Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive296

User:Dizzydaboss187

This user has vandalized the article Jacksonville, Florida numerous times (8 to be exact) - all in the past two days. He just blanked the page 5 minutes ago. He has been warned one too many times. He should be blocked. - Jaxfl 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, though, please report things like this at Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim

There have been several edit wars on this page in the past few weeks. The first one started at the beginning of August, where two editors (User:Intothefire and User:Arrow740) repeatedly made additions that were often irrelevant, badly sourced, entirely unsourced, and/or badly written. They were reverted by User:Tigeroo and myself (just once), among others - the reverts looked like this. In general the article had major problems (spelling, grammar, repeated links, inconsistent spelling, badly sourced POV material, etc.) so I made a good faith (attempt to fix the problems. Well that only sparked more reverting, where User:Arrow740 and User:Hornplease got into their own edit war.

Now the "incident" I'm reporting is this - apparently a sockpuppet has entered the picture. This revert war does not seem to be stopping any time soon (Tigeroo and I, among others, have justified our edits on the talk page, and User:Intothefire is at least attempting to discuss his edits with us, but Arrow740, for example, has made only 1 comment on the talk page and it wasn't particularly constructive ("Yes, he didn't put much effort into his edit summary this time. Arrow740 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"). Anyway this page might need to be protected - and I don't know what to do about the sockpuppet (first of all, it could be Arrow or Intothefire - how am I to know whom?). ugen64 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the characterisation of my attempts as an edit war: I specifically urged Arrow740 to contribute on the talkpage. A look at his edit contributions tells a clear story: this editor needs to be encouraged to stop reverting without discussion. It appears that over 80% of his edits are reverts, often using vandalism tools, and almost always without discussion. His user talkpage lists several interventions by different users that indicate that this is a pattern of behavior. Hornplease 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POINT violation

Darrowen (talk · contribs) just created an article, Indo-Aryan civilizations, as a reaction to the closure for Dravidian civilizations. While I agree that the closure for that article was poor (should have been 'delete' instead of 'no consensus'), Darrowen's article was obviously created in retaliation - "This page certainly has precedent if the Dravidian civilizations article is not a hoax.".

As the idea of such an article was in fact ridiculed by those who supported the deletion of Dravidian civilizations, I think it is easy to declare Darrowen's action a WP:POINT violation.

To get to the point, I don't want to bother grappling with Darrowen over deletion, so I'm wondering if anybody can just delete it for the POINT violation that it is. Thanks for any help dealing with this. The Behnam 04:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Query - positioning markup

Why do we allow "floating divs" in the first place? Is there any plausible use for them other than to obscure parts of the MediaWiki interface? >Radiant< 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Floating divs are everywhere - infoboxes, etc. The problem is absolute positioning. People use that functionality to do cute things on their user pages but, otherwise, I'm not aware of places where it helps the encyclopedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear about terminology, a floating div is typically a box that floats left or right of the main text. It moves things out of the way to make space for itself. This is a very useful feature. A floating div will not obscure other things. Absolute positioning, also known as layers, puts a div a set number of pixels away from an edge of the screen. This can cause the div to obscure other things. Here are the beans if you want to test this:

<div style="position:absolute; top: 200px; left: 200px"> <h1>Beans! Beans! Beans!</h1> </div>

Try this in your sandbox, not on a live page, please. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so I used the wrong term :) the question stands - why do we allow this in the first place? I believe the MediaWiki software can filter out unwanted kinds of html tag. >Radiant< 11:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's used by a whole host of templates that put various icons and such up next to the article title (FA stars, padlocks, geographical coordinates etc). None of that is rely critical to the ensyclopedia, but are they causing a lot of problems though? I've seen them used to block out the toolbox on one or two userpages, but I generaly don't think of it as a problem. If someone is using it to be disruptive just revert and take apropriate measures if they are beeing dickish about it. --Sherool (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, good answer. Thanks. >Radiant< 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can their use be restricted in software, to template space then? They are being used for spam and links which (being hidden) are on the pages, disrupt editors, and assist SEO, but are not always visible casually. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Wknight94, there are (IMO) valid uses for absolute positioning when captioning various features on an image or diagram - see Broadwater Farm Estate or Hampstead Heath, for example — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On Rambutan etc

1. Rambutan has been disruptive in the past – Not completely untrue, as a user who has been in dispute with Rambutan, I can say that he has been unhelpful and unwilling to listen at times. However, he responded well to reason in the past, learned from his mistakes and has been willing to collaborate.
2. Rambutan agreed to move on with the GFDL banner, which hovered over the GFDL links before he was blocked.
3. It would be interesting to note that Rambutan had only recently nominated an article for deletion over which Phil Sandifer seems to have an active interest. See Judd Bagley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judd Bagley (2nd nomination), soon after which Phil commented on the AfD page, and then commented upon how Rambutan was "deliberately" – [1] trying to make his talk page unusable. This petty dispute escalated and resulted in the non-admin getting blocked for a duration of one month(?).
4. Phil Sandifer has repeatedly introduced material – [2], [3], which can be considered to be libellous on a permanent medium of information like an encyclopedia. On that very page itself, Phil Sandifer misused his admin tools to semi-protect the page to prevent the anonymous IP address from editing again. This was soon followed by the petty issue been addressed on Rambutan's talk page.
5. Rambutan has been blocked many times during the months of June and July, majority of the blocks been executed by Phil Sandifer himself – [4]. The very first block made by Phil Sandifer (citing Removing talk page comments is disruptive.) was overturned by another administrator. This did not discourage Phil Sandifer from continuing blocking this user.
6. I would strongly recommend other administrators looking into the dispute, to delve into the issue rather than making observations solely on what it appears on the surface. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I implore Phil to stay away from Rambutan, and let other admins deal with him. This is not to say that Rambutan is in the right, just that Phil should focus elewhere. Will ^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record I find this intervention in the block of Rambutan most disturbing, particularly given the very serious, and as far as I can tell absolutely unfounded, counter-accusations that are made against his blocker. Rambutan is categorically disruptive, responds badly to polite requests, and has been rightly blocked on many occasions. That Phil has fielded this disruptive behavior is no reason to treat Phil as the problem, when Rambutan is the author of his own very poor reputation. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Variation AGF personal attack in edit summary

CBDunkerson accused me of assuming his bad faith (no clue as to why) which I interpret as an inverse variation on the AGF personal attack described at WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. It's in an edit summary where only an admin can remove it, and I would like it removed, please.

Here's the diff of CBDunkerson's the over-the-line edit summary: "Response to assumption of bad faith and refusal to accept very clear statements of my position"
Nothing of the kind happened. For the AGF claim, I never assumed or mentioned anything about his good faith, or even thought about it. For the position claim, I did accept his constructive position that he was not going to answer the topic question, which was his only position in which I had an interest. I simply pointed out that his other statements of position were not answers to my question as stated.

This is one of those situations that gets worse with my every reasonable response, and I'd appreciate some help before the situation fulminates. He certainly isn't going to listen to my advice on avoiding NPAs generally, or as being especially disruptive in edit summaries. Also, given his demonstrated misreading of fact, I think it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here.†

The background is that I asked him an on-topic question which he refused to answer as stated, and then went off on a fevered tangent based on misreading my post for calendar month. When I pointed out his refusal to answer the question as stated, he claimed he had answered it repeatedly, which claim I find to be tendentious debating. Though I had civilly given up asking, he finally did answer the question as stated. That would have been the tedious end of it, except for the variation AGF PA in the edit summary where it can't be deleted by me. I would like to have it removed by admin, and Mr. Dunkerson reminded that Wikiguides apply to everyone.

†Mr. Dunkerson's debate style has most recently been aggressive certainty of his one-and-only rightness, while making repeated mistakes of fact and interpretation — suggesting to me that he needs new glasses and debate mentoring. This loose cannon behavior is that of a WP long-timer, admin, and a 36-year-old professional adult who ought to know better, maybe used to know better, but now doesn't perhaps due to admin burnout. Having read his RfA of 03 April 2006, the editor I encountered recently doesn't even seem like the same person as then received a (111/1/0) admin approval ratio. Milo 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I love the C-style comment in the header! - Alison ☺ 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best time to say that Allie? I think you're overreacting a bit Milo. CBDunkerson may be just a little frustrated about the debate... Doubtful it requires much admin intervention, so it may be best to talk to him about it first. Cheers. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Doubtful it requires much admin intervention" Oh? How you propose I remove the PA without admin tools? Milo 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While it may be a little uncivil, I would not call that a personal attack that has to be removed from the page history. I can see that he was frustrated and the message was directed at a contributor not on content. I don't think it is worth it to remove it from the page history though. 1. No names are mentioned in the edit summary or text. 2. The attack (if it can be construed as one) is quite minor, its not like he called anyone an idiot or something. 3. The page has over 4000 revisions, deleting that one would require deletion/undeletion of the whole thing. I'd rather not crash the server now (I almost did it a few days ago with a page with fewer revisions). 4. Some of the comments made here about CBD are much worse than his comment about assuming good faith. "it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here." That seems a little underhanded and sneaky, talking about him behind his back. "needs new glasses and debate mentoring" - I would consider that a personal attack and do not see how it is really related to the topic at hand except to try to make CBD look as bad as possible. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We have now entered the stage known as blaming the victim. I'm the victim here, and I did nothing to deserve being victimized. CBD's edit summary personal attack came out of the blue.

"Some of the comments made here about CBD are much worse than his comment about assuming good faith." That's not true, not fair to me, and over the top. I'm asking for help and you appear to be angling to justify my victimization.

" to try to make CBD look as bad as possible." You are wrong. I stated exactly what happened, no more, no less. If he looks bad, that is due to his own behavior, not my cautious and accurate description of it.

"... The attack (if it can be construed as one)" ... "I would not call that a personal attack..." Allow me to Wikiguide cite this point: WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack." As I read it, CBD's edit summary says by Wikiguide interpretation that I PA'd him. WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack? says that "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."

"...that has to be removed from the page history." Hm, that's difficult for me to judge one way or another without standards. I'd appreciate addtional opinions and comparisons.

"No names are mentioned in the edit summary or text." Ok, that helps, and his edit summary is isolated from my last summary by five edits; but, they are obviously connected by the little-edited section name.

"its not like he called anyone an idiot or something" You say that because you probably aren't a philosopher. My position in the debate is primarily based on philosophy, and maintaining perception and reality of good faith is vital. What he said is much worse to one's reputation than being junior-highishly called an "idiot", though not as inflammatory which is probably your usual standard.

Milo wrote (02:31): 'needs new glasses and debate mentoring' - Mr.Z-man wrote (03:26): "I would consider that a personal attack" Those are certainly not PAs - behavior is commentable: WP:NPA#Initial options: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions"

"and do not see how it is really related to the topic at hand" They are directly related, as I'll explain. He grossly misread my "last June-ish" (obviously three months ago) for being June 2006 and made an emphatic point based on his error. That he might need new glasses is a perfectly fair and reasonable interpretation of his overt misreading behavior. His tendentious debating remark that he claimed to have repeatedly answered my question, when in fact he had answered his own contorted version of my question - that reasonably calls for debate mentoring, which is after all education in how to properly debate. Again, neither comment is a PA - again, behavior is commentable.

"Milo wrote (02:31): 'it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here.' Mr.Z-man wrote (03:26): "That seems a little underhanded and sneaky, talking about him behind his back." AGF - it was an hint for someone else to tell him. Really now, if I didn't want him (or you) to know, I sure wouldn't have told you that I hadn't told him, right? To the central point, one of the things I've learned about frequent communications with strangers at Wikipedia is that when they misunderstand you more than once, one wisely ceases communicating as promptly as is civil. It's too risky to do otherwise. Take my word for it that I can list the risks, but that's OT.

"The page has over 4000 revisions, deleting that one would require deletion/undeletion of the whole thing. I'd rather not crash the server now (I almost did it a few days ago with a page with fewer revisions)." Yeah, being a techie myself, I agree that is a problem. Sounds like a problem that should be submitted to development for dealing with large page histories.

So what do we have here? It's not practical for CBD's PA to be sliced out, and so far no admin here has the fortitude to tell another possibly myopic admin, while acting as an editor, that he shouldn't have attacked me, much less for absolutely no reason.

Y'know folks, access to small claims justice, and the cop on the beat to stop trouble in its early stages, is vital to neighbors getting along in the real world. Without small justice here, this is the kind of thing that causes good editors to leave Wikipedia in disgust.

So is there a just and fortitudinous admin in the house? Milo 06:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo, you continue to insist that I didn't answer your question despite my repeated statements that I did. That's the 'assumption of bad faith' I referred to in my edit summary... you are essentially claiming that I am 'lying'. I didn't really give you my answer, I was just pretending that I had. Or something. Now you claim that the situation was so dire (rather than an incredibly minor and silly squabble) that you needed to come here, not discuss the matter with me, and not even notify me of this discussion. That isn't assumption of bad faith on your part? Your refusal to accept that >my< opinion (which you had asked for) was really what I said it was, the various minor insults you have tossed my way, and your bad faith assumptions and actions are unfortunate, but not of any great concern. I'm sorry that you didn't like (or apparently heed) my mention of the need to assume good faith, but that is no more a 'personal attack' than your claims above that by saying so >I< failed to assume good faith.

We are entirely agreed that conduct rules apply to everyone in every situation... which is why I have responded to your insults and assumptions of bad faith with reminders that you should not be doing so. In brief; don't go about insisting that I'm lying to you (about my own opinion no less) and there'll be no reason for me, and other respondents above, to remind you of civility and the need to assume good faith. This was an incredibly minor disagreement which you have gone out of your way to inflate into some kind of notable disruption. There's no need. We disagree about whether spoiler warnings can be used without impacting the layout of articles. My original statement of that fact should have been the end of it. So why all this noise and bother? --CBD 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"your insults and assumptions of bad faith"..."So why all this noise and bother?" In a nutshell, the latter occurred because of the former - being your erroneous notions of non-events that occurred only within your misunderstandings (which I will prove), leading to your edit summary personal attack (as Wikiguide-cited above) on my philosophical character, which is important to me (for reasons stated above), and is situated in an edit summary apparently no one will undertake to erase.

"incredibly minor disagreement which you have gone out of your way to inflate into some kind of notable disruption." I reject your attempt to trivialize and smear as a disruption, my evidence-based complaint of personal attack in an appropriate venue. Personal attacks are taken seriously at Wikipedia, and WP:NPA thoroughly explains why. The PA is there, whether intentional or not you did it, and it is in an edit summary where only admins can erase it. Like it or not, that's an ANI case. However, much of the threadspace "noise" above was made in refuting Mr.Z-man's outrageous attempt to blame the victim, which was not your doing.

Disclaimer: I suppose that because of your professional career, it's personally important for you to be correct. Ok, I feel the same way, but I'm not always correct, and neither are you. I politely ate three servings of crow yesterday, and you should go on the same diet.

I want to make it clear that we are discussing correctness in the context of English language debate, not money or math. English language debate is obviously not your field, and my criticism of your demonstrated debate and language skills doesn't reflect in any way on your ability to be correct in your money and math professional field. Also, I'm not saying you can't improve at debate and language, and I hope you will, if only to future-avoid the unecessary kind of trouble you have caused me this week.

"Milo, you continue to insist that I didn't answer your question despite my repeated statements that I did. That's the 'assumption of bad faith' I referred to in my edit summary... you are essentially claiming that I am 'lying'. I didn't really give you my answer, I was just pretending that I had. Or something."

This seems to be your key misunderstanding. There are two problem issues with your view.

1) The first issue is that you still think that you originally did answer my question. I'm going to have to prove that you didn't, point by point. That will have to wait until I pull out the quotes and annotate them.

2) The second issue is your unbridled leap of inference that because I said you didn't answer my question, and you said you did, that somehow equals a charge by me that you lied. It doesn't, and that's a specific example of the general reason for the WP:AGF Wikiguide. From my view, you obviously believed you had answered my question, but I merely concluded that you were again wrong.

Recall your misreading of my statement of "last June-ish" (obviously circa three months ago) as meaning circa June 2006 . That was you setting a pattern of being wrong. It was obvious for me to conclude from your first wrong reading, that your claim to have answered my question, was you being wrong again. Not lying, just plain wrong. It turns out that your unjustified and incorrect leap of inference was wrong #3.

Are we done with that second issue now? Milo 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla Boy (talk · contribs)

User has repeatedly changed a section title inappropriately ("Kaiju UNLEASHED" in all caps and bolded, italicized) in Godzilla: Unleashed. He has previously been blocked for similarly disruptive edits to the page. Just64helpin 11:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note at his talk page to avoid such conduct. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He is still doing it... Just64helpin 10:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1 week block for disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:feline1 accusing me of witch hunts

cross-posted from User talk:Spartaz due to his recommendation

I noticed that you had blocked User:feline1 for making some rather rude comments earlier. He is now making some very rude comments to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott along the lines of claiming that I'm setting up sockpuppet accounts in order to start witch hunts. I asked him to stop harassing me at User talk:feline1 but he pleads ignorance. Can you please help? Nondistinguished 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

not blockable behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry I'd already started typing this before Spartaz replied - I may as well post it!) Am I allowed a say in the matter? :) It just seems to me that Nondistinguished is the same person as User:ScienceApologist, who I'd encountered before on the Immanuel Velikovsky article. I'd recognise his aggresive editing style anywhere, not to mention his penchant for 'wiki-lawyering'. He seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about deleting "non-mainstream" and "pseudosience" articles. Anyways, I cast my vote on the deletion of the David Talbott article, if the community majority vote the other way then I'm happy to abide by the decision. I've no interest in fighting about it!--feline1 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What's with all the ad hominems? Are editors allowed to simply spout their opinions regarding the personal character of other editors? I thought we were supposed to discuss content and how to best build an encyclopedia, not make personal accusations! Is this how the Wikipedia community responds normally? If so, then I want out. Normally I would simply ignore this kind of baiting, but in the case of an encyclopedia that works under consensus, such rude behavior can be very damaging to the project, I would think. Nondistinguished 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is that way ---> Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feline1 are you saying that nondistinguished is a sock puppet or new account of scienceapologist? --Rocksanddirt 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

/shrugs/I think it's their new account; reading WP:SOCKPUPPET I'm genuinely confused as to whether that's a considered Bad Thing or not.--feline1 05:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

MWWS - accusation of edit warring, trolling for duplicate tag removal?

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has accused me of edit warring and trolling for removing a duplicated NPOV tag from Missing white woman syndrome. The tag is also contained in the "multiple issues" box which is there to remove, rather than encourage, tag clutter. SqueakBox has gone on to describe the article as "dreadfully unbalanced", "badly sourced" and "referenced to pursue a POV agenda", despite a multitude of reliable major media sources represented in the article, and the efforts of various editors to clean up the article and remove unsourced information. I don't get any of this. If someone could help me point out to SB the fact that trolling and edit warring do not apply to removing duplicated maintentance tags, and that the article is indeed pretty well sourced, I'd appreciate it. Deiz talk 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing to me but I don't know why this needs to be discussed in this venue. Let's keep on his Talk page and the article's Talk page. No admin action required here. --ElKevbo 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it does need some sort of intervention. Squeakbox has a history of accusing people of trolling, when they are doing or supporting something he dislikes. Case in point [5] he accuses an administrator of trolling simply because the administrator protected a page he was trying to speedily delete. Fighting for Justice 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) He's flirting with 3RR and accusing 2 long-standing editors of trolling and edit warring over nothing. As you noted, he appears to be editing quite strangely and your observation that he is "not himself tonight" is probably pretty close to the mark. If he continues to be disruptive, rude, turn simple maintenance tag cleanup issues into "trolling and edit warring" and make bizarre accusations then I would ask an uninvolved admin to step in. Deiz talk 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I NPOV'd this article yesterday based on serious considerations. There is still a dispute so where is Deiz coming from removing the tag and denying the dispute without lifting a finger to resolve the dispute. I agree with El Kevbo that there is nothing for admins here, other than perhaps to point out to Deiz that there is a dispute so he should let the NPOV tag be until the dispute is sorted (and I went mention details here, the talk page is for that and he hasnt even tried to argue that the article is NPOV in aserious way). IU just ecd but nothing Deiz says in his latest edit changes anythiong, this article needs more than maintenance tags and I am at l;eastrt as long standing as Deiz, who is the only one opposing the perfectly reasonable tag, SqueakBox 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand which part of this you don't understand:

• I removed a duplicate tag - It was tagged as NPOV twice. Routine cleanup.
• The "multiple issues" box is there to contain multiple tags.

If you continue to assert that I entirely removed NPOV tags from the article you will continue to be knowingly misrepresenting the facts, which isn't going to impress anyone. Deiz talk 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tags were not identical and I removed the blue NPOV tag when you pointed it out to remain with the orange standard NPOV tag which is the one one I want as I believe the article currently merits it. Why not just leave the orange NPOV standard tag that I placed there. I cant understand why you would wish to remove it as its just a standard tag, nothing controversial except to let our readers know the article is tagged as NPOV, and explained when I placed the tag. This is such a lame edit war and your blue multiple-use tag failed to give the same impact. THis article is POV as it presents one side of an argument as fact, SqueakBox 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are now 4 editors attempting to use the multiple issues box, and one editor and a mysterious new IP reverting back. Deiz talk 03:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A UK IP. Problem is that I am in Honduras and according to my IP locator the IP is based in the UK. And even I couldnt get a meatpuppet to call my tune at 5 am (UK time). I have to say multiple editors removing an NPOV tag is disgraceful, a new low for wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Nobody - not one editor - has removed the tag. You like the orange stand-alone tag, we get it. Others are happy with the multiple issues box. Deiz talk 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • NPOV tags arent consensus based, if you are as experienced as you claim you will know that, SqueakBox 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, the fact that those reverts are that IP's first and only edits is highly suspicious. — Ocatecir^T 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well if you believe I am currently in the UK please feel free to run a check user, but I am in Honduras right now, SqueakBox 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags are absolutely based on consensus - if there is consensus to add or remove them they get added or removed. "..which is the one one I want as I believe the article currently merits it"? Sorry, but you don't own your pet article. For good reasons. Deiz talk 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While there is definitely a significant conflict going on here, I agree with ElKevbo -- this is not an issue that requires administrative attention at this time. A request for comment would probably be the best place to go from here. --krimpet⟲ 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article was protected, there was also an apparent 3RR violation. Issue seems to have blown over for now. Deiz talk 06:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the catch-22. The page can't be unprotected till the neutrality issues are sorted out, as that would be the best solution to this mess, but until someone can edit out the issues, the page can't be unlocked to be edited. ThuranX 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute has nothing to do with the neutrality issues. It's entirely concerning the template. :( --ElKevbo 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mousepad

There's an anonymous editor on both Mousepad and Talk:Mousepad that's claiming that Armando M. Fernandez made the mosuepad invention, making rather serious accussations of plagerism and possibly personal attacks. The anon editor uses multiple IP Addresses, and has made very few other edits to any other articles.

The only citation involves one small document, which might not even make the requirements of a proper citation. Aside from that single document, there isn't much information that allows this to be verified - and another link seems contradicts the claim of invention (by stating the original demo used a cloth pad).

Fernandez's reference presents legal documentary evidence. Other claimants and their supporters present only fabricated plagiarism and fabricated false conjectures about having invented the mousepad, they also have a groupie of pushers of the plagiarism and false conjecture fabricated by Kelly and Pang. Fernandez's reference document, shows that he is the true person who first invented, first named and first documented the mousepad.

This needs escalation, and ANI seems to be the best catchall. While I'd go for WP:RFC, I strongly doubt that will resolve the issue based on the sidedness of the arguments. The references also appear in more than one wikipedia translation as well, thus escalation probably would affect a larger number of pages. --Sigma 7 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However, WP:AN/I is not a place where content disputes should be resolved - more leaning towards user conduct. I'd go for WP:RFC first. And which other language Wikipedias are "affected"? x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam Personal Attacks

User:Beh-nam has personally attacked me on my talk page [6] and User:Tariqabjotu - [7] on his talk page, using harsh language and assumptions of bad faith. Atabek 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user in question. --Tango 12:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

why has this guy not been indef-blocked?!

Can someone please look at the contributions of 89.33.147.117 (talk · contribs) and tell me why this total and complete troll was not blocked indefinitely the moment he showed up and started spewing his disgusting, idiotic racist filth? I know I'm a little late on this one as he hasn't posted for over a week, but shouldn't he be blocked anyway to make sure he doesn't get a chance to post that garbage again? K. Lásztocska 04:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well admisn arent all-seeing but, yeah, this guy looks a definite troll and shopuld be blocked for a while, SqueakBox 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. Indefinitely blocking a user a week after their vandalism helps no one. Moreover, indef blocking IPs is not usually a good idea, especially for one day of vandalism. --Haemo 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea though to keep an eye out in case he returns...K. Lásztocska 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. IPs are very rarely indef blocked, because an indef block of an IP means an indef block of more than one person, much of the time. Many of those people netted in with the indef block could be very innocent and interested in building the 'pedia. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WHOIS puts him in Romania, so it looks like good 'ol fashioned national pride trolling is at play here. I'll keep an eye on him, though. --Haemo 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

national pride is one thing, spewing idiotic hatred against other ethnicities is something else again... Thanks Dissident for reminding me about the IP block usually catching more than one person--it's late, I had a weird day, my brain isn't working...ughhh.... K. Lásztocska 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was blocked for one week. If it continues after that, report to WP:AIV and mention it just came off a block.Rlevse 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User One haer

Keeps adding indefblockeduser templates to users that aren't such. If I remember correctly this is a recurring problem with a specific user. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a vandalism only account. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User redirecting page during MFD

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) has just redirected a page currently up for MFD, which is this page, to another page, see this edit. According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. Should the user in question be warned about his actions? Davnel03 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have you asked Tony about this on their talk page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, he hasn't replied yet. I just wondered whether any further action is required. Davnel03 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You only gave him 12 minutes to reply before you took the matter to ANI. Readro 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oh good grief ... it may be a technical procedural misstep, but hardly a matter worth bringing here. He was boldly, in good faith, redirecting a page that doesn't need to exist to a suitable target. I think he can be forgiven for not having the deletion policy memorized. There's nothing that needs to be brought here. --B 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Davnel03 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich violates policy by continued baseless personal attacks and posting of a link to an attack site

Resolved

 – Chris O has blanked and locked the talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Jason Gastrich was recently denied reinstatement and has responded by engaging in personal attack, in violation of WP:NPA, by insisting without evidence that I am a sock-puppet of another user. He perpetuates the problem by the repeated posting of an attack link to a domain that he owns [8] [9] [10] [11]. The Google Group to which Jason's domain redirects is nothing more than an attack site, and Jason's continued posting of it violates a subsection on Wikipedia's policy on civility by forbidding the use of those links on project pages. Jason no doubt feels that he's banned and there's nothing more that can be done to him, but even as the temper tantrum that Jason has thrown this morning means little, and his claims mean even less, the use this attack site should be countered in the interests of the community. Recommend that the domain be blacklisted. - Nascentatheist 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse blacklist. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in giving a banned user a platform to continue his disruption. I've protected the user talk page accordingly. -- ChrisO 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Armon

Armon (talk · contribs) has been extremely disruptive on Southern California InFocus. He appears to be taking advantage of a legitimate content dispute between other editors on that page in order to revive his little war against me. He has been threatening to take me to Arbcom for months, and he appears to be revert-warring on the page simply to antagonize me. I don't know his goals here and I don't want to know - I would just like him to stop. I have asked him over and over again to leave me alone, yet he continues. Lately he has been inserting material on that page that fails WP:V -- a self published web page that keeps changing -- and he refuses to reply to arguments in talk. I decided to avoid his revert-warring trap and instead put an NPOV tag on the page. That tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. Rather than discussing the dispute he simply removed the tag with a cryptic note about WP:POINT. Before that he made another mass revert with a very deceptive explanation -- the edit summary said "cleanup with cite fixes- there is still is a problem with the Townsend cite" but he changed more than that; most notably, he added "tabloid-style" to the intro even though the other editors had agreed that the opinion of one person that it is "tabloid style" did not belong in the intro and needed to be attributed as an opinion. His editing is extremely disruptive on this page. csloat 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after he was informed about this report, Armon went ahead and removed the tag yet again, adding a nonsensical edit summary about "defacing" the article. The NPOV tag is not vandalism; it is Wikipedia policy that the tag stays on until a dispute is settled. csloat 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a rfc instead diff. <<-armon->> 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An RfC may also be appropriate here, but the NPOV tag should not be deleted when there is a valid content dispute here. csloat 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note two things:

• The user posting this very dramatic complaint above has himself been disruptive
• The statement contains mischaracterizations

I do not feel the drama in the note above is called for. The WP:AN/I page says that this is not the wikipedia "complaints department" I believe that if CSloat feels he has a legitimate complaint about Armon he should formally file a user conduct RFC. I believe it would be helpful for him to follow the process of stating exactly what policy he thinks other users are breaking, supplying evidence of this, and supplying evidence of his good faith efforts to resolve. Bigglove 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually did all that above, bigglove. Unlike your accusation that I have been disruptive, which you have provided no evidence whatsoever of. csloat 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make one thing clear, the type of rfc I referred to is a content rfc. We are at an impasse with sloat. <<-armon->> 01:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I know that Armon was talking about content RFC, and I agree we could use one. Sloat, please refer to the talk page of the article for specific comments from me about your recent disruptions. This is not the place for it. I was just pointing out that your post here was an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Bigglove 01:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)::No; what you were doing was making a false accusation with no evidence or explanation whatsoever. csloat 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::This was/is simply not the appropriate forum for any of this. You certainly had a valid beef about the tag, but the talk page of the article was the place to discuss. Bigglove 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article Southern California InFocus a day ago, because Cslot and Bigglove had a heated conversation in my talk page. User Armon seems to be a very neutral and reasonable person, who provides convincing arguments during a discussion. I even tried to keep a segment of Armon's text in the article, but only got accusations of wikistalking from cslot at my talk page. It might be a good idea to protect this article.Biophys 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys (talk · contribs) appeared out of the blue on the page and his sole contribution was to revert my changes twice, and then when another user had reverted him, to revert again. It did feel like wikistalking to me, so I posted a polite note to his user page asking him to avoid what looks like harassment and inviting him to contribute to the discussion page if he felt like participating. In response he blatantly lied, stating that he had only made one revert of the anonymous user. He has an old grudge against me because of a dispute from months ago and this is the third or fourth time he has carried that grudge to unrelated articles or comments. This AN/I has been resolved as Armon has left the tag up and come back into the discussion, and we are actually making progress on that page towards a solution, so it is not helpful to have biophys come here and ask for page protection. csloat 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You just said "blatantly lied". But I made only one revert of an anonymous user in this page:[12], exactly as I said. Please provide your diffs to support your accusation me as a "blatant lier".Biophys 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I "came out of blue"? Not at all. It were you and Bigglove who came to my user page, which was fine until you started making all kind of accusations [13][14]Biophys 04:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow; you just lied again. Your actual words were "I made only one revert at this page, a revert of anonymous user." Yet you reverted three times on that page, only one of which was a revert of an anonymous user, and all three of which were restoring the exact same material, the material that I was arguing should be excluded. You showed up on that page without participating in the discussion and refused to participate in it when I invited you to. Now you have lied again about all of this -- I really think you should stop now. csloat 04:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So you failed to provide diffs proving that I did revert three times. By the way, this your request was about Armon, not me.Biophys 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The diffs were above but here they are again: [15][16][17] Now let this go before you embarrass yourself even further. csloat 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No. You must provide diffs showing that texts from the left and right sides are identical (like in 3RR reports). See - this is my only revert: [18]. Once again, this request was about Armon, and I commented about him. But you started accusing me, instead of discussing Armon. This is not good.Biophys 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you really going to keep lying about this? It is really abusive and ridiculously petty, and everyone can see you are lying. You lied, you were caught, I provided the proof, and lucky for you, I'm willing to drop it rather than turn this into a separate RfC. I think it would be best for you to drop it as well. Have a good day. csloat 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you failed to provide a proof: three diffs showing that right and left parts are identical, but you continue to call me a "lier". If I am wrong here, I would like to apologize. But this seems to be a personal attack by csloat, right at the ANI noticeboard, in reply to my neutral comment about armon.Biophys 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the proof was provided twice now in the form of diffs showing that you reverted the page. You're nitpicking about how to cite the diffs -- click on them yourself and use the history page to make the diffs look the way you want, if that really amuses you. It doesn't matter to me -- it is pretty clear you lied. So, I accept your apology, and I hope you refrain from attacking me in the future. I've asked you to move on several times now -- how about it? csloat 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Codyfinke6

Hello, I made a request earlier this week that this user be blocked (again) as that he is consistently making disruptive/unproductive edits and/or creating articles that are no-notable (I cannot find the archive of it). He has be requested to stop by myself and at least 10 other editors or administrators, yet he ignores our requests and continues to do so.

He has created at least nine non-notable articles that met the criteria for speedy deletion, two of which he tried to recreate several times. Several articles that he did create, he was asked to modify so that they met the criteria of a notable article, yet he did not and another editor had to. When he does create an article, it is usually just a sentence or two long, does not cite any sources and he fails to place a {{stub}} designation.

Here are some articles he has made disruptive/unproductive edits to:

• Burger King products - keeps putting incorrect or conflicting data in;
• List of CBS slogans - created an article that was basically a duplicate of the main article;
• CBS Records - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• Dice Game (pricing game) - deleted a section of the article without sating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• Farmer Jack - deleted a section of the article without sating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• WLS-TV - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• WNYW - keeps modifying their slogans with incorrect data.

Mr. Finke will not respond to any posts on his talk page, so this has been very frustrating to many editors who have tried to engage him in a productive dialog to help him understand what he has been doing violates the policies of Wikipedia. He has already been blocked once and I believe that he needs to be blocked again, for at least 30 days if possible. This will hopefully get the point across that he has been causing harm to this community.

Jerem43 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds strongly like User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this user made any constructive edits? If it's not something from the sock drawer (as suggested by Corvus) maybe it's time for a WP:CSN? --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that any sanctions against him would be ignored as that he does not read his talk page. ---Jerem43 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just block him like all of his other sockpuppets? Corvus cornix 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure this guy is a sock puppet, but he is being disruptive. Could an administrator please put a block on him for a 30 day period, as the first one seemed to be completely ignored. - Jerem43 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweetbox

Could somebody with a strong stomach and an expertise in popular culture please look over Sweetbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is quite, quite nauseating. In the old days I'd have asked User:Bdj but he's Left The Building, to the regret of many. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As their name is so close to my own user name I couldnt resist making a start including tagging it as unsourced but it needs more work, SqueakBox 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which part of the article requires admin intervention? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As its clearly not a speedy or even deletable I suspect admin intervention isnt required but I didnt postt he thread, SqueakBox 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It requires clue intervention more than anything else. No sources whatsoever.....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Correct. I posted it here because I am too lazy to find the right venue and because historically there have been folks watching this page who do actually fix crap articles like this. It's not speediable, but it sucks royally. Hopefully someone cares enough to fix that. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of edits by 63.162.143.21‎

Is there any place better than here to warn editors to be on the lookout for edits by 63.162.143.21‎? I have just found two more instances of vandalism by this user. He has a long history of vandalism (see User_talk:63.162.143.21). Many edits look normal but there is enough vandalism that I distrust all of this user's edits. Editors who are familiar with the subject matter of his edits, should check his "contributions" to see if other edits are in fact vandalism. Sbowers3 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP is one of the sensitive IP addresses which administrators should warn the Wikipedia Press Committee after blocking. The IP belongs to the Department of Homeland Security. Miranda 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address has made changes to User:Dragon2eden, who self-identifies as working for DHS. Perhaps someone should ask them what's going on? Corvus cornix 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As Dragon2eden supplied an email address, I did send him email. He replied "it wasn't me." Sbowers3 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing yet again by MoritzB

I'd like to have a third (and fourth, fifth, ...) opinion on the behavior of MoritzB (talk · contribs). His constant POV pushing has already been the subject of an ANI thread (here) which basically died out without much action taking place. However, since that time, MoritzB has continued to systematically push his agenda which is best summarized by: blacks are genetically inferior to caucasians, blacks are more likely to be criminals, Africans did not build Great Zimbabwe because, well they'd be just too primitive to do that, the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is understated on Wikipedia, and so on. Sure, that's a bit of a caricature although I think someone looking through his recent edits won't find it much of an exageration. His edits have lead to the protection of a number of articles and to fairly intense edit wars on others (Race being the most recent example). I have tried to reason with him about his recent edits to Great Zimbabwe but to no avail and part of the problem is, I think, that he genuinely believes that he is correct in saying that, for example, the work of Robert Gayre on Great Zimbabwe is authoritative, despite much evidence that Gayre is brushed off as a racist nut by an overwhelming majority of modern archeologists. Nevertheless, his classical tendentious editing is increasingly wasting efforts of a number of editors. I can't see how an RfC would do much good but I'd be interested in knowing how other editors see it, particularly editors uninvolved in one of the many disputes spawned by MoritzB. Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the edit summaries of his contribs but I'm not going to spend the effort to actually read his contribs. Instead, I'm going to assume that your assessment is accurate and unbiased since I've seen you around often enough to trust you. I don't understand why you wouldn't issue an RFC on him. Seems like the first step in the dispute resolution process. Without the RFC, you can't take him to ARBCOM and a community ban would be harder to justify.

--Richard 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with some of the assessment above. In my experience, he's been abrasive and incivil in general, and definitely tendentious. --Haemo 06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I never add new points of view to articles without supporting my edits with reliable sources. Some information I add about genetics, crime statistics or homosexuality is politically very controversial and some editors tend to reject all additions which are inconsistent with their worldview. This leads to edit wars. My personality divides opinions but often many editors also support me though so I am not out of the mainstream. Also, because of my academic background and access to scientific databases I often have better resources to support my POV than other editors. A good recent example is the article dysgenics. I also disagree that my edits are unproductive. I have contributed large volumes a lot to many articles and helped to resolve content disputes (cf. Saint Maurice).

MoritzB 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While I have not looked at the situation in detail, do remember that sourcing, in itself, does not ensure NPOV. It helps, but source material can be interpreted improperly, original synthesis can take place to make novel theories, information can be placed out of context, any number of things. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Including, of course, the possibility that the sources themselves are biased, or are otherwise not as reliable as would be desired. LessHeard vanU 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson's account of this situation is spot on. I've been monitoring MoritzB since warning him for soapboxing at Talk:White people. There is a continuing issue with Moritz soapboxing and generally using wikipedia to characterize mainstream academic sources as fringe and present minority opinions as mainstream[19] - if this behaviour was limited to race pages it would be bad enough but he is also povpushing at Homosexuality[20]. The amount of revert warring and push against consensus by MoritzB is disruptive but the soapboxing and trolling of talk pages has become tendentious--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Most editors understandably have no background in biological sciences which makes my discussions with them perhaps quite tendentious. Anyway, you are gravely mistaken if you think that Neo-Marxism is a mainstream ideology today. MoritzB 15:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More of this nonsense of calling mainstream sources "Neo-Marxist" without any sort of backup whatsoever. That MoritzB hasn't dropped this behavior by now, but instead throws it out at ANI, is rather telling. He apparently hasn't taken feedback in any way over the past few weeks. The Behnam 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed. The question was about Noel Ignatiev, some other scholars, critical theory and Frankfurt School. Countless Marxists published articles in the scientific press and wrote books in the 1970s. They are not ashamed that they are Marxists so why do you deny that? You can simply enter their names to Google and see that they identify themselves as Marxists. Please see this reference which describes Marxist-based critical theory and the Frankfurt School as one of the longest and the most famous traditions of Marxism. http://www.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum. Now, this is the fourth or fifth time I have had to point out to you, MoritzB, in the form of both talk page notes and {{Notaforum}} warnings, that wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that you are incorrectly characterizing a whole list of academic & scholarly work is being as 'left wing' or 'marxist', or 'neo-marxist' to advance your own point. The Behnam is right, you are not taking on board the feedback we have given you, and are so far flaunting the five pillars of wikipedia. Please stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point--Cailil ^talk 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Important notice. Because of a warning I can no longer safely participate in any discussions with editors or defend myself in this ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoritzB#Final_warning MoritzB 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As a disclaimer, Cailil is one of my admin coaching students. I'd rather focus on more substantial issues than warning template removal and I want to see ample diffs and logic from both sides. MoritzB, you are free to seek a mentor or to e-mail me any evidence that supports your choices. I founded Category:Eguor admins and would give it a fair hearing. Or if you prefer, you could contact any of the sysops from that category. Most of them have no relationship with Cailil that I'm aware of. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I no longer have any interest in the white people article or the Zimbabwe article which was mentioned. A consensus was reached although it is different from my original opinion. There are no content issues which need to be settled. Perhaps I will just take a wikibreak and let everybody cool down. MoritzB 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have written an explanation, providing diffs for the 3 {{uw-chat1}} warnings that I gave MoritzB here. I don't think a level 4 warning for soapboxing should in any way prevent MoritzB from properly using this or any other talk page. The purpose of such warnings is to point out what behaviour needs to be changed, not to "gag" anyone. I sincerely apologize if MoritzB felt or thought that my intent was to "shut-him-up" - it was not. As with the other warnings I left, I have expressed my hope that MoritzB would take on board site policy and become a better wikipedian, I still hope he will do that. However, after giving this user fair and, what I consider to be justified warnings for repeated violation of site policy (spanning nearly 10 days), this beahviour continued. Therefore I see a level 4 warning as appropriate--Cailil ^talk 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I was only involved in a content dispute about the article and it became rather lengthy. Meanwhile five other editors were chit chatting about smoking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people#Time_for_a_smoke_break

MoritzB 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to MoritzB's sudden and active engagement in Talk:Race and intelligence I assume it's a new account of an experienced editor who's worked on racial topics before. I gneerally agree with the problems that Pascal.Tesson have described and think this editor needs to be more collegial if he's to continue participating in the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal redux

I have previously reported this, but had no response from anyone on this. Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) continuously floods various talk pages with "How to edit", "How to insert references" etc. guides, which I discussed in that thread. Sadly, he has yet again added the "How to edit/add references" guide to another unrelated talk page.

• Diff

He has also flooded various pages with similar unrelated content today:

• "Removing of Copyright text from Wikipedia articles by other users" at Mayo College talk page
• "Removing of Copyright text from Wikipedia articles by other users" at WP:Schools talk page
• Removing of Copyright text from Wikipedia articles by other users: at Mayo College Girls School talk page

The user is aware of WP:MULTI and has been requested many times not to flood various talk pages with the same message repeated ad nauseum. Also, in the previous thread at ANB/I, I provided other recent diffs of such behavior. I request an uninvolved admin to try reasoning with him, and make him stop flooding various unrelated talk pages with these bloated messages and "How to edit" guides. He has often removed friendly advices requesting a stop to such disruption.

Thanks. --Ragib 08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And here he goes again, inserting a "how to edit guide"!! Can someone else please stop this? My polite requests are taken negatively by the user. Thanks. --Ragib 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are over-reacting. The idea is sound - giving people editing hints on articles is never bad - but it would be better to link not include a big chunk of text, and I've commented on the user's Talk page about that. Now I strongly recommend you leave him alone. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's needlessly harsh. Ragib's is not an over-reaction, in my opinion. This user has been told about this and similar issues very pleasantly before, but he has chosen to simply ignore policy in the past, even when linked and summarised. Thanks for stepping in, though. Hornplease 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I've had a (very mildly) frustrating time trying to encourage Atulsnischal not to add large numbers or tangentially related category tags to reams of articles. Atulsnischal is making good faith edits, and trying to be constructive, but seemed to me to be a bit functionally hard of hearing when it comes to constructive criticism of his edits. Still, I don't really see the need for admin intervention here, just the application of patience and perseverance. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

user: BIG Daddy M

Their is a user named user talk:BIG Daddy M who continues to make unconstructive edits such as, repeated offenses of the 2RR, then every day he redoes it, Bad Faith Edits, Personal Attacks, Reveiling Spoilers and Rumors, and being uncivil. All of which we have warned him to read WP:CIVIL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PW, and he still deliberetly denies to follow the rules. What shall we do, because we try to work with him, but he just says "Stop stalking me." I don't know what else to do, can you please help? -- KBW1 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh great, another obsessive tendentious professional wrestling editor. Now who does that remind me of? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If your referring to user: TJ Spyke this is not about him, Please that is considered a personal attack. -- KBW1 17:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Guy is referring to this banned user, who has made upwards of hundred block-evading sockpuppets: JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, more than likely a JB196 sock. Is checkuser needed? Davnel03 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NO, I don't think this user needs to be checked, I just think this user is unknowledgeable and is unwilling to learn WP rules. I think he needs to be blocked. -- KBW1 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He will only be blocked for about 48 hours though. If you did go the way of checkuser, and he was a sock of JB196, he would be indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds awfully vindictive. For instance...2RR? Never heard of that one. KBW1, where is the evidence of the accusations from above, and why do you seem to want him blocked so badly, rather than attempting to work with him? You seem awfully anxious to have him blocked as soon as possible without any checking or consideration here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I tried working with him, I even asked if he needed my help! He denied and simply said leave me alone. Yes, I do think we need to check user him, because you sound like maybe your him. Just a suggestion. BTW, the 2RR, isn't a real rule, it's just the fact of users reverting twice, then coming back the next day and doing it again. Please check this user. Thank You. -- KBW1 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll offer the following observation:

There is an issue with WP:OWN, 3RR, and civility with Superboy-Prime‎. (I'm staying out of the nuts and bolts of the wrestling articles since they aren't an area I normally fiddle with, though it looks like there may be a few articles with like problems.)

The long and short of it is that BDM added in two overly detailed passages, one a full page interaction between the Superboy-Prime character and another, the other a one panel cameo in another issue. Both including full dialogue. Other editors have removed it citing, basically, that it's a case of going overboard on plot summary of the character's recent use. In the course of the back and forth, the other editors have tried to take the situation to the article's talk page, to little real result aside from BMK trying to steamroll over the other editors, and accusing them of vandalism for trying to keep the article with in standards and adhere to the majority consensus of those that have voiced an opinion on that particular point in the article. These accusations are on the articles talk page, BDM's edit summaries for the article, and the talk pages of BDM and Pairadox (though Pairadox relocated the thread to BDM's talk page).

There is also what amounts to a wikistalking accusation by BDM on KBW1's talk page. - J Greb 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, BDM accused me of stalking him, when all I did was keep an eye on him, because multiple good faith users claimed that he does not wollow WP rules. I offered help, he didn't accept. Therfore, he does not want help, which needs someone has to do something about this user, because he is getting out of hand. -- KBW1 03:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just, on an unrelated note, blocked this user for violating 3RR on Superboy-Prime‎. I do not foresee a very long, or successful, Wikipedia career for this user if this kind of behavior continues. --Haemo 06:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sikjhad, a possible sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel?

Resolved

 – Nuked, salted, banhammer wielded. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a request to block anyone, but I wanted to inform the administrators that Sikjhad hasrecreated the hoax De-Animated. This page has been recreated several times in the past, mostly by Danny Daniel sockpuppets. In fact, the original page was created by a Danny Daniel sock.

Note that Sikjhad has made only four contributions, and all of them were made to De-Animated. Pants^(T) 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempted theft of user accounts

Resolved

 – permablocked per wp:uaa Eleland 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Runescapehacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an apparent SPA created to talk people into e-mailing him their passwords to Runescape ([21]). Recommend permablock. Eleland 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this account. Navou ^banter 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted

• Oliver Wyman (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oliver Wyman Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reasonably neutral
• Oliver Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), was a redirect, hijacked by SPAs and an IP belonging to Oliver Wyman (the company), reads as PR blurb.

Anyone who's up on "global strategy consulting firms" would be valuable in sorting out the crap from the reality on the article and helping decide where it should go in the end. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 Note: WHOIS suggests the IP 63.111.194.175 belongs to "Oliver Wyman & Co". This looks like a conflict of interest to me. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

is there a reason not to nuke it for the G11 and the COI issues? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not specially, no, but there is an asseriton of notability and there is the other article. If it were unequivocal in my view you may assume that it woudl already be gone :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noting Oliverwyman (talk · contribs)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And the history at Mercer Oliver Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup

I am sitting here with an OTRS ticket for the Saffron Walden County High School article. The history contains a number of edits that make libellous comments about staff and this needs cleaned up. I have mailed the ticket, https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1051147&ArticleID=1293726#1293726, details to oversight-l - but it may be the case that a regular deletion and selective restore will do. Please help here, I am in touch with the school's IT guy and he is getting grief from the headmaster. --Brianmc 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

History looks weird, presumably due to oversight. Perhaps a semiprotection would be wise? --ST47Talk·Desk 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so done. —Crazytales talk/desk 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Andranikpasha

[22], [23] launched another edit war on March Days, article that has been in consensus and peace, and went through 3rd party mediation, for months now. He is removing sources, which claim the figure of 12,000, then questioning the figure and inserting POV tag without sufficient rationale on the talk page. It would be great, if some 3rd party would be willing to mediate on this well references page. Atabek 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an admin issue here. Perhaps I am missing something but he removed nothing and has made two edits that I see which was adding a POV tag. Please see WP:3O. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I will leave a message about removing the content but it's really not an admin issue at this point. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

votestacking by Cman7792 in regards to the Dragon Ball Z live action movie page

User Cman7792 has put a lot of pressure on me to change by vote even after being warned that I will not change my vote. I simply wished to state my opinion and if it does not fly then I will accept that. However, I will not accept users such as Cman7792 putting pressure on me to change my vote. --BrenDJ 23:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What actually happened - I never asked him to change his vote, i was just trying to ask him a question about his vote. but he deletes everything on his discussion page and he is impossible to talk to. --Cman7792 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Cman and explained to him that it is best to leave an editor alone that does not want to get further involved in a situation like the AfD process. Cman removed his comment at my request, though not before BrenDJ had seen it. I don't believe that this will be an issue any longer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Atabek at March Days

User Atabek is going to start an edit war by deleting POV tag, moving the references [24], [25] and then, adding genocide term to the article [[26]] while he is marking 3 non-historical non-reliable sources (Hopkirk is a journalist, Aliev is the Azerbaijani president and the third is a political declaration by some PACE members). I didnt succeed to welcome him for a constructive dialog... Andranikpasha 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to stay within the bounds of WP:3RR and see if anything in dispute resolution is any help. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Dannycali

I find the following posts to be unsually hostile and violations of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: [27] and [28]. Could an admin please caution Danny about unconstructive and rude comments and remind him to sign his posts? Please also consider that in addition to other warnings about civility, he has also engaged in some edit warring, too: [29] and [30]. See also: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36] for other problematic posts. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned tags and the civility and NPA warnings were appropriate. I'm going to recuse myself from further action, but I will direct other administrators to previous talk page messages [37] [38] [39].--Chaser - T 05:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I responded to Danny's comments as follows: [40] and [41]. I hope that these are a fair response. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gk35d3_lab

Gk35d3_lab's only contributions are either to his user page, or uploaded images to display on his user page. It seems to be solely for presenting material for a physics class at the University of Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.115.117.120 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, it does basically look like he's using Wikipedia as a notebook. HalfShadow 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the material per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Quite likely a copyvio too; instructors retain copyright in their lecture notes. Raymond Arritt 01:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Per those reasons, it might be good to request oversight of his userpage. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that something is also going on at User:22600 Spring 07. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Baleeted android79 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pascale989 civility, consensus, edit warring issue

Can another admin intervene with regards to Pascale989 (talk · contribs) with regards to List of Dirty Jobs episodes/Dirty Jobs Episode List and List of Modern Marvels episodes and episode numbering? He has brought up that me being a "moderator" [42] with regards to my edits. I have left friendly notes about his civility, consensus, and edit warring issues and I think it would be best if I step aside instead of issuing additional warnings or blocks since I believe that he thinks my being an "moderator" carries additional weight. See the Talk discussions here, here, and his Talk page. Thanks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a detialed message offering alternatives to edit warring, hope it helps. ThuranX 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Ortis12

For the last couple of days User Ortis12 is edit warring in the article Bulgars. He is deliberately removing a part of the article without giving plausible reasons and adding his own comments without supplying any serious/scientific references or sources. Since he is new to Wikipedia I gave him the necessary warnings in his talk page. It did not work. Then I tried to establish contact with him in his talk page again, and lastly I opened a discussion in the article's talk page. But all of these efforts did not help. Today in the morning he made the same reverts again. You can see the situation in the relevant wiki pages. Thank you. --Chapultepec 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he is clearly edit warring. But what's this diff from your talkpage? He says in the last part: "You can revert my posts or block me, but cant BLOCK the Truth!!!" I suggest he's only here to cause vandalise, and the fact that he's used capitals for the word block might mean he actually is edit warring just to get a block. Pretty obvious vandalism-revert only account. Davnel03 09:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so too, he seems to give preference to defying the other ones over discussing the issues. --Chapultepec 10:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He/she seems to acting in good faith now. I guess you can never tell with these type of users. Davnel03 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ricky47893

I blocked Ricky47893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a very likely Gastrich sock, email me for some of the giveaway hints if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Factmaster07 removing part of Michael Knighton article and adding legal statement

Factmaster07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This user keeps removing most of the Michael Knighton article and adds a whole paragraph full of legal stuff, see here. Davnel03 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The last part of that diff would constitute a legal threat, methinks. LessHeard vanU 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this editor for making legal threats, but would be grateful for a review. Please remove/adjust without reference to me, as required.LessHeard vanU 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, looks like a legal threat to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agree the bolded text looks like a legal threat. As this account seems to be giving an impression that it represents the law firm described, wondering if our counsel should be informed. --Shirahadasha 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Raymond Arritt 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Our counsel should be informed. Davnel03 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

I have indef blocked User:Notespace is Getting Blocked as an apparent spa designed to revert duel. Please check me. Best regards, Navou ^banter 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its justified. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

86.157.254.67

• 86.157.254.67 (talk · contribs)

Entire contribution of the anon is a WP:POINTY deletion nomination of a wikiproject. Please investigate. User may be a banned user. Possibly User:Moby Dick. -- Cat ^chi? 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm. It can't be WP:POINT unless he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Since there's no evidence of either disruption or any underlying point... -Amarkov moo! 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an IP coming out of nowhere just to MfD a newly created wikiproject is very very strange. -- Cat ^chi? 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed strange, and should be investigated. That doesn't mean that you can immediately act as though his being disruptive is a proven fact. -Amarkov moo! 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks disruption oriented to me. But hey what do I know... -- Cat ^chi? 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As further information for anyone who reviews this, a link to the project was posted on the Village Pump fourish hours before the IP first edited. -Amarkov moo! 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was told on IRC that the IP is User:Gurch who has a history of being a dick, trolling, and project space vandalism. -- Cat ^chi? 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• What? Gurch is MIA right now, but honestly to suggest he's some kind of abuser or troll is simply fatuous. Pissed off, yes, but not evil, surely. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  He isn't MIA he edits as an IP. He was talking on IRC as "gurch" same time the same IP made the edit. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see that any rules are being broken, however. Gurch, or anyone else, can choose to no longer contribute as a username and contribute while not logged in. Whoever this is, Checkuser shows no double voting or other impropriety. He's also allowed to not like your proposed project. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Two questions (directed at Cat, not Morven):

• Any particular reason we're trying to out the identities of IP users today? Especially since there's no evidence of disruption, though of course you're free to disagree with the nom.
• Dynamic IP is useful info. Whenever I turn my DSL modem off and on, I have a new IP; if I were an IP editor, would that mean I'm not allowed to go to MfD until my computer's been on for a few days straight?

--barneca (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is innocent but me. Hence I should be the guilty party here. -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the speedy deletion of the wikiproject. While at it block me too. -- Cat ^chi? 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is saying that, Cat. Just that the nom doesn't seem pointy, and the ID of the IP editor doesn't seem relevant. --barneca (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gurch was never a vandal (nor a Dick in my estimation), although his pointiness might perhaps be considered trolling by some. I should think dealing with the subject in hand, and not indulging in retrospective speculation, is the proper response. LessHeard vanU 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have gotten the page speedy deleted and initiated User talk:White Cat/Poll forced leave. I hope everyone is happy now. -- Cat ^chi? 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you again? HalfShadow 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat, stop overreacting to this. Just because people aren't fond of your idea doesn't mean you should throw in the towel, especially given the recent flak image-patrollers have been getting (case in point: User:Durin's recent departure). I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like a 6-year-old throwing a tantrum because his mom won't let him get the big toy robot. Wikipedia will grow a new nose to fix the one you cut off. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. --Haemo 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) White Cat, I don't think you should be posting logs on IRC to Wikipedia without Gurch's consent. Miranda 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Logs? Where? Because they most certainly shouldn't be published on Wikipedia, and should be deleted/removed on sight: 2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, July 11, 2007. Daniel 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's deleted now. Miranda 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whois data is NOT IRC log. They are more than allowed. Miranda find someone else to bother. -- Cat ^chi? 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid polling page deleted (no, don't DRV, that really is dramaqueenish). We have a fucking encyclopedia to write without bothering our heads with some moronic "leaving" poll. White Cat can make his own mind up while we all look the other way and whistle for a wind (that is, actually do something productive). Come on, don't indulge the drama, people. We have enough of that without trolling ourselves by adding more. Moreschi ^Talk 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Operation Spooner

Operation Spooner has repeatedly inserted this material into Ronald Reagan over the objects of several other editors, namely User:Arcayne, User:Info999 and User:Happyme22. (note: disagreement is concerning only "advocating less government regulation of the economy, speaking against the welfare state, and arguing that people should be allowed to keep most of the money they make from being taxed") Diffs: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56](This is not an all inclusive list)

His comments on the talk page [57] make it appear that he plans on doing this indefinitely and he insists [58] that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to his edits. After the material was explicitly discussed on the talk page (here) and a majority of editors explained why they didn't want the material in the lead, he has continued to reinsert the material without addressing any of the points the other editors discussed. I would appreciate it if an admin could look into the situation and take whatever actions they deem necessary.--Rise Above The Vile 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, briefly looking over the situation, Operation Spooner is clearly acting in good faith, but he probably should not be continuing with the reverts as it does seem that multiple editors disagree with him, but at the same time I'd be reluctant to block at this point. It seems like other editors in the article are overly hostile, though, and the matter seems to be getting heated for little reason (as so often happens). Perhaps dispute resolution should be looked at instead of rushing this off to the administrator's noticeboard? Cowman109^Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also grown tired of this user continuing to readd the information and completely disregard wikipedia policy. I advocate a block, not indefinitely but until this user promises to stop readding the information and to actually read and understand policy. I think the user is nieve and if he is blocked perhaps for a week I feel he would come back and be constructive. Dispute resolution is not necessary since this is a problem with only one user.--Southern Texas 03:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And no one user appears to be at fault here. This just looks like the brewing of an edit war as multiple editors have expressed interest in both sides of the issue of introducing that bit of information into the lead. I'm also reluctant in protecting the article as there seems to be a good deal of positive editing in other areas of it, so dispute resolution is really the way to go. But if anything's clear, it's that just mindlessly reverting each other is doing no good. Everyone's to blame for that. Finding a way to improve on another's edits than undoing them repeatedly tends to end up better. Cowman109^Talk 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an Operation Spooner problem not a wikipedia problem. Block the user, inform him about WP:CONSENSUS and that is all that is needed. Dispute resolution would be going way to far for such an easy problem to fix.--Southern Texas 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At least one other user has also expressed his point of view. Generally protection is done in a case like this rather than going on blocking editors. (example of other edit). But Operation Spooner should definitely not be reverting once a day like he seems to be doing, so I'll leave a note on his talk page. Cowman109^Talk 03:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically asking for a block, because I'm not sure whether that will have a positive or negative effect on Spooner's editing here. However, this user has repeatedly ignored every other user that has disagreed with him and does not think that repeatedly inserting the material is against any wikipedia policy. I have little hope that dispute resolution will go any different. I was hoping that if a user entrusted with the authority to block/protect/etc clearly explained to Spooner why what he is doing is disruptive, then maybe he will actually discuss the material instead of edit war.--Rise Above The Vile 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cowman109^Talk 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, much of the above claims are false. Some other users have reveterted back what I put in, which indicates that they want the informatio there. Also the claim that I've been ignoring users who disagree with me is false.. I've been pleading on the discussion page for reasoned arguments why the information shouldnt be in the article, but all I've been getting are threats of being blocked if I put the information in or act against "consensus." And here you see above, the attempt to get me blocked in order to avoid discussion the issue of the content itself. Don't take any of the users' claims above at face value. There is an agenda. Investigate the issue and you'll see I've done nothing improper. Operation Spooner 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually away for most of the day, and apologize for not commenting earlier.

I don't really think a block will do any good, but it is the typical action available to admins to preserve the article and to enforce a bit of a time-out for editors who are having difficulties working with others, the block ideally being used to allow the user to see the repercussions of disruptive bahavior. Frankly, Spoon's account is pretty much a pov political account, used to push a specific agenda, as seen on his user page. Furthermore, he has shown that he perceives any attempts to correct his behavior as some grand conspiracy, as noted in his user page Advice for Newbies (updated as it detailed his 'oppression' by the rest of us). Yes, I will admit that I have little tolerance for anyone who refuses to listen to and follow the rules, and I make no bones about expressing my disquiet about it. Spoon's failure to follow those rules, increasingly sacrificed his AGF at least with me.

The user aside, the article lead was changed to reflect that the Lead doesn't introduce info that isn't in the body. Hisw edit - of his own creation - didn't do that, and the revision met with far more accpetance than his. He kept inroducing it, especially after we clearly outlined what was wrong with it. He steadfastly refused to concede, or even admit to the point, which amounted to disruption.Consensus tells all users how to go about affectiing consensus; there is even a flow chart. A new edit takes a different form. Not the same edit, and specifically not the same edit that has already been discarded by a majority of the editors activiely editing in the article.

As far a DR goes, discussion was attempted on Spoon's talk page, and failing that, in the Discussion page for the article, and then a consensus about the edit was specifically attended to. And dismissed. What did the user do then? He re-added the same edit, arguing that the consensus didn't satisfy him, that there weren't enough people participating in the consensus discussion. Not once did the discussion of how his edit violated Lead come into play. He just said, as another editor has pointed out, that WP is in constant flux, and that he was just doing his bit to preserve that, so that he could see his edit every day, if only for a moment. Forgetting the monumentally selfish, OWN-ish attitude, it is simply disruptive. We are activiely engaged in fixing the other parts of the article, improving citations and whatnot, and we are constantly having to cater to one user's ego who cannot seem to work well with others.

Speaking personally, I've done what Spoon has in my early Wikipedia edits. It was called edit-warring, and I was blocked for it. This is what is happening here. He is aware of 3RR, and doesn't violate it, but performs the same edit once or twice a day over a 5-week period. I learned my lesson, and have grown from it. It is time to fix the issue, and give Spoon the same opportunity to learn a lesson in low-grade edit-warring which is intrinsically disruptive. Maybe he will learn better how to accept that his edits aren't always going to be the consensus opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain WP:Consensus to you. The purpose of obtaining consensus is to try to solidify particular edits into or out of articles, which itself is a quixotic quest, and exercise in absurdity, with no rational justification, since consensus is constalty changing on Wikipedia. It's quite frankly, a childish goal. Anyone who attempts this should actually be embarrassed.

Consensus is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. Since you dismiss that core policy out of hand, it may be best for all concerned if you put your talents to use in a different venue. Raymond Arritt 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to solidify your edits, or deletions, in an article would be to waste an awfully large amount of your life on Wikipedia. If that floats your boat, go for it. If a person has no goal to solidify anything into an article but simpyl wants to share the article with others, then there is no reason to obtain a consensus. As I pointed out, I don't care in the slighest if you or anyone elese deletes my edits as long as they're there for at least a couple minutes, because I have no desire to monopolize or own articles. Wikipedia is designed such that someone only need add the material back after sharing the freedom of adding, or deleting, content with other editors. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss whether I should add particular material or not. I've always been available for such disussions, and am open to be convinced against putting the material in. I just won't be intimidated into not putting material in an article with the claim that I have to please the "consensus," whatever that is, in order to add material to an article. There is no such policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." This whole claim that putting something that others disagree should be there is "edit warring," or for that matter, deleting it, is nonsense. No one is edit warring in that article. What's being attempted is to prevent me from adding material by claiming rules that don't exist and using threats of blocking me. Operation Spooner 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus exists such that all parties agree on a certain aspect of an item. A consensus on Wikipedia is such that all parties involved agree to the inclusion of the material that is to be added, removed, etc. Because there is no consensus at the moment, and no one knows what the hell they want, I've protected Ronald Reagan until you can all work this out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily all parties, as that would be called unanimity. Consensus calls for a general agreement among most involved editors (and potentially noninvolved ones). The aforementioned elaboration should be distinguished from a supermajority or majority, though, as they involve a set percentage of editors, while consensus does not. —Kurykh 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what we have achived in the article. One editor keeps adding the same edit in, and other editors remove it. Actually, one editor defended it, thinking we were picking on Spoon, until he discovered that the edit being added was unchanging, and had been added in steadily over weeks. then he joined the consensus asking that the edit not be reintroduced.

Allow me to present the argument in a different way. If a person violates 3RR in a single day by performing 4 reverts, chances are, they get blocked (we'll say 24 hours). If, after the block ends, they violate 3RR again, they are blocked for a longer period of time (again, say 48 hours). They are blocked because their edits are disruptive and are not agreed to by the majority of the editors (or violates policy/guidelines like, say, Lead or Consensus). All in all, for committing 8 edits in two separate 24 hour periods, they have been blocked for 3 days. 8 reverts over a 5 day period. I should like to point out that Spooner has introduced the same edit almost daily for over 4 weeks. Is it any less disruptive if it happens in slo-mo? And it should be pointed out that with perhaps one word-tense change, this is the only change he has made to the article in all that time. Contributors have been banned for less.

One of the basic lessons of Wikipedia is that if you cannot stand the scrutiny of being edited, you shouldn't contribute. Spooner has clearly demonstrated that he is unwilling to concede to the spirit of this rule. Or to the rule of consensus. Or to the spirit of Wikipedia. To his reckoning above, Featured Articles don't really exist, and that its all some great whimsy of use to even aspire to make article FA, as they are going to fall into chaos at a moment's notice. Pardon the crudity of the comparison, but his philosophy seems to be that, since we are all in a world of crap, why should we bother wiping? Its an unacceptable approach to making an online encyclopedia.

Usually, when one admin gives you the heads-up on policy, you might not agree with it, but you follow it. When two admins tell you the same thing, you start considering how you are misinterpreting the policy by mistake, and adjust accordingly. Currently, Spoon's user Talk page has no less than three administrators, who have been spending the past few hours trying to help Spooner grasp the problems presented here. How does Spoon react to this grand collection of intellect and experience? He assumes they are all wrong, and that they are threatening him and ganging up on him, and that blocking him would be immediately challenged. He even says here that he thinks people will "throw him in jail" if he doesn't stop his editing. Nowhere else on his user page does the word 'jail' even appear as a post by himself or another user.

This is the measure of what the rest of us have been dealing with in the article. We aren't ganging up on him. If we are less than patient with him, it's because he has exhausted the patience and AGF of at least myself. Three admins - I don't recall ever seeing three admins together in a user's talk page in like, ever. And they are in agreement - when does that ever happen? lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONCENSUS was reached a long time ago, but Operation Spooner fails to abide by it. It's not that the material that Operation Spooner added is false, because it's not, but where he wants to put it was the debate, and editors reached concensus saying that the lead is not the correct place for it for it does not provide an overview of Reagan's life like the lead is supposed to. User:Arcayne already really solved the problem by placing exactly what Operation Spooner wanted in the "Governor of California" section, towards the bottom. I see this as a problem that could and should have been solved a long time ago, but evidently wasn't.

Then there's talk about concensus changing. Well let me give you a little history of me and Operation Spooner. He added Reagan's philisophical statement to lead and I removed it, saying that it would be better to go somewhere else in the article. He disagreed and placed it there again. I reverted, but then we reached a concensus at that time, something that we both agreed upon. Eventually, the article reached FA status and then User:Arcayne came in and helped redo the lead, removing the content but correctly summarizing Reagan's life in a nutshell. I really didn't care if the material was in there one way or another, but then another user, User:Info999 came in and said he didn't agree with it being there either, so I listened to their arguments and eventually joined them in opposing the material being there. Concensus already changed, and then, like mentioned, Arcayne wrote what Spooner wanted in the Governor section, but Spooner has been adamant in really being the only one wanting the material in the lead.

And now I look at Ronald Reagan and see that an admin, User:Ryulong, has made it so no one can edit "until everyone figures out what the hell they want." Well, concensus has figured it out; concensus has agreed that the material Operation Spooner has added to the lead is not the right place for it. As I've stated before, the information is not false, but rather does not belong where the user (and only the user) wants it to go. The whole reason this was brought to the admin noticeboard was not to have an admin say "I'm making this so no one can edit," but rather "let's do something about this user, because he/she fails to recognize that a concensus has been established!" Why should productive editors such as User:Info999, User:Arcayne, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Southern Texas and myself (among others) be blocked from editing the page? Wouldn't it be better to block (or condemn) the user causing the problem and not abiding by Wikipedia's policies? I see that User:Cowman109, User:Mr.Z-man, and User:Raymond arritt have left multiple messages on Spooner's talk page and are trying to reason with him, but it appears that he is not going to budge on this, so instead of just warning him that he might get blocked in every setence (like most of these people that are trying to reason with him are doing) why don't you step it up and actually block him? Arcayne has warned him about a possible block, Info999 has warned him about a possible block, Southern Texas has warned him about a possible block, even I have warned him about a block because he's not following an established concensus and hasn't for weeks....why not actually follow through with the block instead of punishing everyone editing Ronald Reagan? That is best for the Wiki community. Happyme22 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the Ronald Reagan talk page the whole day and only within the last few hours has the debate started to surface again. After reading the arguments, and having this discussion on the admin noticeboard, maybe, just maybe, Spooner has a point. He said on the talk page: "He was not only anti-communism but also pro-laissez-faire. Only saying he opposed communism is just one half of the picture."--I think we can work with this. I asked on the talk page, "Spooner, what is the most important part of his philisophy that you would want to put in the lead? Maybe, just maybe, we can compromise and come to something. Spooner, Info, Arcayne...I don't really see that we can do much else." And I see the arguing isn't getting us anywhere; so maybe we can work with him, because he does make a good point in saying that being anti-commuinist was only half the picture. Now, the entire statement about Reagan's beliefs is definetly a no-no in the lead, but it can probably be summarized or the most important part can be chosen...I don't know. My point is that it's a fact arguing isn't getting us anywhere, and thanks to these admins if we ever want to edit Ronald Reagan again we're going to have to compromise. Best, Happyme22 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown

There seems to be a problem here. After several weeks of full protection following intense edit warring, I unprotected this article this morning, but the apparently controversial content was almost immediately re-added. I have now reprotected the article indefinitely. However, the problem, the dispute, does not seem to be being resolved - I cannot see an end to the issue in sight. Other than myself, I was hoping for a third person perspective on the dispute, and on action that should be taken. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit made after unprotection wasn't the same as before, Ilkali before the lock was pushing "the Christian God" and after the unlocking changed it to "God". While it might imply the same thing (Christians always capitalize God), maybe a discussion can be had now that its been a few weeks. — Ocatecir^T 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am hoping for - discussion. I just want to make sure it is polite, calm discussion, rather than discussion that might occur as a result of, effected by, and distorted by a possible edit war. Or do you think that it should be unprotected again, before waiting to see what unfolds, and then taking action following that? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

THe subtext of his edits is even more interesting, in that he went for the 'Christian God' to 'a god' implying the christian version is distinct, and by the capitalization, the only right one. It's POV warring that's unlikely to get fixed any time soon. He's got a religious agenda, and he packed it in his lunchbox and brought it to Wikipedia. ThuranX 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly have misread me more. I wasn't pushing for 'Christian God', and I'm not a Christian. Ilkali 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

86.151.66.41 and Santilli and magnecules

• User:86.151.66.41 seems to have developed an obsessed POV about Ruggero Santilli's magnecule theory: e.g. he has added the same copy-and-pasted wiki-discussion-type text to Talk:Magnecule and Talk:Ruggero Santilli. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.151.66.41 . Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, it would be useful if someone who knows more than me about quantum mechanics and suchlike could check Ruggero Santilli#Work and its contained matter such as "Santilli’s iso-, geno-, and hyper-numbers and their isoduals", to check if this matter is truth or technobabble. Anthony Appleyard 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No claim to knowledge of the subject, but the responses on the Talk page use capitalization and has a tone (like "he would be known as THE GREATEST SCIENTIST...etc. etc.) that suggests a closer look is well warranted. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mathematical and mathematical physics community Santilli has gained a certain notoriety as a self-promoting fringe pseudoscientist. His "research" is not taken seriously. The magnecule is apparently a fundamental molecule made from reprocessed human sewage, among other things. A glance at his ethics page reveals details of a sordid campaign he waged unsuccessfully against the managing editor of a prestigious mathematical journal following an unsuccessful submission by Santilli. The biography seems self-written and rather inaccurate. It should probably be reduced to a biographical stub. --Mathsci 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Afterelton.com linkspammer?

I came across 131.191.10.175 whose only purpose seems to be to add links to afterelton.com to a meriad of articles. It's a gay oriented site, but it is linked to all kinds of non-gay related articles. — Edokter • Talk • 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at three or four of his edits, it looks like the IP is linkspamming to me. Davnel03 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Level 4im warning given. If he continues, report to WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I asume it's OK to check all the articles showing up in the linksearch and remove the links from the non-relevant articles? — Edokter • Talk • 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be OK. Davnel03 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many legitimate references, but I weeded out those that 131.191.10.175 spammed around Wikipedia. (and yes, all his contributions were only adding links to AfterElton.com.) — Edokter • Talk • 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WOverstreet

User:WOverstreet is not only engaging in revert wars now, [59] he is engaging in personal attacks and vandalism. [60], [61], [62], [63]. T Rex | talk 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Florida need Arbitration!!!! User:Cmprince seems to have some kind of vendeta against UF, and he deletes the alumni that I took hours to research. He has some kind of axe to grind, and is not very nice. Please help, by Arbitrating the dispute we are having. I just simply want to do my alma mater justice by allowing it the reputation that it has achieved in the real world. By the way I am not a Tech Person, I do not waste my time editing random pages. I simply have one issue that I am very very passionate about, and that is UF. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely - cursory glance of their contributions will show why. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. He wasn't doing anything helpful. This edit summary sums it up nicely: [64] - Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has requested unblock, based on their "Jacksonian" comments. I declined the unblock. - Philippe | Talk 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) through another open proxy.

Special:Contributions/67.52.216.8

--Irpen

Agree, and blocked -- Samir 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

7RR, no block

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

We're beating a dead horse now, no other admin action needs to be taken. Metros 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has already been blocked twice for 3RR+ warring elsewhere, reverted an article seven times in 24 hours. He was reported at WP:AN/3RR, and the only result was a friendly article talk page message, not even an official User_talk page warning from an administrator. Ferrylodge is even now asking the ruling sysop from his 3RR case for advice on how to get his preferred version protected; this situation needs to be reviewed by other sysops.

• Update: Ferrylodge is now actively requesting that administrators continue his edit war on his behalf. Italia^vivi 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll welcome the review, however, it seems that this is a now a mad bloodrush to get an editor blocked after the reply at AN3RR and here. I did not see any aggravating disruption, personal attacks, etc. I have protected the page and stopped the disruption there. I see no need to block in this case, and I stand by my decision to not block in this instance. Again, I welcome a review. Best regards, Navou ^banter 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You were edit warring with him, along with others - instead of lashing out blocks to all involved, the page was protected to stop all parties involved in the edit war. Now the page is protected, a block serves only a punitive purpose. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Two edits is not "edit warring," Ryan (and why I am not surprised to see you so eager to dismiss my concerns?). Let me get this straight: a 7RR editor who goes on to solicit advice on how to use page protection as a tool in his edit wars and asks administrators to edit war for him on a protected page will be neither blocked nor warned. Interesting. Italia^vivi 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll replace my comment that was inadvertently removed, and add to it. This is forum shopping, which is generally pointless, because the same admins usually have both pages watchlisted. You should continue this discussion in the original thread on 3RR. Nearly every page protect results in a "wrong version protected" argument. Such arguments are seldom heeded, unless there is an extreme case that puts the project in peril. - Crockspot 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (PS, I know this because I have made "wrong version" arguments myself.) Crockspot 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Protecting the wrong version" is indeed a WP in-joke, but the fact is that the practise of protecting the "current" version invariably leads to gamesmanship, where someone reverts to their preferred version and immediately calls an admin to protect it. This practise also encourages edit-warring, since everybody wants to increase the chance that their preferred version will be the "current" one when it gets frozen. Any exercise of restraint in edit-warring is thus "punished", and editors get the message that next time they should be quicker to revert. -- Zsero 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't just you though edit warring. It takes at least two to tango - the most productive thing to do here was protect the page, rather than put everyone in the sin bin for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)(ec) Do you believe that you can compel me to userblock? What purpose would it serve? Also, have you read my response regarding this edit? It is here.

If there is a revert war between two folks, and I revert one of them, once, then I have warred alongside. Using this philosophy, I can unprotect the page, and issue userblocks to all involved to prevent the disruption? This is an option I can use. Navou ^banter 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou, I would actually love to see you block editors who have done nothing wrong as justification to block a 7RR editor. Ferrylodge reverted seven times in a day, was not even so much as warned for it, and you're telling me that you can't take any measures to correct his (continued) disruption without blocking editors who've done nothing? His abuse of the editprotected template to solicit administrators to edit war on his behalf is decidedly disruption. Italia^vivi 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you so want us to implement punitive blocks, then I can block two people. But blocking for something done twelve hours ago is, quite frankly, stupid. —Kurykh 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He is attempting to continue his revert war through abuse of the editprotected template; where else am I supposed to go? And what was twelve hours ago? Are you calling me "stupid" (civility out the window, I suppose) without having reviewed the situation yourself? Italia^vivi 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Kurykh is saying the action of blocking would be stupid, not you. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the comment succinctly described by Navou. —Kurykh 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, what was twelve hours ago? Italia^vivi 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was retracting that while fighting 3 edit conflicts. However, the main point stands; you will be better off discussing solutions instead of clamoring for blocks. —Kurykh 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to strike out or correct your "stupid to block for something 12 hours ago" comment, then? Italia^vivi 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was still no formal warning for his 7RR violation or his attempt at continuing the revert war through abuse of the editprotected template. After agreeing to drop the revert war, he 1) asked a sysop to protect a different version then 2) used template:editprotected to the same ends. His User_talk page is completely clean of any sysop comment despite two back-to-back cases of severe disruption. Italia^vivi 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats due to the friendly formal warning I left on the article talk page. Venue not important here in my opinion. Navou ^banter 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You vaguely warned "folks," not him. There was no reprimand specifically to Ferrylodge for his 7RR disruption whatsoever. Italia^vivi 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like a pound of flesh, as well? We don't block people when we don't have to, and at the moment he's made more friends than you have. Navou's dealt with this as he sees fit, and that's the end of it. Being blocked is not the natural state for an editor to be in. Moreschi ^Talk 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's aware now. --Haemo 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That Ferrylodge makes friends through behavior like this is exactly what's wrong with this situation. Calling for some kind of correction (even a warning) to a 7RR violator is not asking a pound of flesh. Italia^vivi 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please shove a cork in this guy? HalfShadow 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just all ignore him instead of constantly reverting... -Amarkov moo! 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Review of above action

Navou, I'm not sure this was the correct action to take here. Ferrylodge has been blocked before for 3RR violation, and for harassment of KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge was also quite disruptive on an RFC a while back WP:POINTedly made against Bishonen regarding his block for said harassment. link. Ferrylodge has long been a disruptive editor and has become a relatively frequent sight on WP:AN/I. Having been blocked for 3RR before, and having a disruptive past, common sense says that it would be preventative to block him from any future disruption to the project, for at least 48 hours. This would not be punitive, it would be preventative in light of his history of blatant disruption. I mean come on.....if someone violates the 3RR by 3 full edits, having been blocked for the same in the past, they obviously are fully aware of the rule, fully aware of their actions, and fully intending to further disrupt the project; be it on that article or a similar one. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that I've "become a relatively frequent sight" here. This is my third time here, as I recall. The first time was initiated by me, rather than by anybody else, in order to get advice about Bishonen. The second time here was at the behest of Italiavivi, resulting in at least three separate warnings from administrators to Italiavivi on August 22 (LessHeard vanU and Tango warned him here, and ElinorD warned him here). So, now this is the third time here, and I don't think that's excessive considering the nature of the first two times here, and the length of time I've been at Wikipedia.

As for these current reversions, I thanked Italiavivi for his warning about 3RR, pledged not to revert any more in this instance, urged him to correct his own behavior, and urged him to stop edit-warring. I urged him to seek consensus at the talk page before changing the first three words of the Fred Thompson article, which were stable since 2004. So, there was misbehavior all around here, and I apologize for the number of reverts. As fate would have it, the page protection has frozen in place the version that I sought to change, so that seems like more than enough action against me.Ferrylodge 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but obviously you're aware now, so I'll AGF. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat (talk · contribs)

CyclePat has recently stated that he wishes to be unblocked and has promised to not mention the AMA.[65] - My only concern here is that he stated that he reserves the right to discuss the AMA if someone else tries to revive it. This is probably the best that we are going to do, so I propose we unblock him on the understanding that if he does mention it again, he gets reblocked immediately - obviously though, I'm not overturning a community ban on my own. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If I asked what the AMA was, would that be something I'd regret? HalfShadow 22:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restraining the urge to go on an anti-AMA rant) A group of would-be wikilawyers who tried to insert themselves into the dispute resolution process. Raul654 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA, the Association of Member's Advocates, an organization that was rendered historical a few months back. The reasons for the historical tag was dual: Lack of action after a while, and they got caught in bureaucratic nonsense. And if someone else tries to revive it, Pat'd better do his discussing of it off-wiki. SirFozzie 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering., I mean, there's almost 50 things it could mean. I may not be an admin, but it never hurts to know what you're talking about. HalfShadow 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The short version was that it originally set out to be a group to help editors through the dispute resolution process. Turned into a group that helped disruptive editors game the dispute resolution process. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in essense, sort of a meat-puppet collective? HalfShadow 22:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the advocacy that threw the thing off balance. I'm all for mentorship during dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallelujah. I will unblock, and I sincerely hope that Pat means it. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So do I, let's hope he can get back to some form of constructive editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

A user recently made a personal attack at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline stating that another editors' comment(s) was "shitting all over" [the page?, the comment section?] ([66]), This most uncivil remark is a personal attack according to WP:PA (No Personal Attacks) which states, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" I believe this editor should be warned and temporarily blocked for this disruptive editing.Cholga^talK! 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, just so you know. You need to take what he said in its context. Jackaranga 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, no one is going to be blocked for a single weak personal attack, and you don't need admins to issue a warning to a user. Just do it! --Haemo 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say, the weekly disputes on ANI between Cholga and ILike2BeAnonymous are becoming extraordinarily tiresome. --barneca (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And all the antagonism is over an article on... a dog-walking park? Raymond Arritt 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So he was 'shitting all over' a discussion about gloves for picking up dog crap? Time for more gloves. ThuranX 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

There's been some edit warring over this page over the last week or so. I haven't particularly participated in editing this article previously, but when I tried to fix up a link and change some content, User:Prester John reverts without giving any reason. Hopefully some admins can give this page a look over. Thanks. Recurring dreams 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He tends to do that. I've put the page on my watch list. Raymond Arritt 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have dealt with this issue myself. But I (and others) have had conflicts with him in the past, so I've put it up here. Recurring dreams 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Eagle 101 has taken some action. So be it. Recurring dreams 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed the ANI post, in any case I have blocked User:Bless sins for revert warring, and have given warnings to everyone else involved in this dispute. Turns out the page was protected (by User:kylu) sometime when I started getting the messages to the various editors ready. Please stop revert warring, and simply discuss the issue. Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. If disambiguating links is going to rile up users so much, I think it's better if I don't edit this article at all. I'll head off back to the safer world of Australian articles. Recurring dreams 03:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do think protection was necessary, I'm not sure the block necessarily was. Not that I am defending Bless sins edits, as I disagree with many of his edits and actions, but I don't think he should be blocked for a 3rr violation when he only reverted twice. I don't think he technically violated a rule.--Sefringle^Talk 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, for some reason people aren't usually blocked for edit wars upon article protection. I don't understand why this is, but in any case it seems a tad unfair for Bless Sins to be the exception to this usual process. The Behnam 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically violating a rule here does not matter, the reverting in itself is disruptive, I will unblock him/her on condition that he/she engage in discussion with everyone else. The protection and the block came at similar times, and I did not do the protection, two different solutions to the same problem at one time :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would encourage you to unblock. The block does not, currently, serve any purpose. Also, as far as I can see the misbehaviour seems to be spread evenly (and none to thin) among several participants. --Stephan Schulz 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BlessSins regularly reverts and removes sourced information, irritating other editors. If you look at his contribs, you'll see. This was a good block in my opinion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of what Matt said; not with the second. As I explained above, edit warring is based on the 3rr, and he only made 2 reverts, so I don't see how the block can be justified. I may have had many content dispute conflicts with Bless sins over misrepresentations of sources and his removial of content which he doesn't like, but I am generally against blocking as a way to resolve disputes, with exceptions in extreme cases; such as when rules are clearly violated, which I don't think he did in this case.--Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You, nor anyone else has a right to continue reverting, this has been going on for 2 days. 3RR is an upper limit, doing "only" two reverts is still disruptive, none of the people involved in the revert warring were at their best. Please stop revertwarring and discuss the content issue. Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest all those involved in the recent edit-conflict on that article be similarly treated, then? Would this opinion be any different if you weren't one of those involved? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I have just warned you and others in this dispute to settle down and discuss the editorial issue. Please do so, rather then pointing fingers. If you guys cannot quit editwarring, and baiting each other (the lot of you) I will consider more blocks for disruption. Please focus on content, rather then editors. Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To User:Sefringle: Please review WP:3RR, specifically this part:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

I think your understanding of that policy may be flawed, and you should re-consult it so as to no accidentally fall afoul in the future. Thanks for your thoroughness. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: I rarely remove sourced content (unless it's sourced to FFI, Warraq or other unreliable sources). I may, however, have removed sourced content by mistake (while reverting or some other editing).Bless sins 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"other unreliable sources" includes quite a large variety of content; basicly everything remotely critical of Islam.--Sefringle^Talk 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would suggest that you folks chat it out, and figure out (on the talk page) if that edit is correct or not. Perhaps there is a compromise version you can reach. Please try to assume that everyone working here has the best interests of this encyclopaedia in mind, sometimes all it takes is a little talk, and it avoids all this nasty talk about blocking folks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Faith Freedom International

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

Resolved

Bringing this to ANI was premature. I've restarted the discussion on the article's talk - hopefully it will stay there. The Behnam 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the following edits violate WP:BLP: [67], [68] (and there are many more).

This is because they are adding content about living persons that is poorly sourced. For example:

• "Prominent scholars among those who debated with members of FFI include Khalid Zaheer, a student of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi..."
• "Reza Pahlavi advocated a democratic government determined via a national referendum which could lead to a constitutional monarchy."

The source in most cases is Faith Freedom (an extremist website). One source ([[69]) doesn't appear to be working. Finally, I'm not sure if http://19.org is a reliable source.Bless sins 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be making any contentious claims. It's also using a self-published source in an article about itself. So, it appears that on both counts, the article is conforming to Wikipedia policy. Remove the dead link, explaining it is a dead link (and therefore not a verifiable source). The 19.org reference is in relation to someone from that site debating someone from FFI, so again that doesn't seem problematic. Vassyana 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used but only in content about themselves. I don't think self-published sources (especially that are extremist) can be used to make claims about other living persons. It is contentious because FFI claims to be right in its arguments against these scholars. The FFI also seems to be using notable scholars to increase its notability. We don't know whether or not 19.org is actually written by the person it claims to be written by.Bless sins 02:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what I saw looks OK. Statements are attributed as FFI's views and not as truth. On the other hand 19.org looks to be a classic unreliable source. Raymond Arritt 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with a specific claim about the debate with Montazeri awhile ago. The solution for now has been to explicitly attribute the claim of debate to FFI/Sina. If that is a solution appropriate to the other claims, then it should be implemented. I am, however, concerned that mentioning the debates may be placing undue weight upon FFI's "works" - we need to talk about that which makes FFI notable and consider leaving the rest, so that we are not committing activism for FFI by giving it another platform to present all of its views and claims. The Behnam 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this noticeboard is the place to post content disputes. I think it is more or less for policy violations--Sefringle^Talk 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, is not this section about a possible BLP violation? In its current state the article violates BLP by presenting these dubious claims as facts based upon FFI, a non-RS that is the subject of the article. That's not acceptable. The Behnam 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this article present dubious claims as facts. The article makes it pretty clear that the site just claims they are facts, and the article doesn't assert whether or not the debates really occured Reguardless, your previous comment wasn't really alluding to any allegation of a BLP violation.--Sefringle^Talk 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I brought the Montazeri solution up because I feel that it could be applied to the other claims under dispute, hence making this ANI BLP alert resolved. I first proposed this on the talk page, but you pointed me here. The Behnam 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you mean by the Montazeri solution, as I was not involved in that dispute.--Sefringle^Talk 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell - we resolve the BLP violation by explicitly attributing the debate claims to FFI, instead of presenting them as fact as the article currently does (for some of them). With Montazeri, I removed the claim (not a reliable source for this claim) because it used FFI to present the claimed debate as factual. Matt57 reverted, of course, (RV changes by Behnam - this is a primary source). After some discussion somewhere, he was fine with this version (montazeri followup), which attributes the claim explicitly to Sina. I think that if we do this, the BLP violations will not be present, and so there will be no need for ANI stuff. The Behnam 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what exactly do you suggest? What is your idea of how to change this?--Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm just going to try it out on the article and then notify here so that we can review. If the result is satisfactory we shouldn't have a BLP violation. It's just a tad difficult because of the current writing (prominent scholars, since then, etc... hard to convert). I'd like to hear what Bless Sins thinks of my proposed method for resolving the issue... assuming that the point of this is to resolve the issue. If we all agree, we can put this discussion back on the talk page where it belongs, and come back here if real problems form. Somehow this ANI post seemed premature - we hadn't any real discussion on the matter, though I tried. OK if we close this for now? The Behnam 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Edit War?

I think I may have gotten myself into a revert war here. I removed the CSD templates that the editor kept putting on, telling him to take to AfD. Instead, he prodded it, calling the page an advertisment...the page is clearly not an advertisment. I removed the prod tag and told him again that if he thought the page should be deleted, he should take it to AfD. He put it back up saying, "I will let an Admin make that decision"...which isn't how it works. I removed the prod tag again with the edit comment "I am contesting your prod". He put it on again with the edit comment "I am contesting your contesting". I don't have knowledge of the subject matter, but looking at it for about 10 seconds you can tell it's not an advertisment. It's a contested prod and he needs to take it to AfD. I have removed the prod tag again...but I doubt that holds up. Smashville 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it doesn't really seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:CSD nor does it seem WP:PRODable. I am, however, a little confused to as why you haven't spoken to the user without using an edit summary. Tag it up with an AfD tag, and I'll note the user with the deletion policy. Note, however, that content disputes are not solved here. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to delete it anymore, sorry for the confusion, I'm used to working on a project where rubbish gets deleted a bit more easily. No offense meant, --NoCultureIcons 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...I didn't know where to take it...I didn't think the editor was working in bad faith...I thought we might be getting into an edit war and was trying to pre-empt it. Smashville 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. Just beware of the dreaded 3RR rule, which can get you blocked. Also see WP:LIST on how to organise a list. Perhaps this is the bane of your dispute. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... what s/h/xe said. Thanks for stepping in there, xmanynumbers... perfect example of a situation where an admin was most definitely not needed - just guidance from a trusted user. - Philippe | Talk 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor removing notability tag

Ian McIan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article called Ryan Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not sure it lives up to WP:NOTE, so I add {{notability}} to the article. He removed it without reason. I re-added it and told him he shouldn't do that. He ignored two other warnings and removed it two more times. Upon giving him a final warning, 140.32.16.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom edits the same articles Ian does pops up and removed the tag. It's obvious it's him. Should he be blocked for this? Some diffs:

[70] [71] [72] [73]

Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of block and of unblock decision

Last night, I blocked a user, User:Sapienz, for posting personal information on another user's (User:Darrenss) talk page. [74] Specifically, the information consisted of a fairly standard breakdown of an IP tracking post, but then included the line, "_____ is Darren Smith's workplace." (admins can see the edit here).

Sapienz has a history, under various nicks and IPs (including User:Potters house which was blocked for a username violation), of disruption on topics related to Potters House, and the user concerned has also extensively vandalised Darrenss's user page in times past until I protected it a couple of months ago after a request for assistance. Darren is a former member of the church and the roots of the dispute/harassment are firmly off-wiki.

A few minutes later, Sapienz posted an unblock request which ironically contained a false allegation and a personal attack against said user. An hour later, User:Ugen64 unblocked, but seems to have missed the last line of the deleted edit (which claimed to reveal Darren's workplace). Furthermore, the unblock reason given in the log does not demonstrate good faith towards myself or my original decision, nor does the fact I was not notified on my talk page (I was actually online for more than two hours thereafter.) I have protested this action at his talk page, but I would like a review of both decisions from a neutral party. It seems to me that gaming the system has on this occasion worked. Orderinchaos 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am getting fed up with the increasing use of {{unblock}} to circumvent discussion between admins. Once upon a time (a time in which both myself and uegn64 were admins), one was generally obliged to discuss an unblock with the blocking admin. Yes, there were still unblocks without the consent of the latter, but at least the matter of pending unblocks would be brought before him or her beforehand. There really is no excuse to unblock without even a courtesy notice and ugen64 does know better. El_C 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It does appear, from WP:BLOCK#Unblocking, that this should have been discussed first. The first sentence of that section makes that pretty clear...and the second, as well. I'm currently looking into the specifics of the block now, but on the general principle of discussion before unblocking I agree with El C and Orderinchaos. Daniel 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the ban for a lower duration, after consulting with others and deciding this is a serious enough offence that simply letting the current situation stand is not acceptable. However, this should not influence the above, as my own action is also subject to review, and if one of you decide to review accordingly and unblock I will not be opposed. (Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the last two comments before acting.) Orderinchaos 06:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In another unrelated incident today, Ugen64 also silently reversed my protection of a garden-variety disruptive blocked IP's talk page, with the rationale "still no reason to protect." The IP was making childish personal attacks and abusing various maintenance templates while blocked, so I protected the page for the duration of his block, standard procedure per our protection policy -- and unsurprisingly, as soon as Ugen64 unprotected, the IP continued the same disruptive behavior. When I asked him why he did this, he replied that I "was taking myself too seriously." It disappoints me that an admin would reverse another admin's protection in a situation like this without even as much as a courtesy note. --krimpet⟲ 06:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I should have left you a note. But that's a very minor matter of formality, seeing as you quite obviously saw my unprotection (and left a message to that extent on my talk page). This would be like me putting up an article for AFD, you voting "keep" on the AFD, then complaining to me about how I didn't inform you about the AFD - okay, maybe I should have informed you, but it's irrelevant seeing as you found out anyway. I'm 100% sure there is a guideline or policy that mentions this exact situation (not specifically regarding unprotection, but in general). Anyway, users (and IPs, of course to a slightly lesser extent) are given more latitude to make edits on their user page, user talk page, and subpages. For example, I can create a subpage that violates A7 but it won't be deleted. If this IP was posting those messages on an article talk page, or a Wikipedia namespace talk page, or some other talk page, then sure, it would be disruptive. But this IP's actions on his own talk page are no more disruptive than an IP blanking their talk page, or selectively removing warnings (and you might recall a post I made on WP:AN about Wikipedia:User page, which clearly says that removing warnings is not prohibited). To me (and most users I would hope), protecting a user or IP's own talk page due to their own edits should be a move of last resort (for example, posting personal information of other users or making repeated edits that are clearly vandalism). If some new user vandalized an article with "haha I'm awesome", would he get an indefinite block? No. If he vandalized an article with "haha Krimpet's name is XYZ and his address is XYZ and his phone number is XYZ and [insert death threat here]" then would he get an indefinite block? Yes, and it would be deserved. But it's only a last resort move.

As for the other incident - user:Sapienz was clearly blocked (as stated in the block log) for something like "posting personal information about another user; harassment" (that is not a direct quote, but simply from memory). That was clearly incorrect, as I mentioned in my rationale (that huge box below all User talk page that contains a link, among other things, to a WHOIS lookup). Then Sapienz made a reasonable conclusion - "this IP is probably Darren Smith editing while logged out, and since this IP resolves to [insert workplace here, I forget what it is], then Darren Smith is probably working there". Look, let's say I was stupid enough to get into a revert war and decided to log out to make a 4th revert at Swarthmore College trying to avoid the 3rr rule. So my IP is clearly visible - if someone says "this IP, which is probably ugen64, resolves to Swarthmore College" (ignore the fact that this information is publicly visible), I could not possibly have complaints, seeing as it was my bad decision to edit from the publicly visible IP. This is a very very minor violation of "posting personal information" (it was the combination of an educated guess and information available to every single person in the world), if it's even a violation at all. It did not deserve a block at all, and seeing as the punishment (1 week block) was much harsher than the actually deserved punishment (no block, possibly a warning), that's why I unblocked unilaterally without informing everyone. Think about it - if someone CSDs an article that is clearly not a CSD candidate (for example United States), would you be so mad at me if I undeleted it without telling anyone? ugen64 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I wrote all of this in like 10 minutes so sorry if there are any typos or badly written sentences or anything... back to organic chemistry homework :-) ugen64 05:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea isn't "talk to the blocking admin and tell them why you unblocked". The idea is "ask the blocking admin why they blocked, and discuss it with them, before you unblock".

Also, please be aware that "outing" Wikipedians is very serious, and this includes saying where they work. I know of one case where some trolls called an editor's workplace to complain of her editing during work hours, as "payback" for an on-Wiki dispute. The Wikipedian was duly fired from her real-life job. I know of another case where this was threatened, and the user had to resign from a Wikiproject to protect his job and his family. Yes, you can sometimes get information from I.P.s by doing a look-up, but that doesn't excuse trying to publicly "out" someone, or to making that easier for others to do. (The subset of cretins who will get revenge by calling someone's workplace to get them fired, doesn't always overlap with the subset of IT-savvy individuals who can resolve an I.P address.) This is a reason to tread very, very carefully here. Please discuss "outing" situations with others before unblocking. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

There has been a long edit war which has now extended into legal threats, could someone look into all sides of this, heres the diff of the legal threat. [75] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever has made the legal threat needs to be blocked indefintely. This type of thing shouldn't happen on Wikipedia, and the user that made the legal threat does not deserve to edit. Until he retracts/apologises for his actions, he should be indef. blocked per WP:LEGAL. Davnel03 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon review, I believe that no action should be taken here. First, I believe the action the editor took, which this talk page dif explains, was justified. The edit removed material that was sourced to an opinon column appearing in the website www.RenewAmerica.us. This website, upon inspection, is clearly an advocacy website that does not meet the special reliability requirements including independence and peer review that Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires for all sources used for all key facts, and especially potentially reputation-damaging material, about living persons. Second, the last sentence threatened to turn information "over to the Catholic League for prosecution." I'd let this one go. Sharing information with an organization isn't the same as a legal threat. People are as entitled to share information with the Catholic league as they are to call the ACLU, write their senator, etc. We don't know the Catholic league will respond at all, let alone take legal action; perhaps they'll just write us a polite letter. Given that the editor is basically correct and the material is inconsistent with our policies, and on net the user has done us a favor by getting rid of inappropriate content, I'll add a note to the user's user talk page acknowledging this with a gentle warning that someone might construe the last sentence as a legal threat and please not to do this as legal threats violate our policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor and I have given warnings about WP:NLT. There is something seriously wrong with that discussion and most likely that article. Its an article about the Catholic sex abuse scandal and the talk page has a section titled Nazi propaganda? I don't think blocking is the solution here. I would suggest opening a WP:MEDCAB case. Mr.Z-man 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Nazi propaganda section on the Talk page was last edited in May; perhaps some vandal or POV editor added a section which was quickly removed. Appears to have been dealt with and over. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that now, but there are still a lot of POV dispute problems that need to be dealt with though. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a section about Propaganda produced by the Nazis before and durring the second world war against the Catholic church. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A block, under NLT is needed, but not indef. in among the anecdotal emotional rebuttal are some factual responses, and perhaps with some guidance, she can be brought into line with editing styles and thus rebutt some fairly radical claims in a manner likely to garner support and consensus. She certainly seems to mean well, but be doing it wrong. ThuranX 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the user shoud be indefinitely blocked (unless he/she has a long history of making legal threats). The user should be warned, and perhaps given a one hour block as evidence that his/her actions are serious.Vice regent 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Telephone call and legal threat

Not sure what the proper place to report this, but I would like other opinions and eyes on the issue. Anon user User:76.184.140.85 talk (Contibutions) has become irritated over my editing of content he added to the Idaho article and comments on Talk:Idaho. He just within the last hour called me on my home phone to object and during the conversation threatened legal action against me in Texas if what he percieves as censorship of his edits continues. He claims to teach at a Texas university and to have a Wikipedia username which he doesn't want to use for unclear security reasons. I don't know just how he aquired my telephone number and am disturbed by his attempted intimidation. I would appreciate comments and more eyes watching the situation. Thanks, Vsmith 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This behavior is clearly not acceptable. I don't know what we can do beyond blocking of the IP user and leaving a strongly worded message, though. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you contacted the Wikimedia Foundation? Durova^Charge! 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Wasn't sure just who/how to report this and also not sure about the gravity of the intimidation attempt. Vsmith 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me and I'll give you Cary Bass's direct address. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've browsed the leadup discussion at Talk:Idaho and determined that this report is credible. I can't actually prove that this legal threat occurred, but common sense says to take a conservative approach when a user in very good standing makes this type of report at this juncture in a dispute. I doubt Vsmith would waste a hard-earned reputation by posting a frivolous accusation and the leadup at the article talk page follows a familiar pattern of intense disagreement by someone who wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. This fits the profile of past cases that led to onsite legal threats. I don't know whether this indefinite block will become permanent, but the prudent thing to do is to put the breaks on this until the matter gets sorted out. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Preliminarily, the next time he calls, ask him to refer all further legal threats to info-en at wikimedia dot org and to have no further contact with you. Make it explicitly clear that you want no further contact from him. Contact your local law enforcement to complain of harassment if he continues.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an EMail Vsmith with a just a suggestion.--Sandahl 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've run a CheckUser, and there is indeed a mildly active account on this IP. I can keep an eye on it, and if any information from the IP is needed by the WMF or law enforcement, we can let them know. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Call your local Police. It's really that simple. That's an action covered by various protections against internet stalking, and probably also counts as harrassment. Further, the demonstration that he can 'get to you' in the real world can be called extortion in some places. The editor immediately took this beyond the authority of Wikipedia, and the WMF by dialing. Use your tax dollars, pursue this by legal recourse, and let the cops handle it. ThuranX 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple, at least not in the general case. The police will be more or less useless if such harrassment crosses international borders, and I'd have serious doubts about their effectiveness even in the US. Moreover, going to the police requires a serious amount of time and dedication. While this is certainly a last resort, we should still have on-wiki methods of handling this. --Stephan Schulz 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would further suggest that there is almost certainly no jurisdiction in the United States in which a telephone call consistent with that described by Vsmith, in the absence of a request, as described by Swat, that one not be contacted, should be criminally actionable. Joe 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have formally declined the IP's unblock request and semi-protected the talk page for 48 hours as a precaution. Pascal.Tesson 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this issue was dealt with in an exemplary fashion. Well done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Serafin puppets again

After the Copernicus article has been semi-protected, a 'new' account had to do the reverting to Serafin's version. Serafin sometimes tended to create accounts in rapid succession (eg [76][77]) and in fact this happened here ([78][79]). But there's always more where this came from, so there are probably going to be more socks to block. Sciurinæ 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic has yet to be addressed. Is there maybe a better board for this issue or do you think it is minor because it could it be solved by simple reverting? The latter is undesirable because revert warring has been Serafin's tactic on Bureaucracy until all his resistance had been quelled by this. Every more minute not taken care off is also every new minute ban evasion has paid off for him. Sciurinæ 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BOTijo

Was approved for 12epm by the BAG, but I've seen periods of 40+ epm. Seems to be doing about 24-30 epm now. Left a message for the operator yesterday, but no reply, so I bring this up to ANI. Q ^{T C} 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 hour for going too fast, (the one hour block should disable the bot as its pywiki, and allow the operator to restart at the correct speed). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

a matter of taste

I don't usually get worked up over this sort of thing, but I do think idle calls to "gas them all" with Zyclon B is not exactly conductive to a friendly editing atmosphere, even if marked as "funny" by things like "shit damnit lol" thrown after it.[80] I'm not shopping for an immediate block of this chap, but it may be appropriate for an Uninvolved Admin to bestow upon him a stern admonition (this is mostly a case of "Wikipedia is not Usenet"). --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from ip range.

Resolved

The range being 80.231.198.73 to 80.231.198.77, attacking the same articles at the same time.

Contribs:

• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.73
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.74
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.75
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.76
• Special:Contributions/80.231.198.77

--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all for 24 hours. Pascal.Tesson 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Towns in the Former RSK

Resolved

 – page semi-protected

Could another admin or two look at the history and talk page of this list and confirm that I am acting appropriately? An anon tagged it for deletion, and when I turned it down as not meeting the speedy criteria, started blanking the list and changing it into a redirect. I'd hate to enter into an edit-war if I'm in the wrong. What I don't know about Serbia and Croatia could just about fill Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Page is now sprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:207.144.220.3 constant vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked

Has been vandalizing Arcade game non-stop. User has been previously banned. --Marty Goldberg 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked in the IP. In the future, you can report vandals at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and template oriented admins -- please view this discussion.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_10 regarding the PD-RoM template, which was created by a banned user for the purpose of pushing POV via images and media. The template clearly cannot be acceptable under copyright law or fair use doctrines..... it's part of an ongoing edit war/POV fest going on at National Liberation War of Macedonia et al. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JesseCarmichael

Resolved

All of JesseCarmichael (talk · contribs)'s edits are vandalism, and he's now started page moves of User pages to offensive names. Could somebody block, please? Corvus cornix 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by Wikipedia's resident oriental poetic adminess. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to block him 50 seconds after this post, and I was already beat to the punch! You vandal-fighters are a quick bunch. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz?

There is an ebay user with multiple listings not unlike MyWikiBiz, offering to make articles for a fee [81] . The user, Diremine (ebay account) also Had a wikipedia account that was indefinitely blocked, now has another sockpuppet, user:Democrat4.

The evidence, showing little need for checkuser other than to make sure he or she has no other sockpuppets: Old edit on Diremine's page about a blog

And Edit with same edit summary, same owner of same blog

The user is creating articles that on the outside appear to be perfectly legitimate, but seems to be gaming the systems by carefully stylizing the articles and being careful not to break any rules, but in the end the user is just a paid editor.

An example was Gloria Irwin, which was recently deleted.

A current example is Kevin_Eggan, which is currently listed under AFD.

Just thought I'd bring this here to see what should be done. Note that in the previous case, MyWikiBiz was blocked indefinitely (twice by Jimbo, in the end by the community). Cowman109^Talk 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is there any wmf policy prohibiting this that we can block him under? —Crazytales (o rly?) 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I went hunting with checkuser, and Diremine is the only sockpuppet I found. Raul654 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've indeffed per WP:SOCK. Someone please take care of the templates. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I used a screen shot of that eBay auction at a recent presentation on the "SEO Reputation Problem". Somebody should complain to eBay because the seller has a very strong reputation score: 6580. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a sock of MyWikiBiz, just another entrepreneur with some similarities in the MO. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MWB socks are often anagrams of the phrase "Jimbo Wales Sucks" (JossBuckle Swami, MuscleJaw SobSki, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with blocking him in spirit, but as usual I question the wisdom of blocking external paid editors while permitting paid editing at WP:REWARD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot remember where it was, but there was discussion about the principle of allowing (third party) editing. I believe it was generally agreed that if the editing didn't violate any policy or guideline it would be no different than volunteer authored work and therefore valid. The only possible problem would be WP:COI but if it was undetectable in the work then it isn't really a concern. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is committing a fraud upon eBay by promising things that violate site policies and that this person cannot guarantee. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the editors edits conform to WP policies and guidelines (I'm not saying they do, just if) then what duty of care did we owe to eBay and/or third parties which results in us blocking an editor for off-wiki promises for actions that are not in themselves against the creed that "anyone can edit"? Are we creating precedent in blocking an editor for making promises outside of WP which does not (potentially) result in violating WP editing principles? LessHeard vanU 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well a precedent was already created with Jimbo's blocking of User:MyWikiBiz. Cowman109^Talk 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I never suggested that this was a sock of MyWikiBiz, but that this was just a similar situation. And I find it hard to believe that MWB would have socks like that, as he seemed to be quite a professional person who just happened to be caught up in the not so acceptable area of advertising for companies on Wikipedia. Cowman109^Talk 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was informative and answered my query. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

unindent) In response to ">Cowman109, was MyWikiBiz not banned for sockpuppetry and/or making legal threats? Neither would apply in this case. Risker 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added url Democrat4president.org to the Blacklist^[82], and it appears Democrat4president.org article has already been deleted.--Hu12 22:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MyWikiBiz was banned for those it appears, but the outlying issue that started it all was the fact that he was paid to advertise for businesses on Wikipedia, I guess. That's the only similarity here I meant to bring up - the fact that we have another paid editor issue. Cowman109^Talk 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So when did everyone turn psychic so that they can determine the motivations of an editor for contributing. As long as contributions adhere to the content policy and guidance then what justification is there for blocking or otherwise harassing them? If a contributor engages in persistent confrontations over the content that falls into the existing methods for censure and enforcement.

I really think people need to get a sense of perspective here.

ALR 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ALR, this editor is perpetrating a fraud. I realize what a strong word this is so let me repeat it: this editor is perpetrating a fraud. This person is purporting to sell a service on eBay that would guarantee any purchaser a "homepage" at Wikipedia (read: an article, regardless of underlying notability) and guarantees twelve outgoing links to the purchaser's website. This person has no ability to make such guarantees, which are in blatant violation of WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. It is a play upon the client's ignorance and our goodwill. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the nature of any advertising on eBay is eBays problem, not Wikipedias. Frankly as far as the eBay advert is concerned, and the Craigslist ones below, caveat emptor. If someone purchases the service and then discovers that it can't be fulfilled then that is between them and the vendor. Wikipedia has no place in the transaction, other than as a third party.

I'd go as far as to say that any effort to do something, beyond what's already covered in the content policy and guidance, about it probably increases any liability.

I'd consider a comparison with someone who is employed by an organisation and edits articles related to them, either during their work time, or in their own time. Take a look at the PA Consulting Group page for an example of someone in the marketing department of the company dealing with the article.

I appreciate that in any system there is a tendency for rules and administranium to self perpetuate, but frankly I'd like to see the jackboots kicking in more appropriate doors. wikipedia has enough of its own problems without sorting out eBay and Craigslist.

ALR 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Selling something which it is patently obvious is unable to be delivered is fraud. While Wikipedia probably would be seen in the courts as a victim of this, not a perpetrator, we've moved, independently, to avoid such problems. You see that as a problem? That's an unusual perspective, and you seem to be almost supportive of it. Further, if you don't like what User:Summilux is doing to the PA COnsulting group article, talk to him/her, and edit that article to be better. If talking doesn't work, go to the COIN folks, and ask for help. We have recourse available, nad saying 'well, they're doing it too' isn't a valid defense. ThuranX 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My point with regard to PA consulting was that the blatant advertising was dealt with by discussion. That waas an example of a more general point, what is the situation with employees, or indeed contractors within an organisation, editing the articles related to their employers? I appreciate that the point was probably more subtle than is usual in this area.

I have no problem with someone making money out of this system, they've seen opportunities and they're exploiting them. If the advertised service is fraudulent then that is between the parties involved; Wikipedia is neither responsible for it, nor a victim of it. However I do object to some creeping effort to police the whole web. Policies and guidelines allow this to be handled without the rather excessive step of preemptive blocking of accounts, in fact you clearly identify two of the approaches yourself, and another is being used immediately below this.

So much for anyone can edit, frankly ones motivations for editing shouldn't be policed. Play the ball, not the player....

ALR 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy Just because anyone can edit doesn't mean they're welcome to roam wild. This site has policies and standards.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site We don't have homepages: we have encyclopedia articles.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_your_web_host A more explicit policy statement of the above.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Subjects have to satisfy a certain threshold of verifiable information to merit an article.
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Advertising and self-promotion are explicitly against policy.

I don't set out to police every entry at eBay or Craigslist, but as an administrator of Wikipedia I most certainly do pay attention when someone attempts to manipulate Wikipedia for ideological or profit motives. I deal with this kind of thing all the time. And if you'd rather participate in a different wiki where that kind of editing is welcome and I don't volunteer, you are most welcome to create one or join one. Unless you persuade consensus here to alter several fundamental policies and guidelines, I'll keep right on doing my thing. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is something I'm not communicating here. I've pointed out several times that Policy and Guidelines exist which allow us to address content issues. I have a concern that there is a pre-emptive effort to ban people on the basis that they might break those policies and guidelines, predicated on their service offering; writing or editing articles for monetary reward.

If that's not what you're suggesting then it's not clear from your wording.

The effort to justify pre-emptive action based on your assumption that the actual contractual arrangement might be fraudulent strikes me as rather disingenuous, and comes close to being intellectually fraudulent in it's own right. Of course I might apply a very different standard of justification around punitive action than you do. It strikes me that you're seeking to justify making up your own rules on the hoof, which is a risky direction to take.

Of course your suggestion that I should f*ck off elsewhere does seem to be consistent with the approach you seek to justify. Clearly my expectation of self discipline and professional behaviour from administrators is misplaced.

ALR 07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother so much about the "fraud" aspect, the fact that he might be unable to fulfill his "contract". I bother about that he is obviously willing to try to fulfil it. Which entails that he is willing to write articles regardless of the encyclopedic merits of the subject, and make an effort sneaking them into Wikipedia, bending our rules if necessary. Note that he isn't just selling his services to customers he judges suitable (as MyWikiBiz did, if I remember correctly); he is selling them to anybody, to the highest bidder. So, according to the e-bay rules, presumably he hasn't even got any control over which customers he accepts or not. If I hire him to write an article about my pet cat, he will be obliged to try and write one and fight to have it included. This is what he is publicly declaring he's willing to do. And this means he is automatically not a good-faith contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. What eBay seller is going to risk getting negged over something he can't deliver, and, as noted above, about any subject the buyer wants? The seller has 6500+ positives with 6 negs, none of them in the last 12 months. $100 just doesn't seem worth the risk, but it's a creepy little section of eBay anyway. Of the five or so buyers I found from the last month (seller uses exact wording except for names to sell Yahoo Answer, Google, Facebook, etc pages), two have left feedback...buyer Robbo0 bought on Aug. 16 and left positive on Aug. 27 and Diremine left positive on Aug. 31, while RayJasm left a cryptic positive on Aug. 19 (bought Aug. 9). Other purchases were buyer from Bulgaria, online store "My Native Creations" and GiaPromotions, which markets poker stuff. The two articles could be connected with the feedback, but I couldn't see the dates from the already deleted article to see if it matched up. Be interesting to see what feedback comes from these buyers down the road. Flowanda | Talk 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Craigslist

eBay is behind the curve compared to Craigslist. From a Google search of site:craigslist.org for "wikipedia":

• This guy has "two projects that should be of some interest to an accomplished author with a potential book deal sometime in the future" and non-disclosure/secrecy agreements. It helps if, despite Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" style, you could "employ some passion." Salary is negotiable, of course

• A local filmmaker in Philadelphia wants someone to "create a Wiki profile" about him/her

• Canadians will be glad to know that Wikipedia needs photographers in Toronto to snap photos for use in articles. The photographer even gets a link to his site from "whatever article(s) Wikipedia uses the photos in", in exchange for taking "pro bono" shots

• Here's a guy in Houston who "guarantees (to write for you) a Wikipedia entry free from spelling and grammar errors", plus a "chance to become part of history". (I never thought of myself as historical.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more like this that have expired and are unavailable for viewing. The things people will do to promote themselves never ceases to amaze me. - KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the third of those four listings is completely legitimate. The other three look very bad. Durova^Charge! 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he can't get a link in the article. In the photograph, maybe. But never in the article. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to the photographer, explaining he can't offer a link *in* the article. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know the third one is okay – the phrase "Wikipedia uses the photo in" sounded very odd. - KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lordy. The fourth guy has had a long, illustrated, reasonably well written, but completely non-notable article for almost a year: J. Kevin Tumlinson. See you all when this AFD red link turns blue. :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh! I looked for him in userspace, not the mainspace. Look at the article's history - I'm trying to WP:AGF, but how many believe User:Oldhatgolfer and User:Hat72 are different people? - KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They _are_ the same guy. See Oldhatgolfer's deleted edits, and Hat72's deleted edits. (Non-admins can't see these, sorry.) - KrakatoaKatie 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot – I don't want to hijack ANI, but there's one more, and it may be the best one of all:

• A "Nude resort and spa" in Los Angeles wants a "WIKI expert to help resort on trade post for us". They "are seeking more help with really working wikipedia and some other sites like this as we cant seem to be able to post", and "and there seems to be many places for us to placemnt on Wikipedia". They're willing to exchange expertise for a free midweek stay at sea mountain inn for two people (URL removed) or two free dayspa passes for two" to their nudie spa.

If you're interested, please don't tell me about the experience. I have enough problems. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Free midweek stay at a nudie spa??? WP:Conflict of WHAT? I'm there! Any female parties interested in that second ticket, you know who's Talk page to hit up. Awww yeahhhh. :-P Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 11:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess since it's not an offer of money, it doesn't violate WP:COI. However, some of us (like yours truly) aren't at our best unclothed, so it's not all that appealing of an offer. -- llywrch 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it violates WP:COI. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if the editor in question seeks to insert content in violation of policy, and persists in doing so when that content is challenged by other editors. Although I'd agree that in this sense there is no real difference between a financial and non-financial reward.

ALR 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is precisely what its name implies: a conflicting motivational factor that could lead to behavior that works against the building of an encyclopedia. This is an old concept that managed situations such as free junkets long before Wikipedia or the Internet existed. You've offered no reason why Wikipedia should be forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard, and if you have some reason then you ought to advance it at the guideline talk page rather than here. Durova^Charge! 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirey sure why you feel it neccesary to be quite so hostile towards me, peculiar really.

There is a potential conflict of interest in the situation, no doubt of that whatsoever. However it only becomes a conflict if the required edits don't meet the content demands of the community, recognising that those demands are somewhat fluid in places.

Whilst it remains a potential I see no need for any proverbial jackboots kicking the doors in until there is an attempt to break the extant policies. I'm not suggesting any need to re-invent any wheels, I'm merely cautious of pre-emptive action. In the UK we have this quaint tradition of considering people innocent until proven guilty.

ALR 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you've referred to jackboots in replies, yet you accuse me of hostility? There are proper channels for this discussion. You have focused on an inappropriate one, refused to redirect energies into areas where your input might sway consensus, and expressed your opinion in hyperbolic terms. I have consulted Jimbo Wales, Cary Bass, and members of the arbitration committee when these matters arise in order to ensure my "jackboot" is in step. What work have you done in the area and whose input have you sought? From the looks of things, very little. Durova^Charge! 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am more than a little concerned over the ad hominem aspect of these responses. The query as regards "paid for" article writing is one I raised earlier, and received a much more civil response (which I recommend to ALR). FYI, "jackboot" has a different cultural meaning to British (rather than English language) readers/editors and I would have hoped that all administrators would recognise that there are different nuances over the en-Wiki - and respond accordingly.LessHeard vanU 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that difference. It can be a little hard to hear a voice calling from the other side of The Pond. Really, I've wished for a long time that even ten percent of the people who offer opinions on how WP:COI ought to be interepreted actually pitched in at the chronically backlogged WP:COIN. If that colored my reply I apologize. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This excerpt from Nineteen Eighty Four (the ultimate British dystopia) sums up the UK attitude toward the concept; "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever." The boot is a jackboot. As for COIN, as with much on WP, comment (opinion) is cheap and action is... labour intensive. "'bless the COIN patrollers, and thank 'eavens you ain't one of 'em." or, No need to apologise - we are here to build the encyclopedia. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I regret that I appear to have offended you in my effort to get a straight answer to the question. I'm less concerned about COI per-se as what I see as a justification for punitive action based on an admins assessment of motivations, rather than evidence of non-compliance with policy and guideline in Wikipedia itself. I'm sorry if you feel that I've been unreasonable in seeking to get to that understanding. My point about integrity was related to the argument, not the individual, it's regrettable that wasn't clear.

Personally I steer clear of the governance in Wikipedia nowadays, in my experience it's a futile exercise because the scale of the project has outgrown the existing framework for governance and the creation of further governance. That's a rather broader issue than this specific area though. I'm also rather more pushed for time since I moved to a new job than much of it actually needs. Now that things are freeing up a little if the current flavour of this page is anything to go by I'll probably focus on other things. I spend my working day helping organisations improve how they operate, the first step is always recognising the need for change....... But that's a fairly broad philosophical debate about the evolution of communities and the interaction of social networks; an inevitable consequence of collaboration.

Thanks for your time.

ALR 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, my comment above was meant as a joke. (Not that I would want people to laugh at me if they saw me in the nude.) I didn't intend for it to ignite a flame war. :-( -- llywrch 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Once again: it's strange to me that someone on an external website offering a stay at a resort in exchange for an article would be violating policy, but someone offering it here on WP:RB would be just fine. Can anyone explain why this is the case? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  Most of the offers on the Reward Board are token payments: $20 - $50 per featured article, usually on some obviously encyclopedic topic - and many of the offers have no dollar value at all, just pledges for reciprocal editing or barnstars. This raises my eyebrow and I wouldn't object if some established editors monitored the page accordingly. If push comes to shove I'd rather eliminate the money section from the Reward Board than let that page become a wedge issue. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea this board existed. I've been in the dark ;). Navou ^banter 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll have to assume some good faith, but even with that, the entry is eye catching. Commercial? Navou ^banter 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Durova, how much do you think Duremine is paying its writers? I'd say $20 would be the high end. Flowanda | Talk 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of User:Tecmobowl

Following a checkuser, I have blocked Jmfangio (talk · contribs) as a reincarnation of community banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wha...Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson...*clears head*... Daniel 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably should have checked earlier, but it didn't click for me. Durova had suspicions which led me to it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't someone close the RfAr? ThuranX 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but this simplifies it. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because we still have to look at Chrisjnelson's behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Related to that, I've filed a report under Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Notre_Dame_vandal, added that vandal to the list of banned users, and indeffed his socks. There seems to be no precedent for this so I've been bold. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys may want to let SirFozzie know that Jmfangio is a Tecmobowl sock. He'd said that he would have lifted the block himself provided Tecmobowl meet Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#User:Tecmobowl certain conditions, but it's pretty safe to say that he won't be allowed back. Blueboy96 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspected it that Jmfangio was a sock of somebody, but didn't really thought it was tecmobowl (as he was mostly fighting in football articles while tecmobowl dealt with baseball articles). Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Techobowl/Jmfangio made peace with Chrisnelson during the arbcom case, and while was was evading is ban, most of his edits that weren't revert warning was rather useful, and another issue with Techo was aggresive communication, and that wasn't the case with Jmfangio right before his block. I support that he be unbanned and several admins tutoring him (including me, and possibly Duvona, Daniel and, SirFozzie) and if he becomes disruptive again, we can always reban. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to think that I was threating him/her [83] when I place a 3RR/edit war warning just to inform him/her about 3RR. He responded by placing this comment on my talk page [84]. I placed a WP:NPA notice [85] on his/her user talk page, but I fear that the IP user will react in a hostile manner as he/she might see it as another threat. I don't expect and I doubt that any sysop action to be taken against this IP user. However I would like to request that sysops, if possible, keep an eye on this IP user. nat^tang 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a danger that this will escalate into a war of warning templates. Probably the best way to de-escalate the situation is to make a polite post on their Talk page (or yours) explaining that you were not making a personal attack, that you don't have any animosity towards them, and that you simply wanted to alert them to the 3RR. It's probably also a good idea to explain that you would much rather discuss disputed edits, with a view to finding a compromise, rather than revert-war about them. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that...anyhoo...he's done it again: [86]. nat^tang 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Denizz

User:Denizz three times added the same unsourced information [87] to the Anti-Turkism. When I wrote him to stop and go to talk page I received 2 not very kind warnings by him asking maybe Im using a sockpuppet and so on...[88] [89] [90].Andranikpasha 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, that information was already there, if you remember. You are the one who removed it. It was consensus. It seems to me that you are the only one who claims at least openly that ASALA is not anti-Turkish, which would mean that your removal is far from consensus. Also my edit summary was a response to your edit summary (you said there was a discussion (on ASALA's page) and I said noone else disagreed with me). What I said on your talkpage , was that there came an open proxy anon just at the right time, and did the same edit with you, if that anon is you that would be violating 3RR and sockpuppetry, I don't see anything wrong with it. Also we have another Canadian open proxy anon just like that one that is claimed to be you, Artaxiad, Vonones, and Hu1lee. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad. I also noted that you made at least three reverts, and was surprised that you put all the edit warring allegations on me, which might have made me sound in a way I wouldn't like. I would have liked it more, if you had informed me about this discussion. I could have missed it. Deniz^T_C 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Denizz, I think its not the better place to start a discussion. And all other things you wrote havent any links and seems to be your opinion. For example, see here [91] if I maked 3 reverts...Also pls add all your claims on sockpuppets to Administrators as Im not an administrator and your unproven accusations cannot be pleasant for me! PS- And also pls dont start editwarring here Anti-Armenianism as you cant accuse if I even edited it... Andranikpasha 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, but you started the discussion. I don't know all the rules on this page, these should be my first edits here, but I think that I should be allowed to reply you, in fact I should have been contacted by you in the first place, imo. Let me first put what I meant by consensus:

• KeremOzcan: Andranikpasha, I see that you're acting in good faith, but unfortunately it's not possible to agree with you in the Anti-Turkism part
• Karent32: Well ASALA's purpose was to kill Turkish officials, it targeted a specific people so that narrows down to Anti-Turkism the category is not that bad, I say we use it maybe and be more sensitive to categories here
• VartanM has not made an explicit comment
• Atabek gave source
• Dbaba:I searched New York Times history for anti-Turkish and ASALA and saw no sources. It's hard to imagine anything being more anti-Turkish than ASALA though, given just how ridiculous their pretenses were: "Oh, I see, you've killed 3 of my ambassadors! Indeed, the Armenian Genocide occurred, here is half my country and a billion dollars! Kthx!"
• Grandmaster:Organization killing Turkish diplomats just for being Turks is clearly anti-Turkic. I don't think there's much to discuss here

See also WP:Consensus. If you are after a third party intervention, I am OK with that, but you could have talked with me, and we could have looked for one together. We wouldn't have to write all these comments here. Sources are given, you could have put the sources there, or put a fact tag there, if that was what you were looking for. My allegation that you made there reverts were undue, sorry about that, i wasn't careful enough, possibly due to lack of sleep, or due to this dispute having originated in another article and carried here by you. The discussion on ASALA's talk page was not yet finished, but sofar everyone except you and Vartan did comment on the favor/obviousness of the anti-Turkism there. Sources were supplied as well. Vartan did not make an explicit comment as I stated above. This was the discussion you stated in one of your edit summaries, hence came my revert to that, as that discussion contradicted your edit.

Deniz^T_C 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

...sure... VartanM just asked: " would like to add that after the Esenboga airport incident, ASALA split into two groups and no civilians were killed after that." And I dont know if the majority of POVs is more important for Wiki than a simple source which you cant find until now! And I dont know how this refers to your warnings sended to me? So if you're just want to continue the discussion (I asked for that earlier, you didnt answer...), then lets to do it in the ASALA's talk page, as this is not a discussion list. Andranikpasha 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the admins to look into the behavior of User:Andranikpasha. He is simultaneously edit warring on 7 or 8 pages, while technically staying within the 3RR limits. The pages regularly reverted by Andranikpasha include, but are not limited to: September Days, March Days, Shushi Massacres, Anti-Turkism, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and a number of others. This clearly goes against the ruling of the latest Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. Urgent attention of the admins to the behavior of this user would be appreciated. Grandmaster 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to wikistalk me everywhere? By the way, this conflict started when you added my name to the check list of User:Artaxiad's sockpuppets, despite of no facts, just because I asked you to use reliable sources to prove anything... Andranikpasha 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, I am sure that Grandmaster had many such pages watchlisted long before you started editing Wikipedia. I still think that you are not a sock of Artaxiad and co, but I've been wrong many times in my life. Also regarding Vartan's opinion, I cannot completely disagree with you, but he did not explicitly say anything, what he says is pointing to one direction (according to you and me). Anyway, there is still an overwhelming consensus, and note also that many editors I cited above can be Armenian, if it matters. The discussion on the talk page of ASALA hasn't ended yet, like I mentioned before, yet 'we've already met many seagulls', and even 'the land is seen'. Deniz^T_C 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

After this result at the sockpuppets check-list: "Andranikpasha contacted me in an email, and after looking through the edit histories, I've come to the conclusion that he is a good-faith editor, and I will assume with good faith that he is not a sock-puppet. While he and the confirmed sock-puppet Artaxiad have edited similar subjects, I see no "tag team" editing, nor shared POV. In fact, Andranikpasha seems to make very little additions to the text (therefore not inserting POV), instead finding sources and improving formatting. Also, his "mainspace" (article) edits go right up until today,[1] where Artaxiad's stop abruptly on April 9.[2] In conclusion, I have crossed Andranikpasha off the list as it is very clear that we have a case of mistaken identity." can I hope for a simple sorry? Andranikpasha 01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Terror threat

Resolved

 – Indefblocked. Not a credible threat by any stretch of the imagination.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See this edit. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cute. I warned the user while Moreschi deleted the article; fear our 133t tag-team administrating. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, block, ignore. Nuclear weapons? Come off it, mate. Kids messing around...we were all young once. Moreschi ^Talk 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Should we just treat these things as nonsense, or should we notify "authorities" whenever people post stuff like that? Isn't just making a threat techniclaly illegal somehow? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No point in wasting valuable police time on some bored teenager. No evidence that this is a credible threat. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just think some pranks are far less funny than others and stuff like what that user wrote is just not cool. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and on that note, wasting police time is also illegal AFAIK. Admittedly, less serious than nukes, but still... Moreschi ^Talk 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for something like this, was this board the correct one to take it to, or would I have been better off taking it to the "against vandalism" one instead? I've been "patrolling" the new user log to welcome new users and noticed some complex vandalism that I reported on the other board and that is also how I came upon this matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, ANI is fine, just in case the threat is credible. I agree that that sort of thing is not nice, which is why the user is blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the police are often very interested in this sort of threat, and occasionally these things result in real-live jail time. 5 days before the 6-month anniversary of the Columbine killings, a Michael Ian Campbell sent an anonymous e-mail to a Columbine student telling him not to go to school the next day. (It was apparently a very, very stupid joke -- Campbell lived in Florida and didn't even own a gun.) He was arrested by the FBI and sentenced to 4 months in prison. So if a terrorist plot is later uncovered that bears any resemblance to what our friend "D the T" described, I'd expect him to face jail time (for being unlucky and stupid, if nothing else). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Though if a nuke does go off in NYC I'd think the police (provided there are any left) would have more important things to do than chase up "D of T"...Moreschi ^Talk 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jake Brahm posted on 4chan that there were going to be terrorist attacks on stadiums and was arrested, yet it was a complete hoax/nonsense post. Jackaranga 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd tagged this for speedy delete-as-nonsense earlier this morning, probably around the same time as this report was filed.--Sethacus 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blofeld of SPECTRE

I recently created an article concerning an up and coming Russian emigre author Lara Vapnyar. As I was sorting the page out the above user tagged the article as needing wikification. I removed the tag and advised the user that I was in the process of creating the article. There was an exchange, and in the end apparently the article had not been wikified to the user's satisfaction, as he left the following edit summary, which can be seen in the history page for the article.

(wikified due to an incompetent user who still hasn't done it)

I'd suggest that this is not a useful way to sort out differences over acceptable levels of wikification, and that it is a violation of WP:No_personal_attacks. Is it possible for an administrator to remove the slur from the edit summary? Thanks. Larry Dunn 16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not nice, but it was back in late August. I'm afraid that we usually don't delete/oversight specific revisions unless personal info has been revealed/libellous attacks made. Personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries are not enough, AFAIK. Sorry. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why edit war over the tag? Why not just do the wikification and be done with it? What harm does a tag do? Corvus cornix 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No "edit warring" is going on here. I'm asking if an admin would clean up the edit summary to remove the prohibited personal attack. Larry Dunn 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am normally one to be 99% civil but what happened is this. I tagged a new article which was in a terrible state -no categories , no links wikified, no paragraphing no real context thinking I was doing a good job new page patrolling. The user later rmeoved these saying I was premature. I layed back a bit and suggested how he might create new articles -and that once he posts them he can't go on at other editors who tag them for clean up if they are not wikified properly to begin with. The editor peristed he would attend to it so I though ok cool and left him to it. I returned however several days later and he had still not done it. Now can I be blamed for tagging articles and bothering to fix a problem myself when the editor didn't follow up his word? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user tagged it six minutes after it was added, and added the comment about "incompetence" after the article had been wikified -- just not to his satisfaction. In any event, nothing the user cites is described in WP:No_personal_attacks as an exception to that policy. Larry Dunn 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you still need to work on that last 1%, Sir. Come on, apologize and be done with it. (We do heartily thank you for your Wikification efforts, though.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the correct response here is "feh." Or maybe "pish." It's incredibly lame to go running to teacher over something so trivial. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like a user who has been reported here for personal attacks himself, of course. Larry Dunn 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it as much as six minutes. Ah I'll have to be more efficient in future. Larry my son it ain't nothing personal but I just dont know why you didn't fix it - it was a 1 minute edit max and certainly not worth a fuss over. Thankyou for creating the article 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

I see that this was blown off by the admins, who resolved issues before and after it. So I guess this user was in his rights to violate WP:No_personal_attacks and I'll take that as license to do so myself in the future. Larry Dunn 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Salom Khalitun permanently disrupts his RfC

Resolved

 – Salom Khalitun blocked Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We are currently preparing a user conduct RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Salom Khalitun. The subject of the RfC is permanently disrupting the process by adding his POV (usually in bold) to inappropriate sections. See the history and in particular e.g. [92], [93]. I've informed him about the process here, but he rejects my suggestion. Can some uninvolved admin please take proper steps (warning, temporary blocking) so that the RfC can be prepared? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing his contributions, I've blocked him indefinitely. He's been nothing but disruptive, ceaselessly attacked other editors, trolled controversial talk pages, focused on other editors' ethnicity, and generally lacks any positive impact that I've seen. There is also a question in my mind as to whether he's truly a new user, but that's neither here nor there - his behavior alone is enough. I appreciate your willingness to go through the RfC process - if it reaches completion and there's a feeling that he should be unblocked, or if other admins disagree with this block, then he could be unblocked, but for now at the very least the RfC can proceed in peace. If there's no strong feeling that he should be unblocked, it may be superfluous. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good move. I'd been watching from a distance and he seemed like one of the recently banned neo-Nazi users pretending to be Iranian. The Behnam 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Good call, I think. The RfC is now in reasonable shape, too. --Stephan Schulz 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a sockpuppet account, and I believe I know who the puppeteer is, but it's somewhat irrelevant - I can't prove it, and he's done more than enough to warrant an indefinite block even without that piece of the puzzle. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Given his response to the block here, I have to say I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one. The RfC could probably be wrapped up. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, exit Jew-hating troll. We don't need to keep people like this around. Moreschi ^Talk 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse indefinite block. Newyorkbrad 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why we keep Guy around. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)