man 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the fun you get from being the first sysop on the list. ;-) Prodego ^talk 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - not able to connect the words "news", "media", "truth" and "clear" without falling off the chair laughing. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you would need an option to block users e-mail ability, isn't easier to just set up a filter to automatically delete mail from the users e-mail address? Anyone willing to use multiple e-mail accounts would be willing to make multiple wikipedia accounts as well, so that advantage is removed. You could, however, block account creation, but would that work on a registered account? If the e-mail block was set to work with the autoblock to circumvent multiple account creation it limits the number of e-mails people blocked as collateral damage can send. Overall, there are more important bugs that need voting for instead. ;-) Prodego ^talk 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Account

I User:Kiyosaki have been blocked by an Admn, that is heavily involved in a content dispute at Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Can someone review this? I have been falsely accused of being another editor. Plus, if another Admn. reviews the Talk Page, at above article, they will not see "disruption" of any kind, on the contrary, thoughtful engagement. Thanks, and could someone kindly please review and restore my account?Kiyosaki1 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Admins please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kiyosaki. Thatcher131 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Kiyosaki1 indefinitely. Chick Bowen 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:143.231.249.141

This is an IP address registered to the US House of Representatives. I've blocked it for 24 hours (anon-only) following an WP:AIV report about it blanking the entire controversy section out of the Steve Buyer article. Instructions on the talk page suggested I should mention it here. I'm also leaving a message for User:UninvitedCompany, for the Communications committee]. Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• What is really curious is other than whitewashing and adding spurious mythology to Donald Rumsfeld, the IP has an odd preoccupation with cleft chins as seen in the contrib history...--Isotope23 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

72.159.128.2 and block notices

Hi, I noticed that 72.159.128.2 made a nonsense edit to King Cobra (although I think they may have had good intentions). Upon looking at their talk page, I noticed it says they are presently blocked, which seems not to be the case. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated. ... aa:talk 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They were blocked for 48 hours in September, but that's long expired now. {{test5}} notices don't get removed when the block expires, so you can't tell if someone is currently blocked based on them. --Tango 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanny Samaniego

At the article Fanny Samaniego User:207.112.77.37 is inserting abusive comments into the article, which has now turned into an exchange of legal and personal threats with User:Nrock2006 at User talk:207.112.77.37 which would need administrative intervention.--VirtualDelight 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:207.112.77.37 probably deserves a block for vandalism [50] & personal attacks [51]. User:Nrock2006 probably deserves a block for personal attacks and legal threats here & here.--Isotope23 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Albert Einstein

Perhaps one of you who thinks that Albert Einstein does not deserve permanent semi-protection would be so good as to repair this vandalism which has been there un-reverted for 3½ hours. Yes, I know I could revert it myself, and I used to—until I gave up on the futile effort of trying to guard this article without semi-protection. --teb728 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected this morning. In future, you can get a faster response posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Kla'quot 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to WP:RPP twice before and got protection for short periods, but that protection was quickly removed by admins who don't believe in protection. The last time it was unprotected, I came here to protest and was informed that Wikipedia relies on editors' reverting vandalism not on protection. Well, I figure that admins who won't protect articles should do the reverting. And as I pointed out in my original post, you can't always depend on editors to do the job when they are faced with the volume of vandalism this article sees without protection. --teb728 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Too harsh a punishment

Because I have previously edited this page (as has Pschemp) I ask that the following blocks be reviewed:

• 22:38, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.70.152.4 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [52]

This comes a full 7 hours after the last edit. After the anonymous user received a warning on their talk page, they have not continued the disruptive behavior. So what purpose does the block serve other than to be punitive, as the editor has brought there actions inline with our traditions.

Also this block fails to assume good faith:

• 22:37, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.100.239.10 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) [53]

The editor has two edits:

• 22:31, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment - deleted offensive picture) [54]
• 05:17, 6 September 2006 (hist) (diff) The Greatest American Hero

The only justification for such a long block after 1 edit is if that IP is a sockpuppet of an existing user. But we have no proof of that and as I tried to explain on the Pschemp's talk page, this kind of vandalism is not unexpected given that the picture is very disrespectful to many people's belief systems. What we need to do is educate and welcome - not smack them for trying to make a contribution they feel is their duty. The first user shows, once educated, these users will stop being disruptive. --Trödel 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding:

• 23:14, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "71.195.224.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism)

Again two edits only:

• 22:55, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment)
• 04:33, 26 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Parasympathetic nervous system (→Relationship to sympathetic nervous system)

Again overly harsh and failure to assume good faith. --Trödel 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My experiance with this adminstrator is limited to receiving a week long block for "trolling" after my uncontroversial participation in discussion on this page. The gory details are here. - 152.91.9.144 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that this seems to be wrong. A user should not be blocked quite so immediately, and blocking someone for mentioning this problem is wholly and completely out of line. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with the blocking admin before bringing this here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes here --Trödel 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Did any of you notice that I changed the block to 48 hours? Obviously not. Get your facts straight before you complain. Additionally, the edit pattern shows this is a user who is hopping from IP to IP and making the same edit repeatedly in a short amount of time. It isn't a new innocent IP every time, its the same guy who was already reverted 3 times. The only way to deal with people using proxies is to block immediately. However, the entire issue has been resolved since the page is now semi-protected so the IP vandals can talk about their feelings on the talk page first. (which Trodel agreed was a good solution) We had a discussion and came to conclusions. Trodel's posting here is superfluous. pschemp | talk 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is superfllous then there was no reason to keep the block in place, yet you did. --Trödel 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy if pschemp could acknowledge that there might be any problem with her blocking strategy. Looking back over the last month or so, the vast majority of her blocks are no-nonsense username and vandalism-only accounts. However her use of "trolling" as a block reason appears somewhat hit-or-miss. Leaving aside her blocking me, a quick glance back shows

• 04:34, 25 November 2006 Pschemp blocked "NYScholar (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling and disruption on user talk pages.) [55]

where a serious contributor was blocked for a straightforward (if strident) dialog on a user talk page. Again, without warning or clear justification. The weakness of the {{unblock}} procedure is also made clear by this exchange, by the way. If these more controversial blocks could be brought here for review and Pschemp was a bit more open to dialog regarding the blocks, there would be no problem here. Incivility in the manner of "Get your facts straight" does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.
152.91.9.144 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted

Some time back I wandered into what is obviously a bitter external dispute between proponents of personal rapid transit (PRT) including User:Fresheneesz, User:Skybum and User:ATren; and a cartoonist and environmentalist, User:Avidor, engaged in a campaign against PRT, which was apparently being used as a stalking horse against light rail in Minnesota. I made many changes to the article which were initially welcomed, but the PRT proponents decided they didn't like the fact that, overall, I insist on the article reflecting the fact that no such system currently exists anywhere in the world. User:Stephen B Streater did some sterling work too, and they had less of a problem with him.

ATren, formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast" has a blog, http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/, which attacks Avidor and also makes very plain the fact that ATren is a strong proponent of PRT. Which is where it gets messy. ATren is currently loudly demanding on my Talk page that I denounce Avidor's bias. I have said that that I am opposed to all abuse of Wikipedia for political ends, but ATren will accept nothing less than singling out one side of this plainly bilateral dispute. ATren flatyly refuses to admit that he has any bias, paints his bias as neutral, and insists that anyone more sceptical than he is themselves biased. I don't see why I'm supposed to have a view on the subject beyond an engineer's usual curioisyty about some new subject, but there is no possible doubt that overall the article is about a system of widescale urban tranport, whereas in practice after forty-odd years of debate we have a couple of test tracks and (now) two orders to service car parks at Heathrow and Dubai.

We have found a good, neutral, impartial source which states that the literature of around 200 published papers is typically favourable and marked by a lack of self-criticism. It states that the concept faces "formidable" challenges in the shape of political opposition, indifference, unproven technologies and vested interests (which I reckon is spot on - remember, this is supposed to replace use of the private automobile in entire cities).

Note: this is false - no PRT proposal I've ever seen aims to replace the car. PRT is always proposed as a multi-modal solution with cars and possibly other forms of public transit. ATren 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a statement from the Minnesota Sierra Club, a group which might ordinarily be expected to support anything which would reduce private car use, which enumerates these challenges and therefore resolves to oppose the PRT proposal in Minnesota. Nope. Can't have that - it's "astroturfing". Silly of me even to think that the Sierra Club might be actual opposition rather than fake opposition. Meanwhile the literature is still verifiably dominated by a lack of self-criticism and the technology still faces verifiably formidable challenges...

One day the Heathrow system will open and we will have a solid basis for an article. Until then we have a fanwank which desperately needs to be brought down to earth. But I find Avidor's Roadkill Bill cartoon (agit-prop for integrated urban planning) funny so obviously I am quite incapable of forming a balanced judgement on the issue. Or something. I don't want to lose my temper with this argumentative pair so I've come here to vent my spleen a bit and see if anyone else feels like chucking a bucket of cold water over them for me.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Thanks for your time, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Several points in response, since JzG is misrepresenting this dispute:

• The "stalking horse" theory that JzG mentions is unverifiable fluff that has no basis in reality. Avidor has been on an anti-PRT political crusade ([56][57][58][59][60][61][62], etc)for over 3 years, spreading disinformation like the "stalking horse" theory all over the Internet. He's also admitted to using sock puppet identities to spread his message. There is no basis to any of his conspiracy theories.
• I came upon Avidor when he tried to push his completely unverifiable POV here on Wikipedia, in order to sway local political elections in Minnesota. He spent several months gaming the NPOV tag on the PRT page, and using the "disputed POV" tag as evidence that the Wikipedia article was being infiltrated by "pro-PRT cultists", in his political blogs and forums. This seemed to be a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a platform for political propaganda.
• JzG came along in the dispute and immediately expressed admiration for Avidor and his cartoon - in fact, he created the Wikipedia article on Avidor's cartoon and later defended it from deletion. Despite his admitted affection for Avidor, he proceeded with the mediation. Personally, I was concerned that he was such a fan of Avidor, but I trusted that he would recuse himself if he couldn't be neutral.
• Over the next several months, JzG was positively hostile to the three editors on the other side of the dispute. Even though we all agreed on perhaps 90% of his edits without argument, he repeatedly accused us of POV pushing for any change we made, reverting of all our edits on sight and threatening (twice!) to lock down the article. The threats to lock the article were particularly egregious because (a) they were done at the behest of Avidor (Avidor posted this 30 minutes before JzG's initial threat), and (b) they were based on his own misreading of a single word in one of Skybum's edits. Even after Skybum (who, unlike Avidor, has always been a good faith editor) politely told JzG he misread the word, JzG continued to insist he read it right and threatened Skybum again, insisting he had read it correctly, even though the history showed he clearly didn't! It was clear that JzG was not only willing to do Avidor's bidding, but was unwilling to consider any argument from the reasonable editors on the other side (none of whom had a political agenda, as Avidor did). In the months after that, JzG continued to revert almost every change we made, no matter how small, and in many cases insinuating that we were POV pushing. The absoluteness of his reverts made it clear that he owned the article - and after his threats to lock it, we really had no way to fight it.
• The Minneapolis Sierra Club supports Minneapolis light rail, which competes against PRT for funding, and therefore they opposed PRT. They are a local chapter of an environmental group. Against this, the European Union has endorsed PRT in cities - they did a 3 year study of PRT and endorsed it unequivocally. The study was rigorous, involving 16 partners in academia, transit consulting, and city planning, and focused on 4 different PRT schemes in 5 cities. This augments 40 years of peer reviewed research, several textbooks devoted to PRT design, and fully-functioning prototypes that have carried passengers. Despite all this, JzG continues to call it "pseudo-science" - despite the existence of fully-functioning prototypes. He's also called it a "quixotic dream". To me, it's clear he is sympathetic to the unsupportable POV of Avidor, that PRT is a fraud and a hoax.
• I have absolutely no political agenda. I stumbled upon PRT a year ago, and I was shocked at the amount of blatant disinformation being spread by a single individual. I therefore decided, in the interest of truth, to set the record straight. Hence, my blog, which is apolitical. I only use it to answer the disinformation that Avidor spreads, and to call out the people who implicitly support him by quoting his propaganda. However, I challenge anyone to scour my blog and find any statement of political support. Even when I reference politicians, it's purely in the context of their statements on PRT. Despite this, JzG has begun to accuse me of having a political motive - apparently someone just fighting for truth can't be believed. In any event, I would be willing to reveal myself to a neutral third party to confirm everything I've said.
• I have nothing to do with PRT, PRT companies, or PRT advocacy. I have absolutely no financial interest in PRT companies. I've never even met a PRT "proponent".

The fact is this: when someone we admire is involved in a dispute, try as we might, it is very difficult to remain neutral. JzG has a clear affection for Avidor, and therefore has taken much of Avidor's views at face value, including the undue level of skepticism for a technology that has a large amount of verifiable support. JzG should have recused himself from this mediation from the beginning, because his affection for Avidor affects his neutrality. ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ATren/A.T.E. has been ranting about me all over the internet for a year or so... He got banned from the Seattle Post Intelligencer forum for ranting: [63] Here's ATren's trying to intimidate another Wikipedia administrator : "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is.".... as for the claim that I am the only skeptic of PRT, read this: "Like gold standard crazies, intelligent design ideologues and cold-fusion enthusiasts, Personal Rapid Transit nuts see something the rest of the world doesn't see and think they are visionaries as a result. Since there is no "true" PRT system anywhere in the world for these people to spend all day riding around in, they spend their time comment-spamming blogs like ours. A similar blog, publictransit.us, had enough of it and decided to fact-check the PRT claims. They found claims of systems that don't exist and studies that were never conducted. I think that pretty much ends the discussion."[64]...I wish somebody at Wikipedia would do something to stop these personal attacks by this anonymous "editor"...Avidor 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I did write that comment, but it was my first month on Wikipedia, and I didn't understand the way things worked then. Also, that comment was after several weeks of Avidor edit warring the NPOV tag (for the express purpose of advancing his political campaign), as well as incessant linkspam and personal attacks on the talk page (repeatedly calling editors of the PRT article "cultists"), and I simply lost my temper. Some examples of Avidor's comments on that talk page: "If I fixed that, the PRT cultists would change it back...", "No links to anything real... just true believers in a lost cause following crackpot 'visionaries'...", "Yep, the PRT cult is in firm control of this Wikipedia page..." ATren 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ATren, for giving everyone a perfect example of the problem: you portray your bias as neutrality, and anyone who disagrees with you as biased. Note that Avidor (unlike ATren) has not edited that page for over six months. This is not about your off-wiki fight, it's about a Wikipedia article (do not bring your battles to Wikipedia). Stalking horse is unverifiable fluff? Not according to the Sierra Club it's not - but of course they are biased, it's only you who is neutral, right? As Cotterell says, the literature is predominantly supportive and marked by a lack of self-criticism. Citing that literature as evidence of a lack of criticism is not terribly helpful and fails to explain the observed fact that after over forty years of discussion not one real-world system currently exists. The article is about a wide-scale urban transit system, but the only projects looking likely to be completed in the near future are in car parks, nothing like we describe in the article. You may think it's perfectly fine to document the PRT proponents' dreams and ignore the realities, I happen to disagree, based on my well-documented bias against using Wikipedia to promote new, great things which might one day change the world. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Locate me one single reliable source on the stalking horse global conspiracy theory. Go ahead. Find me one. For the uninitiated, the stalking horse theory is Avidor's pet conspiracy which claims that hundreds of researchers on 3 continents have spent the last 40 years perpetrating a hoax - all for the purpose of blocking a Minneapolis light rail line! This is the ridiculous conspiracy theory that I've fought nearly a year to keep out of the PRT article, as Guy has done everything he can to get Avidor's completely unverifiable POV into the article. He started out trying to get Avidor's tasteless anti-PRT propaganda cartoon in. Nobody supported that, so he tried pushing content from the Light Rail Now astroturfing group - a group that contains unverifiable anti-PRT content written by Avidor! When that was rejected, he found a single paper that kinda-sorta is critical of PRT literature - not PRT itself, mind you - and had used that one conference paper to invalidate 40 years of research. Now, Guy is pushing a resolution by the Minneapolis Sierra Club (which, for all we know, has Avidor as a member!) into the top of the article, while he suppresses content from peer-reviewed journals and engineering conferences as biased. Can anyone, even a well-respected admin like Guy, justify such a position? I am at wits end here - this has been a nearly year long dispute, and I'm still arguing that peer reviewed journals are a more reliable source than a local chapter of an environmental group! And yet Guy continues to say I'm the one letting my biases affect my judgement.

BTW, just a point of clarification: Avidor stopped editing the article because he no longer had to - Guy took up his fight. Whenever he wants something done, he just asks Guy to do it and the war starts up again. ATren 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to repeat it, but content resolution is not the role of admins (you know that, Guy). If it can't be resolved on the article's talk page, take it to RFC or ask for mediation. Proto::type 12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not an administrative action, never was. I went to the article as an editor. My problem is with ATren's months-long campaign of argumentation based on his obdurate refusal to admit to his own personal bias (and I really don't think it's a coincidence that every time I even allude to the dispute in any discussion he pops up and starts all over again). I think I'll just nuke the thread from my Talk page and leave it at that - nothing in the world will ever satisfy ATren other than getting his own way, in this case a unilateral condemnation of the massively less active side of a bipartisan dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy came to the article as a mediator, not just an editor. He then proceeded to threaten to use admin powers to prevent any change to what he wrote (in response to Skybum's good faith edits - see links above). So which is it? Was Guy an editor, mediator, or admin, or all three? This all came up again because he wrote comments in an arb com case implying Fresheneesz was just bitter because his article was deleted, when the dispute went much deeper than that. In fact, Fresheneesz, Skybum, and I had repeatedly expressed exasperation at JzG's ownership of the article and rejection of any changes to his version of the article. I am frankly sick of being painted as a POV pusher in this dispute, when in fact there were three other editors who supported me, and all three had the same level of frustration with JzG's actions. ATren 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. I have never been a member of the mediation cabal or mediation committee. I saw a notice of an edit war and thought the subject looked interesting (still do), so I came along to see what I could do. And you seemed not to have a problem with it until I said that I like Roadkill Bill. Given that Avidor has not edited that article since April, I hardly think his (openly admitted) bias is a pressing problem, and your insistence on continuing to fight a battle that was over, in Wikipedia terms anyway, months ago, does you no credit. Neither does your continued campaign of vituperation off Wiki - nobody likes a sore loser. But hey, frustration is a good word - exactly the word I'd use to describe someone who is still coming back with "and another thing!..." half a year after the discussion ended. Why not click Random Article and find something to improve? It's what I sometimes do when I get wound up. It was advice I picked up here, I think. Very sound. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a mediation? See [65]: "During a mediation process..." followed soon after with the threat to lock the article. It's clear you considered yourself a mediator, and we treated you as one.

Avidor has not edited the article - but why? Could it be because you are representing his POV - he just lets you know what he wants and you do it? It started with the threat to block the article (which he had requested just 30 minutes earlier -see links above) and has continued even until today:

• Avidor recently mentioned that the link to his personal page was removed, and you immediately restored it, calling his personal anti-PRT propaganda page "notable skepticism".
• Then Avidor gave you a link to a resolution by his local Sierra Club, and despite the questionable reliability of quoting such a group, you immediately added the link the article in the intro! Just to put this into perspective, you have removed journal-sourced content from us, but when Avidor sends you a link to a one-page resolution from a local chapter of an environmental group, you put it in the intro!

I can cite many other examples of you doing what Avidor asked, including the Unimodal page, which you submitted for deletion soon after Avidor started complaining to you about it. Why would Avidor edit the article when he can just ask you to do it for him?

I'd also like to point out that, in addition to Avidor's documented abuses, he has lashed out against Wikipedia (see the cartoon on his user page), has quit the project and returned at least twice, and is an active member of Wikipedia Review. ATren 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is at the core a content dispute... you should file a Request for Comment or a formal Request for Mediation (as was suggested above by an admin).--Isotope23 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not bring this up here - Guy did. I'm just here to defend myself. I won't file an RfC because, in my experience, casual editors like myself do not do well in mediation against respected admins - even when they have a case. ATren 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but my point is that you are all beating a dead horse here as an admin already stated above that this is a content dispute and should go through an RfC or RfM...--Isotope23 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. ATren has threatened ArbCom, but dcided not to because of "the cabal". Of the three of us - ATren, Avidor and me - ATren is the onyl one still actively editing that article, the only one pursuing the long-dead dispute, the only one to refuse to acknowledge any personal bias whatsoever. He says I reintroduced a link but forgets to mention that it was he who removed it, despite an ongoing off-wiki dispute with the owner of the site linked. Deleting it? Fine and dandy. Re-introducing it? Bias. Sierra Club article opposed to PRT? Astroturfing. PRT proponent's homepage? Authoritative source. Look at all the terrible things these sceptics - no - pseudoskeptics have done to ruin an article on a technology which will surely exist Real Soon Now! It's a silly spat about really very minor detail of the article, the amount of disruption caused is out of all proportion. He;s also still knocking on about Skytran, a project with no prototype, no backers, no known realistic prospect of existence, which I still don't think deserves an article, but I have left it alone in its much less advertorial form. Left it alone. For months. The guy is obsessed, as his blog clearly shows. And above all, Minnesota, the closest they've yet come to an implementation, was defeated due in no small part to the completely untried nature of the technology. The whole argument is a teapot tempest. Bollocks to it. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been asked twice to take this elsewhere - so I will not respond other than to say that most of what JzG says above are outright lies. JzG - take it to RfC or ArbCom if you want - I have absolutely nothing to hide. This is the last comment I will make here. ATren 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO

Just a heads up really - the page that had been in Raul's user space had recently been upgraded to policy. There are still a few discussions at Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles as to how to codify it.

The main change, and reason I've bought this up here, is that the policy now requires admins who protect or semi-protect the Main Page featured article to drop a note here explaining why and how long they think protection should last for. Its hoped that this will stop (Semi)-protection lasting any longer than it needs to. --Robdurbar 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this must have been suggested before, but would there be any objection to having the featured article of the day move protected while it's on the main page? There's really no valid basis on which a user would move that day's FA (or probably any FA) to another article name, so any such moves are highly likely to be vandalism, and inability to move the page doesn't interfere with ability to edit which is the rationale for rarely protecting that day's FA. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is standard operating procedure already. Actually, I was surprised to find that today's article hadn't been move-protected yet. Did whoever usually does that forget? Melchoir 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy does discuss it - move protection is fine though I'm not sure it should be used pre-emptively, only if move vandalism occurs. --Robdurbar 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the argument against using it preemptively. Are there any circumstances in which there could be a non-vandalistic move of that day's featured article? Or are there circumstances in which trying out the move-page feature would be a newbie's introduction to Wikipedia? If we agree the answers are "no" and "no" then I think suppressing the move tab on the day's FA should be routine practice, especially after this morning's experience. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially given that newbies can't move pages. Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued incivility by User:Tajik

Some quotes:

"You are really a waste of time."[66]

"It is you who is a totally hopeless case." (Although in reply to same, still, as I've been told, someone else's bad behaviour doesn't excuse your own.)[67]

"You mean we should let people like you flood Wikipedia with nationalistic ... nonsense, ...."[68]

In edit summary, "rv of nonsense...."[69], in midst of edit war between the two. It's rampant in this area of Wikipedia, but more so by some users than others, and continues, and User:Tajik has been warned and then blocked for incivility before.[70][71]

KP Botany 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Was blocked for incivility and personal attack on November 16 which didn't work. Block length doubled. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Preform (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strong suspicions that this user is banned user MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also used the now banned account Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same group of articles - Hugo Chavez - Cindy Sheehan, Hezbollah - picking up where the previous account was banned. Same arguments. Same litany of poor edits reverted immediately by numerous editors. Same pattern of being oblivious to the fact that his use of a new sockpuppet is transparent.--Zleitzen 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You could request a checkuser check. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I no longer watch the Chávez articles, as they are a POV wasteland and consensual good faith editing doesn't look like a near-term possibility; so I have no sense of whether Preform might be a sockpuppet. Seeing this here, I went over to check Preform's edits on Hugo Chávez, and didn't see a problem with either of them. This edit is completely defensible, and this edit could be adequately sourced in five seconds if someone who disagrees with the source given took the time - the laws passed are well-documented and well known. I don't intend to defend the edits of a possible sockpuppet, but something really needs to be done about the entrenched POV-pushing throughout the Chávez articles. Sandy (Talk) 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete please

Will somebody please nuke The Hebrew Hammer 2 asap, thanks. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fatrick Arbuckle

Fatrick Arbuckle (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has repeatedly vandalized the article on Ian Snell.

• On 6 November 2006 the user wrote "he is mildly retarded, and thus doesn't know what he is saying" (diff), a potentially libelous comment that stayed in the article until now (28 November 2006).
• The user has also created Category:People who let their retardation Influence their speaking. and attempted to add Ian Snell and Sienna Miller.
• After the first category was nominated for deletion the user created Category:People who let their mental retardation Influence their speaking. and attempted to add Ian Snell and Sienna Miller. Oden 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Libel the potentially libelous/defamatory edits should perhaps also be deleted from the page history Ian Snell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Oden 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation and abuse question on 6.5 Grendel

Ok, first the background. In the past week there have been dozens of edits to Assault rifle by anon IPs making unreferenced claims that say the 6.5 Grendel cartridge is the best thing since sliced bread, etc. It was definitely not NPOV, had no sources etc. It was almost to the point of being an advertisement saying "Alexander Arms bullets are better than any other bullet out there". Anyway, I noticed a similar IP had posted on the 6.5 Grendel page. Some of the text there looked fishy, so I did a brief Google search and found the ballistics testing paragraphs were ripped straight off another page. It's possible the entire page is a rip as well, but only slightly paraphrased. A lot of it looks similar.

Anyway, I removed, tagged copyvio, posted on the copyright violations page etc. Great, grand. The talk page has suddenly exploded in its absence with anons and new contributers suddenly claiming I work for Remington (I don't, I'm a student), that I have a history of malicious edits (I've never received a warning), etc. Also no less than 4 people and probably more now have now claimed to be the copyright owner and release their work: but some of them are releasing it into public domain (which I don't think is GFDL compatible) and some only to specific users.

Examples:

*"The malicious charge that SwatJester has made that images and comments regarding terminal ballistics gel testing cross-posted at TheHighRoad by John Hanka, aka Grendelizer at 65Grendel.com, are the property of that site when John is not only the moderator on the 65Grendel.com site, but is in fact paying for its existence, are absurd. " (note: this refers to my tagging as copyvio.)

• "Beyond this, SwatJester has a history of destroying the work of well-intentioned contributors on many sites by constantly reverting them to versions he finds more palatable. Such behavior, if allowed to continue by the Wiki staff, will destroy the desire and ability of knowledgeable and well-intentioned individuals to contribute to the Wiki effort."

• "Is it possible that someone here at Wikipedia is on the payroll or has vested stock interest in Remington?" (not so subtly hinting at me).

The talk page had not received any notice in almost 30 days. Suddenly all these posts, with competing and overlapping incompatible copyright releases, most from anon IPs and none of which can be confirmed yet....and then this abuse spewed at me: sounds like someone is organizing off-wiki to orchestrate something on wiki.

And to be honest: I'm F*ing sick of it. I like to think I do a good job on wikipedia. I've been editing here almost a year, something around 8000 good edits on over 4000 pages. It's one thing for a random IP to flame me, or vandalize my user page, that's happened before and it's entertaining. But this is ridiculous.

Will another couple of eyes take a look at this and maybe hearing from an admin that I was justified in removing the copyrighted material will get it through their thick skulls? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention one of those editors, User:Solidpoint who was responsible for some of those claims including an edit summary accusing me of vandalism for removing the copyrighted material had this to say on a similar article: emphasis my own.

*"Thinly veiled listing of Pinnacle's bitch list RE: DOD testing

This Wiki page is a disgrace. There is nothing objective or unbiased about anything written here and I say this as a huge DragonSkin fan. If Wiki cannot police itself better than this it is not a credible source of information about anything. This page is not about DragonSkin at all. It is about the unfair way Pinnacle Armor's product was tested and the author is just grinding an axe. It is pathetic beyond description to find this sort of thing in what purports to be an Encyclopedia. I think if Pinnacle were aware of this page THEY would ask for its destruction. No good can come from airing a list of bitches from one side only. This page has zero credibility and will likely injure Pinnacle.

Solidpoint'

I've asked for an apology on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone want to take a look at this? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did... it's absolutely sickening. If they don't get real permissions, this article should be deleted, ASAP. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way defending either what other editors may have said to Swatjester, or any copyright violations, but there are a number of external links in the article to sources that very clearly meet WP:RS. I have edited the external links section to (hopefully) make this clearly. I also believe the article's subject meets wikipedia's requirements for notability, for what that's worth. John Broughton | Talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I popped across to the forum they are all linking to - I take it SOLIDPOINT is the same Solidpoint, who makes the disgusting comment of

I will say this. When that asshole SwatJester crawls out of his mom's basement he better not cross my path or he'll be posting from the ER ward for awhile. That graphic represents more than 100 hours of work just on my end and a lot more from Stan and Mike and others. For destroying that kind of effort I'm perfectly happy to rearrange his dental work and significant parts of his skeleton. --Charlesknight 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Indef block Solidpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for threat of bodily harm to an editor in an external forum, anyone? Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, User:Solidpoint going offwiki to make personal attacks should be treated harshly.--Isotope23 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a provisional 48 hour block on User:Solidpoint. I have asked him to make a full and meaningful retraction of his threat and an unconditional apology to User:Swatjester. If these are not forthcoming during the duration of the block I will extend it to indef. Threats of violence in real life will absolutely not be tolerated. Gwernol 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Gwernol's position. Threats of violence made on or off-wiki are completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. We cannot regulate what fellow editors do on other websites, but in keeping with the findings of several sections of my own arbitration case (namely, principles 1, 2 and 4), Wikipedia does not tolerate harassment, works to effectively eliminate harassment be it through appropriate administrator actions as necessary, and we unite together in our efforts to defeat harassment making sure no one need be isolated by such incidents (in a nutshell). If no evidence of sincere apology is forthcoming...extend block to indef.--MONGO 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it a bit hypocritical that people are unwilling to say that a user with the same apparent screen name is the same person when it comes to a copyright release, but are quite content to make that leap when blocking someone for purposeful attacks. Certainly, Solidpoint has been incivil, and should probably apologize to keep things functioning smoothly. But I have found, through my own experience, that sometimes forcing an apology does more harm than good. My impression is that Solidpoint isn't very familiar with the way we do things here, and rather than focusing on retribution, we should try and turn someone who clearly has knowledge and interest in a particular field into a valuable Wikipedian. Permanent banning isn't going to do that. Especially when there's such a clear insider/outsider dynamic as there is here, such measures are just more likely to cause anger. --Eyrian 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint has given an apology here. My inclination is to unblock and keep an eye on the situation. Gwernol 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is whether it has been established that these identitys are the same. Has the user admitted they were? has some independent verification been carried out? Are there consanguinuities in the manner of speaking or references to information that at least give some indication of sameness? If that's the case I am tripping over myself to endorse. If not, some qualms remain. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that after the apology was posted, the original comment was removed from the above mentioned forum? --Charlesknight 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given an apology, an unblock and monitor may be appropriate. Stipulating that identity has now been established? ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The apology itself and the removal of the forum post demonstrate that the Wikipedia user and the forum poster are the same person, at least to my satisfaction. I think there is reason to assume good faith, just, here and remove the block. Any further repetition of these threats or similar behavior should be ttreated swiftly, IMHO. Gwernol 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow I mised all of this? Yeesh. I think this very much exemplifies the dangers inherent in offwiki groups banding together to push a POV onto their specific articles. I briefly looked through their claims on their forum about me and found so many things, for instance that I had made a diff that I didn't make, that I have never created an article of my own (RSTA (U.S. Army), Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN that I recreated from the face of CSD death,) etc. This is a case of the things that can happen when people who do not know how wikipedia works attempt to band together and push something through through the strength of their numbers. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas on how to fix that. I will say that while I appreciate the apology, "Perhaps now he will find the references he so craves" makes it ring rather hollow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that I found that passage of concern. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Otis Fodder

User:Otis Fodder is showing disruptive and incivil behavior far above and beyond the norm, especially in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek. Among the things that have been done:

• Refuses to sign comments
• Arguementative for arguements sake. Consider these quotes:
  • "When you say "we" ("We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums.."), do you mean that you're paid by Wikipedia and you speak for them and all involved with Wikipedia? If you're NOT being paid to debate and investigate articles (such as this BENBENEK article), why do you do it and why do you use the word "we"? Are you speaking for Wikipedia as a thing or as an internet corporate entity? Or is the "we" referring to only you? This will help me respond to your immediately-previous comment...because I worry when single individuals start throwing the "we" word around. Plus I'm a little new to Wikipedia as an open-source text phenomenon. Plus I'm too lazy to hunt down your "Wikipedia User Profile" and see if you're part of official Wikapedia management. I figure you're probably just eager to respond to just about anything any body throws on these ever-changing and well-formatted pages. My other guess is that you're a BOT, but Wikipedia BOTs are probably out on Thanksgiving weekend vacation. So, what is this "we" that you type of...?": Stated in response to what I offered as what "we" at wikipedia look for in a "notable" and "verifiable" article.
  • "My dear mom (who was somehow born in the 20s in Missouri without the use of Wikipedic means of childbirth) always taught me to watch out for ***GROUP THINK*** and when some anonymous guy on the internet tells me to "follow the blue links" I think I better start worrying. Guy...guys...if you all really have raging hard-ons for deleting my nice, little BENBENEK article, then by all means cite Wikipedia authority and direct people to your blue links until you're blue in the face and get on with it. I figure the BOTs have the final say anyway in these important article matters...so...whatever" In response to being directed to wikipedia's policies.
  • "So, suddenly Wikipedia is all about "notability"...or maybe it's just a kind of high-tech, open-source popularity contest? Not that many people in the obscure-est reaches of Arkansas or Mt Everest know who Einstein was (or what he did) yet Einstein is in Wikipedia. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that ARE NOT of a "notable" nature. How unfair is it to discredit a simple entry on the basis of "notability" - this type of "notability-based" stamp-of-approvalocity is unfair and narrow-minded and should not be tolerated. It's interesting to see that four or five guys (always guys...) with little sense of the "real" world can make or break a Wikipedia entry. All the negative criticism of this entry is based on spurious INTERNET data. Has anyone called The Swedenborg Society or East Village Arts District for verification of these Benbenek entry claims? Nah, I doubt it." In response to requests to provide sources for notability.
• He also blanked the AfD discussion, and when it was restored, pagemoved the AfD discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek (see page history).
• He has a history of these kinds of disruptions to other AfD discussions. Consider this dif: [72]
• He has made other disruptive edits to articles, such as [73], and [74], and [75].

Please review this users behavior, and take any actions as you see appropriate. --Jayron32 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but were it me, I'd block him for the duration of the AfD for the multiple tamperings to the AfD, and leave a copy of the WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and associated policies on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional incivil behavior continues: See this quote from the above cited AfD:

• "Hey, guys (and I use that term in kind reference to each and every one of you) you all sure certainly seem to be dragging your collective Wikipedia-enraged feet. Why hasn't anyone sent the real BOTS in? You know...the BOTs that Wikipedia management keeps in reserve for situations such as these. Every cry of "DELETE" only makes me more determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity and textual (and paragraphical) essence of what this proud and defiant "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article means. Thanks! Have a great day! PS - ask yourself if your mom would want you to vote for deletion and then please vote your conscience...and also watch out for the BOTS. They seem to be everywhere in this Wikipedic Hell! "

Thanks for looking into this! --Jayron32 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The diffs support Jayron's accusations, and this is some fairly egregious behaviour: blanking an AfD, and disrupting multiple AFds and articles. Furthermore, I checked some of his other contribs, and the few that haven't been reverted yet probably should be; he seriously lacks the language skills we would hope for in a serious contributor. All-in-all, it smells like troll, and I tend to think a block would be in order. Minimum of one day, just to get his attention; possibly up to a week for messing with an AfD. Doc Tropics 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help request: This needs an admin page move back, both for the article and the AFD page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done this. Moves can be reverted by anyone who can move pages unless something has happened to the redirect created in the process.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. I thought I'd seen edits to the redirect, but I'm glad to see that I was wrong in this case. Georgewilliamherbert 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini again

He's back as User:217.17.231.128 and reverting all my edits. I emailed Batelco, in Bahrain, but they don't seem to have done anything to stop him. Zora 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's at it RIGHT NOW. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. Zora 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New users

For your blocking pleasure. - 152.91.9.144 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• 04:16, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account User:Wikidiot (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 04:15, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account Jimboisstupid (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 04:15, 28 November Jimboiswales (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (New user account)

Offensive username

• Imakillu100 (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)

The header says it all ;) Yuser31415^@? 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While we're sniffing the creation log... - 152.91.9.144

• Bite my balls (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)
• Usucku (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)

... And User:Stupidshandranicole :) Yuser31415^@? 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. Usernames this obviously bad can usually go to WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic_people

Sorry to bother but I just wanted to inform the proper admins of the war going on in the CfD for the above category. Netscott and IZAK have been arguing back and forth for the past couple of hours or so about whether the cat. has been up for deletion 2, 3 or 4 times or whatever. Besides that, they have been attacking each other verbally and this kind of bickering does not help the voting. It is true that discussion is important for CfDs, but this type of behavior is uncalled for. I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible. I did, however, cast a vote for the cat. so I do have an opinion on which way the vote goes, yet, my concern is that their behavior will affect any type of voting. At this point,honestly, it does not matter to me which way the vote goes. I do not know much of Netscott but IZAK has a history of being very argumentative and has been banned in the past. I ask of you to please stop their bickering and to end the voting for the category as soon as possible. Thank you sincerely. MetsFan76 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our discussion is over at this point. We've both made our points... and managed to remain rather civil if a bit heated. (→Netscott) 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see it is over, but the admins do need to see what happened. As I mentioned, it was extremely disruptive for the two of you to be bickering over it. I don't know if you are a new editor or not but IZAK is a veteran and should have known better. MetsFan76 05:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's a new editor (I'm certainly not). I think it's pretty safe to say that so long as a discussion remains civil there's not much harm done. I'd venture to also say that it is normal that back and forth exchanges like this are typical in controversial areas (of which this one certainly is). (→Netscott) 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you except for the fact that admins and people who want to vote have to read through the entire soap opera to get an idea what's going on. Who has time like that? I'm not trying to start anything here...I'm just trying to move the voting along. MetsFan76 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the point of XfD is not voting... it's actually discussion... that attempts to reach a consensus... so while a discussion may get long that's generally seen as a good sign. (→Netscott) 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone involved in this debate that CFD is not a vote, but a discussion. A closing administrator should not mearly count "deletes" and "keeps". The arguments expressed are important, resonance with policy is important, precedent is important, the behavior of those that participate is important. The more that admins rely on "vote counting" the more people will game the system. I think one good argument is more important than a score of impassioned "votes". -- Samuel Wantman 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sam---I definitely agree with you especially when you state that "the behavior" is important and I just felt that it was starting to get borderline childish MetsFan76 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Block of sockpuppets Defender99 and Skinny McGee

User:Defender99 and User:Skinny McGee are the same. User also appears to have created sleeper socks User:Hypotenuse and User:Party Gal. All of the rest are inconclusive. Report: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee.

Requesting block for sockpuppetry and also for disrupting another check into older socks for same user [76]. User has been removing SSP templates while evidence page was in progress of being made. [77]. Peacekpr 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all User:Defender99 was not involved in any violation, the user made only one edit. Second, User:Skinny McGee explains that User:Defender99 is her huband. [78] Third, User:Peacekpr has been harassing User:Skinny McGee by posting countless investigations. User:Peacekpr's second edit was a request for an investigation into Skinny. [79] User:Peacekpr has since then created the following investigations into Skinny: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]. I highly suspect User:Peacekpr is someone's sockpuppet. Dionyseus 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the history for Defender99 and Skinny McGee and IP avoiding 3RR (by a hair):

• 17:06, 2 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting again to previously agreed upon version)
• 19:18, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting again.)
• 15:00, 1 November 2006 Defender99 (Added Origins Award and link to site)
• 04:01, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34 (Reverting changes)
• 02:10, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34 (Whoops - just realized reverted version was incorrect, too. Sorry!)
• 02:00, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting changes ...)

Since you did a check on me already, adding my name to your GuardianZ list, and found me to NOT be a sock [85], please stop STALKING me. I only posted one investigation into Skinny McGee (1 for socks and 1 for ckuser), which already turned out to be trued. I then realized it had been going on far longer and wanted to recheck, just to be sure to check everyone. I am only trying to be fair. You continually hounded the editors on the opposing side and now you are hounding EVERY post I make, whether it be a report or a simple suggestion about archiving, or to check out all the users. This is my process before I can make a fair assessment of all the sides in a dispute—I need to know who and how many I am dealing with. If you choose to hinder the process, it won't help matters. Firm request for block. Because Skinny McGee has been socking, he should be punished with a ban of his sockpuppets and at least a 3 day block for himself. Same punishment was afforded to GuardianZ per Dionyseus' requests/checks. Let it be the same for Skinny McGee. Fair is fair. Peacekpr 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never hidden behind sockpuppets. When I first started editing, I just used my IP address. When I realized that was frowned upon, I created my user name and have been editing under that ever since (except when I occassionally think I'm signed in, but am not - but I've gotten much better at that lately). As Dionyseus mentioned, I have already explained that Defender99 is my husband, and he only made one very non-controversial edit to the article (which Peacekpr chooses to reference here). Oroboros 1/GuardianZ were continually inserting promotional material for Joseph Vargo and were linking to sites created by Joseph Vargo that are defamatory to the band, and to articles in which Joseph Vargo defames the band (Oroboros 1 is a confirmed sockpuppet of GuardianZ and has been banned infinitely - the two of them would actually "talk" to each other and even appear to disagree). I did not want to let that stand, so I felt I had no choice but to revert. I have never tried to hide what I was doing. I was just trying to protect the integrity of the article the only way I knew how to protect it. Also, I find it very suspicious that GuardianZ, who was so vehemently fighting over the article, would just disappear after her block for sockpuppetry and be replaced by Peacekpr who has done nothing but attack me. - Skinny McGee 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but from the outside looking in, this appears to be a content dispute that has boiled over a bit. I don't see any real evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of Skinny McGee in regards to Defender99 as there is exactly 1 edit by Defender99 who Skinny McGee contends is her husband. There is an active sockpuppet investigation request here and any action should pend on this. I do find it a bit curious though that the editor bringing this up had his/her first edit as an extensive "fact finding". As much as Skinny McGee is a single purpose account for editing Midnight Syndicate, User:Peacekpr seems to be a SPA for investigating editors who contributed to that article. The article is locked right now anyway, so I recommend all parties be WP:COOL wait for the outcome of the sock investigation, and remember... you are fighting over an article on a band that doesn't even meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines.--Isotope23 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini again

This time he's coming from User:89.148.40.105 and reverting my edits. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. Zora 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Arain

Not 100% sure if this is the right place to report this, it's not vandalism but I think it should be looked at. I'm very flattered by the comment made about me at Talk:Arain, but User:Kneeslasher's diatribe on the page is bothersome and, I would guess, contravenes some Wikipedia protocol or other (or perhaps several). --Dweller 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the list of names. There might be a slight WP:OWN problem with the article, but the article needs help. Perhaps somebody from WP:INDIA can help provide better sources than a novel? Kusma (討論) 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini yet again

This time he's reverting edits from User:84.255.150.210. Please block and roll-back this IP too. Zora 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now from User:89.148.40.19. Please block and roll back. Also would be a good idea to semi-protect Nasibi. He dislikes that article for some reason. He would seem to be Shi'a, but I can't see what would offend a Shi'a in the article. Zora 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for sending you around from one place to the other like this, but I still think given the frequency of the complaints, it had better be taken to WP:AIV then here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a complaint there and it was removed, on the grounds that I hadn't gone through all the prescribed warning steps and that there was no evidence that these were not legit edits. IF you consider the various anonIPs used as separate users, then perhaps this stance by the AIV folks makes sense. When it's clearly one person cycling through many IPs, it doesn't. Thanks much for the blocks and rollbacks. Zora 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that was evidently someone who didn't know the whole story. The guy can be considered warned often enough, because he's been blocked so often before and he knows why. When you report on AIV, perhaps just give a link to this discussion here? I've actually had such situations several times when we had to use AIV for serial block evaders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose account?

I came across Principal Schoolswatter (talk · contribs) in AFD. Appears to be nominating school articles alone. Based on his name, can he be banned, or am I being oversensitive? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say his contributions are in good faith. He did flag Banyan Elementary School (Rancho Cucamonga, California) as copyvio but without realising there was good text in the history, which is an easy mistake for copyvio-fighters to make. Kimchi.sg 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they're both in good faith and a single purpose account. However, editors are encouraged to merge rather than delete non-notable schools (into a district, or city/town/locality article). I am going to leave them a note. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BoredLikeCardboard

Someone please review the above user's request for unblock; I blocked him for making this threat to demand adminship. I don't think I'm being oversensitive here, or am I? Kimchi.sg 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this user's contributions. He is almost certainly a troll. New users do not come to Wikipedia knowing how to upload images and where to find the RfA page. Also, most of his article edits are probably vandalism; he simply changes words and then inserts his signature into the article. The image he uploaded, Image:Meinhats.JPG, is probably a copyvio. —Psychonaut 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd keep him blocked. Threatening to destroy Wikipedia if he doesn't get admin rights is not okay and he should know that. (Giving in would only give him more tools to vandalize). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Already came across this editor. Just a weirdo trying to do a Borat impersonation; endorse block. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I've only come across this when updating Portal:Current events/Sidebar, but this user appears to be a load to deal with. Might need admin watching - a quick scan of his contribs suggests WP:OWN violations by leaving articles tagged {{underconstruction}} even after he's no longer editing the page, and there seem to have been a lot of potentially unilateral, undiscussed moves (perhaps against consensus) in his past 150-200 edits.

Only spotted him because I removed a stub unencyclopedic entry from the current events list; I see that that stub is up for deletion and apparently this user has already violated WP:POINT by blanking the AFD notice and adding speedy tags to the deletion debate.

Worth keeping an eye on, as he's also seemed to have resorted to incivility and personal attacks (and his talk page suggests a history of such, too). – Chacor 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He has appeared on my DRADIS several times now.. He's also been making unilateral moves etcetera; He has also created pages, they've been deleted, he recreates them, there deleted, he recreates them under a new name (Season 3, episode 7 (Lost)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued. Proto::type 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, the unilateral moves from Episode (Lost) to Episode (Lost episode) has created all kinds of inconsistancies as in some cases people reverted back to the original namespace. Nothing like undiscussed moves to throw a wrench in things.--Isotope23 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. There is a user who has spent a night replacing [[GNU/Linux]] with [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] in around 75 articles. There was no reason for this, and IIRC it violates WP policy. Maybe they misunderstood what disambiguation is, or maybe they think this is a useful thing to do, or maybe it is part of building support for/against a rename the article with the controversial name "Linux", or maybe it is part of a two-step plan to replace the name "GNU/Linux" with "Linux" (first "dab" the link, later "dab" the text). Here's the user's contributions: Special:Contributions/Dylan_Lake. Gronky 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice to disambiguate links when they point to a disambiguation. This is nothing to be concerned over, as it was obviously a good faith effort to help out 0 see WP:DISAMBIG (and I currently see no problems with it). If you have a real problem with the changes, feel free to revert them yourself, but it would be helpful to explain why you're reverting back (sorry, but I'm still unclear), and to leave a reason on the user's talk page. I also might like to remind you of WP:AGF, an official Wikipedia policy. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have made clear: the user is not disambiguating anything. "GNU/Linux" does not point to a disambiguation page, it is a redirect to "Linux". Gronky 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At this moment, it isn't, it's been a dab since the latest revert on 10 November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies for not checking that. Gronky 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gronky, can you please explain what the problem is here? It looks to me like he is changing the link from GNU/Linux which is a disambig page, to the actual article on "Linux (also known as GNU/Linux)" located at Linux. Usually when a link leads to a diambiguation page, we try to diambig the link and direct it straight to the precise article. I don't understand what the problem is. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I can see now is that the dab page at GNU/Linux has apparently been rather controversial, forever switching between being a redirect to Linux and being a dab page. As long as it was a redirect, the rules at WP:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken would apply, but given the instability of the target, I agree it's highly preferable to have all links go directly to the stable real article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fut.Perf., that is that policy I was thinking of. And thanks to all three for the quick responses. However, the controversy you've seen is not the one I was talking about (and is quite small and irrelevant). There is a large debate ongoing over whether GNU/Linux should be a redirect to Linux, or should it be that Linux is a redirect to GNU/Linux, or should they be two seperate articles. For this reason, that users' actions fit the above policy due to the effects on possible future articles. Should I now go to those 75 articles and express my preference by doing the same replace? Surely the policy exists exactly to prevent silly situations like that. The current note of encouragement on his/her userpage doesn't seem to lead to a productive or even neutral outcome. Gronky 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to do anything. As long as the articles which were edited are actually meant to link to an article that describe the operating system, the links are fine now. Even if it should later be decided that the Linux page should be moved, to GNU/Linux or wherever else, all will still be fine. As long as Linux itself doesn't become a dab page... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<after ec>I still can't see any reason to do a mass revert of those changes. With regard to Wikipedia:Redirect, it's a guideline, not a policy. And it doesn't say that once those changes have been made, they should be mass reverted. I think it would be better to talk to the editor who made the changes and try to resolve the issues that Fut mentioned above. Edit warring over it is not the way to go. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will talk with the user and/or re-evaluate now that I see I was mistaken about GNU/Linux currently being a redirect instead of a dab. Thank you each for your comments and advice. Gronky 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Game Studios and User:Alex Stanek 9999

Hola admins et al,

there seems to be some sony-spam on Microsoft Game Studios. He (User:Alex Stanek 9999) seems to have been warned before (I looked at his talk page). PER9000 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page blankings and vandalism have been reverted and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Osmosis

Several new users (or one user creating sockpuppets) are vandalizing Osmosis. Could we please get it semi-protected? Thanks! (Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, this is my first protection request) Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Raasnoerd

This user posts this massage on my talk page. I don't know who he is and have never seen him before. After I removed his accusations of vandalism from my talk page, he proceed to restore them. Now I see he desrupts user and user talk pages on a seemingly random basis. Please roll back his contributions. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Issued a 24 hour block (someone already blatantvandal'd him, he passed it). Some of his early edits look reasonable, up until today with Clock Looking-At and the vandalism. If he keeps it up, just report him to WP:AIV. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IP vandalism to Electricity

Could we please get Electricity semi-protected? Several IP addresses are vandalizing it. Nwwaew(My talk page) 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests like this go to WP:RFPP. Kimchi.sg 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All the vandalism came from 168.184.*.*. Kimchi.sg 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 168.184.0.0/16 for 3 hours - this is a school IP range belonging to Orange County Public Schools. Kimchi.sg 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just rolled back edits by user:70.119.201.37. Michael Hardy 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Still no cause for alarm; IP seems to have stopped after test1 was given. Kimchi.sg 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u, abusive sockpuppet

As established by checkuser, Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs) has just been caught creating yet another sockpuppet (Jibbs fan (talk · contribs)) to get around the ban placed on the account. Apart from blatantly violating the ban, this new account was once again involved in copyright violations and in personal threats. I have rolled back all identifiable contributions that I could find as per WP:DENY. However, given that this is approximately the 11th sockpuppet created for this long-term abuser, it is clear that Cute 1 4 u will create a new account before the end of the week and resume the abusive behaviour. What additional steps can we take to enforce the ban on this user? The user edits from a series of dynamic IPs in the Chicago area which makes an IP block unreasonable. However, I am sick to death of dealing with this long-term vandal and it is taking us weeks, not days, to track down each new account. --Yamla 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you just need to watch Chris Brown (singer) as that's her favorite artist or something. I'm pretty sure there have been edits from all of them to that page.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is on filing complaints with ISPs, but it would be something to consider in the case of longterm vandals.--Crossmr 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's ok in cases like this. ---J.S (t|c) 19:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about getting this done? --Yamla 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re reinstating edits made by banned users

If a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user makes an edit I consider valid, am I or am I not permitted to reinstate it after it has been reverted under the unproven pretext that it is a banned user editing? User:Khoikhoi threatened to block me for doing so despite the fact that the blocking policy does not provide for that...--Euthymios 16:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea if User:Khoikhoi is on solid ground with regards to blocking you (I'm not an admin), but it appears the version you are reverting to does not have broad consensus per the compromise agreement in Archive 8 Section 2 of the Talk:Transnistria page. There is a lengthy discussion there where a consensus was reached so you probably should not be reverting this anyway, regardless of where the original edit came from.--Isotope23 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is MY OPINION. You are permitted to reintroduce edits from a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. However, you should not do so using 'revert', you should introduce it as new text. Note that you will be taking full responsibility for the content, so any NPOV or uncited claims, for example, will be your responsibility to fix prior to inserting. The content will be considered to be contributed by you and you may be warned or blocked if it is inappropriate or if it is introduced in opposition to established consensus. It is important to note that you may not reinstate text that a banned user contributed if the banned user has asked you to do so. This would be a violation of WP:SOCK. For the record, any time I revert a banned user's contributions, I welcome someone else to reinstate the changes provided they accept full responsibility for them. Note that nothing I've said here is meant to replace WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, this is just my reading of the policy and my opinion on how things should work. --Yamla 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your opinion. It is permissible if someone else puts the information in and is credited with it. But just reverting is not. pschemp | talk 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's essentially what Euthymios did - he reverted to Bonaparte's version. Khoikhoi 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, this leaves me puzzled. What is the difference between "putting information back in" and "reverting"? How do you tell the one from the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is who is credited in the edit history. pschemp | talk 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real difference, of course. But a reversion using the admin roll-back tool is pushing for a wheel war. Reintroducing the change and using an edit summary like "rvv" or the like would similarly be what I mean by a revert. The trick is that an editor must treat it as original content that they are introducing and the edit summary would reflect that. For example, when reintroducing a spelling change, the edit summary should probably read along the lines of "(m) spelling - 'happyness' to 'happiness'". The key point is that the change is treated as new rather than as a roll back to a version introduced by the banned user. --Yamla 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The other key point is that from a GFDL standpoint, it does matter who made it. pschemp | talk 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla's advice is ood sense. I'd also make a comment on Talk to confirm that this is what has been done. As long as the edit is good (which seems not to be in dispute) there should be no problem, and if there is I'm sure it can be fixed by rational discussion well before the publication deadline. There being none. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That edit was 1) not vandalism, 2) accurate and NPOV, and 3) there is no proof that it was made by Bonaparte or any banned user. If a banned user corrects a typo and he is reverted in mass rollback, am I not allowed to revert back? Frankly, I see no difference. I would agree if it were a talkpage post or vandalism, however we're talking about an article edit which would be totally legitimate had it been made by a regular user (which there is no proof that that anon was not). Finally, is this blockable and if so how? Don't just say "disruption" - explain how it is "disruption". Many admins block by citing "disruption" but forget that the blocking policy specifies that such blocks are nearly always controversial.--Euthymios 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't reverting a typo though, this is reverting to a version of the articlecreated by an Anon (with a suspiciously good understanding of Wikipedia policy) that is against the Wikipedia:Consensus on the talk page. I would say this would not be a legitimate edit no matter who made it.--Isotope23 17:34, 28 November 2006 (
• In general, when re-adding content of a banned user care must be taken to follow copyright law. FloNight 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the emphasis on copyright law in this context? Surely, edits by even a banned user are GFDL licensed? After all, we may not catch them all. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Return of Sturm (talk · contribs) moving pages from Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs)

User has admitted to not being Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs) [86]. Could an admin look into this and undo the page moves if appropriate. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages have been restored and user blocked, thanks to Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs) --BostonMA ^talk 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Block User:125.212.74.174

For repeated vandalism of List of Marvel Comics films. --Jamdav86 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is just a case of an anon not understanding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT a crystalball rather than outright malicious vandalism. I've tried explaining on the talk page for the IP.--Isotope23 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look severe enough to warrant a block, a note about making sure they cite sources is enough. Shadow1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chatting uncontrolled

Looks like we've got a group of teenage girls using their talk pages as a chat site, including at least Baby-girl015 (talk · contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk · contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk · contribs). They have been leaving invitations to chat on various User Pages, User Talk pages, and Article Talk pages, frequently blanking the previous content in the process. I've had no luck in trying to communicate with any of them, except to get responses asking if I want to chat. Fan-1967 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do you want to chat? Well, an indefinite block of a user with no useful contributions is unlikely to be controversial. Not that I'm suggesting this as a first response, but if they're unresponsive... Friday (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like trolls than teenage girls to me.--Crossmr 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls, almost certainly. I wonder if this isn't just a bunch of sockpuppets run by a schizophrenic puppetmaster? Not sure how to check. Doc Tropics 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am tracking their moves to see if administrator intervention needs to be enforced. I would suggest reporting them to WP:AIV if they get out of control, or contact Jimbo and have them ALL banned at once. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Becaboo 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to have created all the following:

1. Babyphat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Big daddy thick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Sexy 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Big gay bubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. ! JAY ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Pretty Ricky1820 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sexy Virgo Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Sexy Jamacian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. BabyBlueStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Sexy Scorpio10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just reporting another quadruple on village pump / policy:

1. Make mi fall 4 u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
2. Wfg100 (talk · contribs),
3. Twdtriplethreat (talk · contribs),
4. Ghsovertime22 (talk · contribs)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This type of activity is a blatant abuse of project pages; it practically borders on stealing bandwidth. I would strongly suggest that steps be taken to shut them down immediately. Doc Tropics 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is one case where I think a permant block is warrented on the first offense. Users who have made no actual article space edits and merely are engaging in social networking don't need to continue editing here.--Isotope23 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Meh. They're just kids. Find the IP, notify the school. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ccc-media requested he be blocked

Ccc-media has requested that I block him on my talkpage here. Since I can't (non-admin and all), I'm passing it on to you. I thought he was blocked previously, but I guess not. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for username. Kimchi.sg 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

long-term spamming (at times through IPs) by User:DAde

i would like to report a case of constant and disruptive spamming by User:DAde and his IP's through which he is continually inserting inappropriate material on a few select articles (Islam-related articles particularly Islamic extremist terrorism, and mainly via IP on Islam, Qur'an, Criticism of Islam and Criticism of the Qur'an). there have been dozens of editors having to revert the spam he keeps inserting (it is present on User:DAde's user page showing that these IPs are connected to DAde, and they operate on exactly the same articles as User:DAde). sometimes the IP's have been used to evade blocks or are used so that he isn't perceived as excessively reverting/spamming with his usual account.

• DAde (talk · contribs) (sample diffs of identical disruptive spamming: [87], [88], [89], there are perhaps literally over a 100 edits identical to these)

behaviour mirrored by various disruptive IPs (likely using dialup):

• 84.146.227.164 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.227.244 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.246.131 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.222.48 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.254.84 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.216.205 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.219.94 (talk · contribs)

i would request administrator intervention here and believe that this editor is starting to test the community's patience, as he has been inserting exactly the same spam for quite a while now. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:DAde has had 4 blocks already, [90] for this type of behavior. This is getting to be WP:POINT-making.--Isotope23 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:MikeJason on Aaron Klein

At the suggestion of User:Robocracy the Aaron Klein page was semi-protected because of a series of POV-pushing anons. Now a logged-in editor, User:MikeJason has begun re-making some of the same changes. He also removed the {cleanup-rewrite} banner and the {sprotect} banner without discussion on the Talk page. I have consulted User:Athaenara and User:Tariqabjotu for their assistance. Their contributions are in the edit history. There was a pause, but after 17 days MikeJason is back doing his thing again. Since he is making changes against consensus after clear warnings, I'm asking for administrative help. EdJohnston 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just me, but perhaps a Check User request is in line, to back up a block. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MikeJason has only edited this one page. Blocking him would not hurt the future improvement of Wikipedia. And the page remains under semi-protection. An alternative would be full protection for the page, but I don't know how reluctant people are to do that. EdJohnston 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Approximately 295 redirects "broken" by user

While the guidelines on redirects specify that in order for template tags to work correctly, they should be "one space after and on the same line as #REDIRECT," User:ShakespeareFan00 has gone through and changed [91] approximately 295 redirects in {{R_with_possibilities}} so that the template tag is on a different line. Given the timestamps on the changes, my guess is they are being performed via a mass change tool like AWB. I left a message on the user's talk page about the proper syntax for redirects, however would it be possible for an admin to rollback the changes so all these broken redirects do not have be fixed by hand? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they have to be on the same line. Currently, they work, but that's undefined behavior subject to change in MediaWiki, so that isn't really an excuse. Working on it. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk problem and block

As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the Wikipedia:Reference desk, which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I removed an entirely off-topic joke discussion. I informed DirkvdM (talk • contribs • count) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see User talk:DirkvdM#Reference desk removal), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He subsequently restored the comments, so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.

Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, SCZenz 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (SCZenz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves))

I think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.

In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Wikipedia, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. pschemp | talk 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--Light current 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. StuRat 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree! 8-)--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--Light current 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.

Remember, wikipedia is not a discussion forum - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.

I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as SCZs Law!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--Light current 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Wikipedia policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- SCZenz 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I ve said so many times (but you were obviously not listening) Your common sense is NOT necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get consensus to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--Light current 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Wikipedia, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad about it too. -- SCZenz 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? Thatcher131 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. If Wikipedia was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. StuRat 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do you see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? Thatcher131 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since SCZenz didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. StuRat 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. IT'S A WIKI. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. IT'S A WIKI. Anchoress 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:

ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.

TALK PAGE
==================================================
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving 
 and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly happy willing to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid—but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- SCZenz 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this is the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. Thatcher131 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is not community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. StuRat 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note—as indeed there should not be. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. StuRat 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Wikipedia" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. pschemp | talk 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unilateral in that it was decided before asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that SCZenz's actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. StuRat 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. pschemp | talk 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that SCZenz should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. StuRat 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is not the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. StuRat 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Wikipedia, I have no right to take any action? -- SCZenz 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? StuRat 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a point about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- SCZenz 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Wikipedia. StuRat 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Block enforcement requested

64.107.2.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked earlier for 3RR and civility violations. Now back as 64.107.3.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by this edit. Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 22:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done: I blocked that IP, but there will be hundreds more. Please see the thread higher up on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#64.107.1.251.2C_etc. -- this is a much larger problem than meets the eye; I see a lot of editors who are individually colliding with this person, not seeing the bigger picture. Antandrus (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had no idea what I was getting into. Demiurge 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish

I tried to enjoy my right to vanish, but sysop User:Mike Rosoft prevents me to do that. He enganged in edit warring[92] prior to any discussion with me. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser as well. -- Zacheus 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He even deletes his own talk page where I informed him about the need being civil, to stop edit warring, and that I would ask another sysop to stop his actions. -- Zacheus 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on Mike's talk page. It seems that Zacheus has published personal details of other users on his blog. Hence, he has taken the right to vanish from fellow users but wants to take advantage of it for himself. As Mike has said, this does not make for a strong case. Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. Could you please provide any details? I would like to inform you that the right to vanish does not mean "right to vanish from fellow users", but rather from the Wikipedia.

"Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed." ??? -- Zacheus 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I haven't seen the actual evidence for what Samsara mentions, an editor who would post personal info about wikipedians on a blog should be "vanished" with a perma-block. That's just so uncool : ( Doc Tropics 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read all the dicussion about off-wiki disputes? -- Zacheus 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser case issue is dealt with. I say let the guy change his name if he wants to. Just because he was a jerk on cs: (according to their arbcom) doesn't mean we should be jerks on en. Besides, its a very limited form of Right to Vanish; it keeps his name off of google but a look in the page history will recover the info should it ever become important. Thatcher131 04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat at Christine Maggiore

The page Christine Maggiore was blanked by User:DavidRCrowe (who is connected to the subject of the page), replaced with a legal threat ("potentially libelous"). The prior version was heavily sourced, and he did not specify what parts he felt were libelous. I would just revert it, but with the threat of libel etc. wanted some outside review/help with how to proceed. Thanks. MastCell 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The page he blanked looked well sourced to me. Shouldn't it just be put back up per WP:LEGAL? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it has been. I have put a request on the user's talk page asking them to substantiate their claim. The article is sourced well so I cannot see what the problem might be.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. The question now is whether this act of vandalism and violation of WP:LEGAL warrants a block. I'm willing to overlook this once to avoid a WP:BITE, but it's a close call, and I can understand if people have different opinions.--Stephan Schulz 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see if he's going to learn from this or if he's going to respond with a reblank. If he reblanks I'd suggest a short block. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just stating that the page is potentially libelous is not really a legal threat. However, the rest of the text the user replaced the page with is sufficient grounds to be interpreted as a legal threat. --Yamla 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, the claim "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter" does not appear to be backed up by the source cited for it (the LA Times story), as the guy says on the talk page. I.e. the article doesn't actually say that if she'd taken medication, it would have prevented transmission of HIV. --W.marsh 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is how it works: the LA article says she wasn't taking medication, and the technical paper cited probably says that not taking medication means putting your child at greater risk. I'll have to read the paper for that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You should remove stuff like this on sight. I think I caught all mentions of it in the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the "technical report": administration of zidovudine (ZDV) to the HIV-infected woman during pregnancy and labor and to the newborn was shown to decrease the risk of perinatal HIV transmission. I'll rephrase the article to make clear how the referencing works. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of the L.A Times article source reads, "The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus." This was the source for the Wikipedia article's statement that "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter." MastCell 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be continued at the talk page of the article as to not clutter WP:AN, which is more for matters requiring administrator attention (which this no longer appears to require). Cowman109^Talk 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks everyone for your speedy responses. MastCell 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long page breakup committee

Hi, I know that there are about 1,000 administrators. I am interested in starting a small "long article" breakup committee so to provide assistance to those who need "super" long pages broken up. Many pages are fortified with seasoned editors who do not wish to see their beautiful articles broken up, and as such impose great resistance to even small changes. Especially with featured articles. Hence such a committee would need at least three administrators to control revert wars during the process of a page break up. Personally, I like to break up long science-related articles, so that new contributions can be made.

Can someone guide me to administrators who would be interested in this. Over the last month, I have been proposing an outline on the Wikipedia talk:Article size page. Long article issue problems are presently a major weakness in Wikipedia. We are almost into the top 10 most visited websites, according to Top 500 websites - Alexa. If we are to remain a major website we need to address this issue. Please leave comment. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, in theory. But I don't really like the fact that you seem to think that instead of establishing a consensus that a page should be broken up, it is better to recruit some admins to prevent people from reverting such a thing. If this idea is implemented well, there should be absolutely no need of admins. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my plan is that:

First, an editor tries to establish consensus: the issue is brought up on the talk page, and it is suggested that the regulars break up the article into subtopics, with short summary paragraphs (w/ main article attachments), see thermodynamics as an example, so that the main page gets below a certain limit.

Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so.

Without a group project such as this, then Wikipedia talkpages and articles will become like Congress: lots of arguing but little action. This will need to be a team action if it is to be successful. Here is a recent example in which I placed a "long article" tag on a page but it was quickly reverted; for this situation I would have needed administrative assistance. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles here. I've been meaning to do this for weeks. Will you help? Many thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to be on the same page; I would be glad to help with this, especially with the science-related articles, time permitting. We just need a bigger team. If we can get at least three core administrators, to help with the potential revert wars erupting between seasoned page editors connected to those pages, then I can scavenger up more regular editors to join the team who also like to see smaller articles. For now, I added your name here. I'll wait till the group gets up to about 10 people. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd hope we wouldn't need to push decisions down anyone's throat, and that administrators will support what is reasonable without being associated with the project. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a worst case scenario. Ideally, if an article “breakup team” existed, then the mere placement of a "talk page notice" would be enough to compel the regulars to break up the page on their own. When one works on a page for more than a month, then article beer goggles tend to develop, wherein the page seems perfectly fine no matter how long it gets. Presently, the “32 kb warning” tag that pops up on long pages is completely useless, because editors will unconsciously justify their “unique” long pages for so and so reason, and argumentitively attack anyone who questions them about page length. ---Sadi Carnot 02:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem still exists. A breakup committee should not have the power to decree that a page will be broken up by the involved editors, or someone else will come and do it for them, with admins preventing any reversion of changes. With the exception of the fact that they are openly acknowledging that they have that power, that is called a cabal, and it is bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what alternatives do you recommend? Should we let bloated 100 kb page articles linger around for months or years on end because of a few hard-minded editors; while, in the mean time, hundreds of thousands of readers get turned off and give up reading or better yet can’t load the page in the first place because they have dialup or are using a Blackberry, etc.? I don’t see what harm can come from this. We open up some new pages, cut and paste, everyone does some cleanup work, and than instead of having one 100 kb page, we now have, for example, three 33 kb pages. The process takes a day or two. It’s not that complicated. But a project team is needed for a “pressure-effect” and administrators may be needed to give user warnings to seasoned editors. In the end, everyone is happy. I am certainly open for other ideas? --Sadi Carnot 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... The current method of establishing consensus before changing anything seems to work just fine. Obviously, the "few die-hard editors" think there is a good reason why their page should be 100 kb long. Why is this committee assumed to know better than the editors who have actually worked on the article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this discussion should be somewhere else, but I don't know where would make sense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Article size. Let's not clog up ANI.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• One should take care how a page is broken up. I've seen material nominated for deletion when material on its own wasn't considered suitable for its own article or even worse, a POV fork when it wasn't. - 131.211.210.12 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is April 1st, right? Giano 08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  I suggest to ignore this thread, like everyone else does. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from AIV

The following person RadioKirk has: 1) blocked me without any warning. 2) claimed "If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet," (his evidence was that a user from a similar IP address was vandalizing both my page and other's and I am well aware of the meaning of both terms). I believe this violates Wiki standards for obvious reasons. 3) Completly vandalized my page...the only justification given was "(per user request; history, however, will remain)" [please note: I am requesting that my page me deleted...not vandalized without justification]. I apologize for poor formating.

I am rememberkigali 131.94.167.215 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You posted an article red link - you are probably Rememberkigali (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHell 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are Rememberkigali, then why did you ask for your account to be deleted in WP:AN --ArmadilloFromHell 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I actually moved this from AIV, where it was originally posted by rememberkigali. I've notified him of the move (I first put it on the discussion page of the wrong link, lol, but added it in the right place). Anchoress 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is self-basting—and the response was an unabashed attempt to hide evidence. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nintendude evading indef block

It appears Nintendude is evading his indef block with User:Livonia Mall and User:Clarenceville Trojan. He created a bunch of spurious categories and other typical Nintendude edits with these users over the past day [93] & [94]. Evidence this is actually Nintendude is here.--Isotope23 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempted account access

I just received an email from Wikipedia, saying 85.210.3.87 requested a password change. Are you able to see if this user/IP has had a username in the past? I guess it's someone I've pissed off before, persistant vandal/spammer maybe? Also, there's no way anyone can access my account without either guessing the password or using the temp password from the email, is there? Thanks —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{Insert standard message-2} Ignore it. You've got the gist of it. If you ignore the message your password will stay the same, and only you are receiving the message. It doesn't help anyone hack into your account, just a minor form of nuisance harassment. Thatcher131 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mena, Arkansas

Some edit-warring is taking place on Mena, Arkansas, regarding the attempts by some local person(s) to add massive quantities of material, with repetitive external links, regarding a local Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament. Some involved users (perhaps sock/meatpuppets of one another) are aiming personal attacks at those who revert their changes, calling them "gay" or "retards". *Dan T.* 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to massive sockpuppetry and rude comments by sockpuppets, I wouldn't be against semi-protection (I'm not sure if it follows guidelines). Try, maybe, WP:RPP. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in that little fracas since yesterday. Some small part of the editor's contribution can actually be included, and most of us have tried to save that bit when we revert, but his Edit Summaries have ranged from mildly amusing to moderately offensive. I've been reluctant to engage on his talkpage; it would probably be counter-productive unless he's handled with "kid gloves" (mine are at the dry cleaners today). Now that it's been brought up here, I can take it off my watchlist : ) Doc Tropics 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ for the Sprotect, that should help. Doc Tropics 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism

You guys might want to take a look at this one. It's already up for deletion. Any advice? MetsFan76 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ANI's not the place for this but I must say that the above template is the most qualified speedy deletion candidate per T1 that I've ever seen. (→Netscott) 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What might need looking into is the spamming going on surrounding this template. (→Netscott) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I know exactly who you are talking about before I clicked on the link. MetsFan76 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I personally understand the sentiment behind it, and believe that user:Inigmatus may be skirting, or crossing, the bounds of WP:NPOV with his/her edits to the messianic sequence of articles, the template was not the proper way to approach the issue, and so I speedied it. -- Avi 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo

Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs)/136.183.146.158 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week on Sunday (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2#Blocked_for_a_week). Tonight the same editor was editing again from 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs). I have blocked him for the duration of the week block, but have not reset the week block on all accounts. I am not exactly uninvolved, but I believe that blocking for block evasion is uncontroversial enough. I welcome input (feel free to tell me if I am wrong). Guettarda 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as a very involved other use this seems to have exhausted community patience. Over 20 users endorsed the basic RfC complaint and his editing behavior changed not at all. Indeed, his main response on the RfC page was to make accusations at other editors and to assert that "JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me". At minimum the user should be put on community probation from editing all evolution related articles(as proposed by Pschemp in the RfC) and a general community ban may be more in order. JoshuaZ 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I reset the blocks for the original two, and extended the block to nine days. Feel free to alter that if that is insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the blocks issued to date, as well as gathering consenus for a community ban. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my patience is certainly exhausted. After being engaged in discussion by 136.183.146.158 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) at talk:Dinosaur tonight, I checked his contrib history and found a near-identical series of disruptive edits to other science articles. Ken was blocked for disruption and trolling, and now evades the block in order to continue disruption and trolling. His history makes it clear that he has little interest in building an encyclopedia; POV attacks on articles that disturb his personal beliefs are his mainstay. Repeated discussions, warnings, and blocks have had no effect; stronger action appears to be necessary. Doc Tropics 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As his IP continually changes, I respectfully suggest all users involved to please keep an eye out for any similar IPs editing similar articles. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio issues, Nareklm and HayasaArmen

Nareklm (talk · contribs) and HayasaArmen (talk · contribs) have posted multiple articles and images that are copyright violations. Hopefully I've spotted most of HayasaArmen's copyvios since the account has only been active since yesterday (see their talk page). But Nareklm has quite a few articles and images that need to be looked through. (many of them contain watermarks, making it clear they're copyvios). --Interiot 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal now has his version of article protected!

This was moved from WP:AIV: Droliver has been vandalizing the breast implant article for months. He is a plastic surgeon who keeps adding links to promotional websites (that plastic surgeons pay to be listed on) -- thus turning this article into free ads for plastic surgeons (presumably including himself, but since I don't know his real name, I can't say for sure). What I can say with certainty is that there are numerous factual errors in his version of the article, in addition to bias. He removed research articles, FDA regulatory statements, and other information about the risks of silicone implants. The FDA now has a 40+ page "informed consent" document to warn patients about the risks, but you'd never know if from Droliver's version on Wikpedia. After reverting to his version of the article several times today, he persuaded Samir to block the article from any subsequent changes. This is all new to me, I am seeking help. Drzuckerman 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Viridae^Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I took a quick look at the contributions of Droliver (talk · contribs) and there's a definite concern about POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the edits to Breast implant qualify as vandalism by any stretch. I wasn't persuaded by anyone to protect Breast implant but did so because of the edit warring. The issues are being discussed at Talk:Breast implant -- Samir धर्म 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's always the wrong version. -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tennis expert (talk · contribs) - WP:POINT and constant disputes

This user has been problematic for a while, but for lack of a solution anywhere else, I'm bringing this here since I'm involved in the problem. This user has a history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things, and making WP:POINT edits. He approached a WP:3RR violation on 2006-07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season by constantly reverting a sentence about rapid deepening, and had an unprovoked and heated exchange with the editors there after making edits that weren't within the standards of the tropical cyclone WikiProject.

More recently, he decapitalized "Southern Hemisphere" in that article, and was reverted since it is capitalized in Southern Hemisphere. After being reverted twice, he went over to the Southern Hemisphere article and immediately decapitalized almost every mention of "Southern Hemisphere" (he has done this twice). In addition, he changed the heading on the 3RR warning I left on his talk page (he actually did this twice), claiming that he has made thousands of edits here and has not violated the rule (whether he has or not is irrelevant). The talk page and contribs provide further evidence of incivility when it comes to 3RR ([95], for instance). --Coredesat 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things"? And where is the history of being "problematic for a while"? There is no evidence to support either claim. I have had disagreements with User: Chacor twice, and Cordesat has sided with him both times, best evidenced by adding unreasonable warnings to my talk page about the three revert rule. The warnings are unreasonable because my 2000+ edits history proves that I am well aware of and have never violated that rule. Cordesat, however, keeps warning me about the rule whenever Chacor and I disagree about something. Cordesat is willing to stick a warning on my talk page after one revert but declines to stick the same warning on Chacor's talk page after he has had made two reverts. Why is that? I am truly puzzled. By the way, I changed the heading for the warning on my talk page because the warning was clearly unreasonable in my opinion. I did not edit, delete, or archive the warning itself in any way - it's still there for anyone to see.

When have I ever made a WP:POINT edit? Never. Chacor pointed out that "southern hemisphere" should be capitalized because the Wikipedia article Southern Hemisphere capitalizes the term. When I went over to the article, I noticed that "southern hemisphere" was capitalized sometimes and not capitalized other times. In other words, the article was internally inconsistent. I fixed this problem and made the capitalization of that term consistent with ordinary usage. Despite my explanation, Cordesat persists in claiming that my fixes were WP:POINT. Why is he not assuming my good faith WP:AGF in making these edits? And even if both "Southern Hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" were stylistically acceptable, which they are not, note the obligation of editors to ensure that articles are internally consistent about style issues.

The problem I encountered about the standards of the 2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is that no one would tell me what the standards were. They just kept saying that I violated them. I repeatedly asked to be told the standards and was ignored for 3 days. Look at the discussion page that Cordesat cites to see how perplexed I was.

As for the "rapid deepening" issue, I reverted a change twice, discussed my logic for doing so each time, and tried (but failed) to understand the logic of Chacor for opposing the change. Cordesat's characterization of my actions as "repeatedly" is at least a slight exaggeration, as is his claim that I got into an "unprovoked and heated exchange" with "editors." The disagreement was not "unprovoked," was not uncivil, and was with only two editors: Chacor and Cordesat himself.

I would ordinarily assume good faith about Cordesat's complaints, but I think the evidence supports the conclusion that this whole thing is nothing more than harrassment of me for trying to improve an article that Chacor and Cordesat have long been associated with. For example, look at my talk page and you will see a comment from Cordesat about how the author of an article is entitled to decide whether certain edits are acceptable. In this context, i.e., more than a mere disagreement about two acceptable styles, that's an incorrect reflection of Wikipedia policy about authors and editors not "owning" articles. Tennis expert 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have blocked Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for disruption and trolling. As demonstrated in this discussion on his talkpage, he had been adding a nonexistant category to the talk page for the September 11, 2001 attacks article.[96], [97] He was questioned about it and deliberately acted dumb. I asked him to remove it and he still acted trollish. He then added it to his own talkpage[98] Cplot has been trolling various articles and has been repeatedly trying to add NPOV tags for which there is no consensus and when asked what he feels the issues are that make the article unbalanced, he gives vague referencing that the article is controlled by the feds (US Government) and the like. Cplot has also been blocked twice in the last 8 days for 3RR on the same article.--MONGO 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need tendentious editors who act this way. I support your action, MONGO. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)