Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Moved to subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Signed w/o timestamp to prevent archiving. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)}

Unfortunately, an issue presented in an earlier incident (and again here) (filed less than 48 hours ago) has re-presented itself. In the earlier complaint, a request for help was sent to address the removal of an IP banner and conversations/complaints from an anon user's UserTalk page by the anon himself. As the admns who responded supported the IP banner's continued placement in the anon's page, the matter seemed resolved efficiently. The last comment on the anon users talk page was the notification of a one-week block by JzG (talk · contribs) for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor". At that point, the old IP address went silent.
As per new comments in the Fitna, it would appear that the same anon has in fact shed the prior IP address where the IP banner and commentary (and week-long block) were located to continue editing in defiance of both the prior AN/I decision and the block as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs).
I have since updated the IP banner and discussions from the prior IP address to the current IP shell, but have brought the matter of the usage of the anon IP to duck the block here, while notifying the blocking admin. What should happen now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne makes a false accusation. Arcayne placed the text on my user page. The text contains a time stamp of 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My current IP address has been with me since at least 14:07, 16 April 2008. I have never interacted with this editor, nor been informed of any pending actions against me involving him. I have never been afforded the opportunity to defend myself - nor are we aware of which posts containing the issue were assigned to that IP and if they belong to me. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

With apology, I don't think any false accusation has been made. I think its pretty common practice to watchlist one's own user/usertalk page, even if you are an anon. This means the comment from the blocking admn would be in your watchlist. Additionally, the admin's block appears to be addressing your - and no one else's - edits using that IP address, noting the DIff/Time of the block and your edits. You were blocked, and continued to edit through another IP address that was unknown and unaffected by the admin's block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon logins have no "watchlist" capability. Also, those ip's resolve to different states, why do you assume it's the same user? Jpmonroe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon's posting behavior and style is identical in both IPs in that they both defend the same statements. Both IPs edit in precisely the same articles (1,And they coss-post the same information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fitna_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=206010498 1. 2) between these same articles. Lastly, where the older IP ends without further edit, the newer IP begins less than an hour later. If these are two different editors, then even other editors are assuming they are the same individual. As a prior RfCU was filed with the initial consideration that this was a sockfarm, the anon admitted that all of the IPs within the range of the request were his. As well, the prior AN/I complaint concerned the removal of an IP banner, as the anon moved from one IP address to another. In that instance, the anon never claimed that the IPs were not his.

Lastly, I moved his IP banner and prior discussions to his new IP, which contained the notice that he had been blocked. However, the anon continued to edit, even after posting here (1, 2, 3). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne - can you explain how your post was altered in this diff as you claim? As anyone can see from the diff, nothing from the beginning of the section to your signature is altered - though I can't tell if the unsigned comment that is removed (not altered) is yours. --Random832 (contribs) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHile that particular post and issue is immaterial to this complaint (it was in fact what prompted the prior complaint by the anon), by bracketing my text, his edit made it seem that my post had arrived after a consensus had been achieved, offering the position that my post was in aggreement with the resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but in the post that Arcayne is referring to that has been linked by Random832, everything in red type is my writing (including the unsigned text on the left of screen). It is at the end of a section and it is signed. I marked my question as resolved per the specific instructions of the board. This is the following post by Arcayne.[1] I am shocked by the boldness of claiming things so casually which are so demonstrably not so. You will notice he removes my entire post. Every Word and leaves me this Warning: do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy. Arcayne 75.58.44.23 (talk)

Again, this AN/I is not about a situation already covered in the third complaint submitted by the anon - a complaint that was already archived (and I was counseled as to my tone and have since taken that to heart). Note that this complaint is about and only about - the anon user sidestepping a block. The possibility that the anon was unable to check their edit history to know they were blocked seems incredibly unlikely, as the anon responded to the ANI complaint within an hour after I notified him of the complaint.

Even if this noticeboard considers that to be an extraordinary coincidence, the fact remains that the user continued to post in article discussions and elsewhere after learning of the block. And after the block was confirmed at the new address, the anon simply created yet another anon account to lobby the blocking admin, others and here, using two different anon IPs (75.58.32.90 (talk · contribs) and 75.58.44.23 (talk · contribs)) within the past 24 hours. Even if he did not know of the block before, he did by the time he posted here, and continued to edit and create new accounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edito*Magica was reported to AN/I back in February because of his continuing editing warring over various episode lists in which he was trying to force the episodes into a bad format that does not follow the consensus of format established by the television project and its many featured episode lists, including removing anything from the lead he feels is "redundant" to the main article (see also Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.) or to the article itself and using a single color for the individual season headers. It was an ugly mess in which he insulted multiple editors and ignored multiple editors, including an admin, telling him to stop his edit warring and making such changes because they were wrong, and his filing a relitory ANI claimWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:Collectonian. He seemed to avoid a block by finally backing down and seeming to yield to consensus after the articles were both protected and more editors told him repeatedly that he was wrong.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#Edito*Magica

However, yesterday I came across two more episode lists, less watched than the first, in which he was doing the same thing: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. With the later, he gave lip service to discussing changing the colors at Talk:List of One Foot in the Grave episodes#Colours but changed them quickly after posting his message, allowing no discussion to occur at all. I tagged both article for having multiple issues, including not following established formatting standards, lacking references, needing a better leader, and tagging for expert help from the Television project as I didn't want to deal with him myself again. I posted so to the TV project page, as both have FL potential, and someone from the project has already volunteered to clean up the List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. However Edito*Magica quickly went and reverted the tagging (and the undoing of his changing the colors before discussion occurred, leaving a message on my talk page[2] declaring he will remove the tags because the lists don't need references, and that no one disagreed with him on the color scheme (of course not, he did the changes three MINUTES after posting the message! How could anyone have time to disagree or agree??? I gave him one warning for removing the tags on both articles, but after his last constant attacks and the disagreeable experience of dealing with him, I've decided its better to go ahead and bring this here now before yet another editor war begins.

Edito*Magica has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling to work in an environment of multiple editors, regularly arguing with anyone who disagrees with his ideas, even though those ideas go against established Wikipedia guidelines and project standards. He has also shown that he will not change his stripes and will continue such inappropriate behavior on any episode list he decides to mess up, and that he will edit war over them until he either gets his way or the page is protected and he moves on to others. I feel stronger action needs to be taken against him at this time to better drive home the message that his way of editing is not appropriate, and that he can not continue to try to push his wrong attempts to "correct" the appearance of episode lists just because HE alone doesn't like them, when consensus says it is the proper format as shown in featured episode lists. Collectonian (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: once again an admin has warned Edito to stop, but he first reverted the list under an IP[3], then logged in an reverted his inappropriate changes again[4]. As the admin also asked me not to get into a revert war, I'm leaving it as is for now and will let someone else deal with him. However, this editors continous refusal to acknowledge, must less follow, consensus, and his blatant and repeated ignoring of warnings from administrators should not continued to be ignored. Collectonian (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From his messages on my talk page, he is just going to continue disallowing anyone to clean up episode lists for shows he likes. Is no one going to do anything, yet again? Collectonian (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now he's made a half-assed attempt at following the proper episode format, and is now continuing to remove the maintenance tags because he doesn't agree with them. Collectonian (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La la...he has violated 3RR at this point, having removed the tags 4 or 5 times at this point in between other edits, despite my explaining clearly why it is still tagged. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DHeyward the former Tom Harrison added speedy delete tags to my user page.

He actually is one of the "deletionist bullies" which I have had edit wars with. Recently him and Mongo were calling me a troll and my contributions "crap" on his user page.

Like the majority of self-anoted copyright enforcers on wikipedia, Tom probably doesn't know one bit of copyright law, and it is pretty clear he is attempting to harrass me.

But to difuse this argument, I am going to move my quotes to another wiki.

P.S. He will inevitably bring up my response, in which case I say:

Many admins have said the same thing repeatedly (Mongo and JzG come to mind). Which DHeyward vigourously defended. DHeyward, please call a RfC, which I will ignore and refuse to particapate in just like JzG, and nothing will come of the RfC, as nothing came of JzG's RfC.

I am so tired of the blatant hypcricy and bullying on wikipedia. I feel sick to my stomache that I have to often resort to the same low ball tactics as others here.

Trav (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put a speedy tag on your user page, I put a copyvio tag on your page after you cut and pasted material from a copyrighted source. You responded rather uncivilly for the second time today and after a warning. This warning for this edit (unrelated to me). And then your edit summary directed at me after you fixed your copy vios is here. I brought your civility to Wikiquette here where they can't block you but hopefully a third party might be able to discuss your obvious anger problems with you rationally. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not Tom harrison. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, it shouldn't have been there but the tags specifically say they shouldn't be used unless there's no good version. Why didn't you just ask him to remove it, or something? --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your response dear Haemo, particularly the first sentence, based on our rich past history, you must obviously be critizing me, not DHeyward.

DHeyward, as I explained on the Wikiquette, I apologize for reacting how I did. Two wrongs (or several dozen "wrongs" in this case) don't make a right. I strongly support wikipolicy on civility, I just wish it would be more evenly enforced.

It maybe noted that the first warning was from another deletionist who wanted to delete the same article which DHeyward wants to delete.

I could contact several supporters here, as DHeyward group has been convincingly accused of before (which I think may have lead to his name change in the first place), to comment on this WP:ANI, but I won't.

The alledged copyvios are now offwiki. Inclusionist (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Apology" not accepted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused because I was criticizing DHeyward's placement of the tags, not you. I'm disappointed by your reaction here, since it was an assumption of bad faith over a single disagreement on an ArbCom case. Apparently JzG and MONGO aren't the only people who perceive conspiracies against them around every corner. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags say to revert to the last version. I didn't want to remove material from his user page. I put the tags to bring it to his attention and then to an admins if he wasn't there to respond. This what the instructions said to do. Is there a different tag? It wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested you ask him instead. The correct way to "bring it to his attention" is not slapping speedy deletion tags on it. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't slap a speedy tag, I put the copyvio tag. What is wrong with that tag for bringing it to his attention? that's the tag that the copyvio page says to use. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever4ything is wrong with "yagging it to bring it to his attention" that is not the way we operate. Next time either revert to a pre copyvio version, talk to him about it or preferably both. Viridae^Talk 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging it is exactly the way we operate because it will bring it to the communities attention if he goes offline or whatever. I will not revert his User page so that's out of the question. This was a simple cleanup with a simple tag. If you don't like tags, bring it to the Village Pump for discussion about removing all the tags we use for everything from cleanup to AfD to Sockpuppets. But making up stuff about how we operate to justify someone saying "Fuck You" in an edit summary is not acceptable. As desired, he saw the violation, deleted the tag and deleted the material. Where exactly is "Fuck You" justified? --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travb you've been oversighted before for outing. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, your accusations of a cabal or group is ludicrous. Check the admin who gave you the warning and then check my block log and try to maintain the facade you are trying to project that we are in cahoots to thwart you. The problem is that you don't respect consensus or the process that is used to reach it. You are incivil and as your above strikeouts indicate, often incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dheyward, meet the talk page; it can be your friend. But seriously, that's what we use when issues like this come up with established contributors, not slapping a bunch of copyvio templates on a their user page. And you wonder why he's not taking it well? Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I don't wonder why he's not taking it well, it's part of his overall pattern of contribution. He acted the same way when an admin asked him earlier in the day to be civil on his talk page. Which standard template would make you respond "Fuck You" in an edit summary? Hopefully the answer to that rhetorical question is "None". I didn't bring this here so I'm not sure exactly what he wants. He deleted the offending material which is all I wanted (without the on and off wiki attacks and stalking). It also appears that he's now in some sort of blocking wheel war for constant disruptive editing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, use the talk page - its what its there for. Viridae^Talk 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, I'll use whatever is appropriate whether it's tags or comments or ANI or whatever. This time it was tags. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the combative responses? I understand reacting badly to Travb, but here you've got two outside opinions that you didn't handle that situation the best way possible. Please consider that it might be more appropriate in that situation to use the talk page as we've suggested. Shell ^babelfish 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't combative at all. I've considered it. I considered it prior to using the tags. I will consider it in the future. Why do you seem to ignore the "Fuck You" edit summary he used as a response? Travb is currently blocked for an unrelated incident which is his normal MO and enabling these editors as Viridae tried to do yesterday before more level headed admins intervened is counterproductive. I would much rather prefer to contribute to articles then spend my time answering ANI's started by editors the likes of Travb. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to consider using the user talk page when dealing with established editors in the future has nothing to do with another person's behavior. The edit summary is of course out of line, but I'm sure you didn't need to hear that; since that was a response to your template, its not as if that made you choose the less civil route (rise above?). Regardless of who started the thread, its just a friendly reminder that its nicer not to template regular users. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder noted. I'm sure you'll now remind travb that it's nicer not to respond to editors with obscenities in edit summaries. There's a nice set of civility templates used just for that purpose. {{subst:uw-npa3}} is a good start. I'd recommend his talk page. Be prepared for his response, however. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the creator of this thread just dropped some tags on an established editor of his own [5]. There's a lot of remindering to go about. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been firing numerous racial slurs (in edit summaries) at User:Til Eulenspiegel and I (as well as vandalising a user page). Not only are the slurs highly offensive, but also, Til Eugenspiel and I have never claimed to be members of the groups he's attacking, groups which have no relevance to the articles it's occuring on (a Mexican-American singer and Ancient Sumer).--Yolgnu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice has blocked both IPs mentioned (24 and 48 hours, respectively); as there seems to be a chance the user may return on other IP(s), I've semi-protected Sumer, Thalía, and Arab, all for three days. Feel free to report any further problems as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[6]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[7]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[8] - the "forum":[9] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary) What else evidence needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, this report has been placed by you at AIV, AN, and now here. This is called forum-shopping, please stop. One report at ANI is sufficient. --Elonka 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous request is totally misleading and its previous version has already been removed from WP:AIV as trolling.[10] The IP has posted it at AIV again few minutes after the first removal and it was removed again by a different admin.[11] So, the IP posted it at WP:AN.[12] This is the fourth time the IP tries their luck. Is it a new kind of a lottery? Tankred (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Tankred Harassment, mass edit warring, using user page as an attack page, using WikiProject to promote harassment, organize edit wars, user is (three times blocked for edit warring see block log[13]) ,

using WikiProject Slovakia to organize edit wars and promote harassment of Hungarian editors,

"Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors..." "Who wants to deal with them?" ([14])

Asks others to edit war for him, or get involved in specific disputes

“If you want to correct the name feel free” “I do not have energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends.” ([15])

Thanks others for getting involved in his disputes encourages blind reverts in relation to the same dispute

“Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens.” “…in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author” “([16])

Uses WikiProject to attack fellow editors, uncivility, “For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([17])

Uses his own user page to attack others both with named attacks and general attacks,

“these fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations in the cyberspace.” “I wish I was more interested in writing about Iceland or any other country that is not part of the imaginary Greater Hungary.” “enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([18] Includes outright falsehoods to bolster his attack “User:PANONIAN have left for the exact same reasons.” Regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence this user wrote” ”Serbia finally gained its independence on February 17, there is hope for better future in Serbia now. Anyway, my work in Wikipedia is over, I have other thing to do in life” [19]

Mass removal, crusade against Hungarian names, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] (just a few examples literally hundreds of examples can be found in his contribs)

Mass edit warring against users on his “hit list”, named enemies on his user page ([26]) (refer to his contribs since 31 March almost every single edit is a revert of a “named” Hungarian editor).

Ignoring administrator warnings/actions. After being warned not to use "misleading statements"[27] by an administrator, posts the same misleading statement to a different admin user DDima, [28] and two different noticeboards after that for a total of four tries. Tankred later removed the administrators warning ([29]) together with warning him about not to use false/deceptive edit summaries calling non-vandal edits vandalism([30]). When an administrator removed parts of his user page that made it “an attack page against specific editors”([ [31]) Tankred simply reposted the attacks with the comment “alll right, no names” [32] using diff links instead to identify his targets. Attacks placed on a user page deny the opportunity for comment and reaction or even pointing out outright falsehoods. Tankred also attacked editors not named on his user page but of Hungarian ethnicity saying for example “But why not to join your co-ethnics in their campaign” ([33]) to a Hungarian editor. Considering all of the above especially the efforts to influence others through using WikiProject Slovakia a collaborative effort to encourage to harass, revert or indeed “deal with” ([34]) Hungarian users and also using his user page in a similar hateful manner I ask the community to consider strong measures to ensure that this can not go on indefinetly. We do not need editors who not only see Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground but actively promote hatred, conflict and encourage others to join in. The negative impact on the project is enormous and is already badly felt. At the very least open encouragement should be dealt with and the situation closely monitored for further campaigning activity. Hobartimus (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you start a WP:RFC/USER, provide the above evidence there and allow others to provide feedback as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This report is misquoting my different statements (some of them withdrawn by myself from my user page) from different periods outside their context and replacing significant parts of my words by "...". Hobartimus has been editwarring against User:MarkBA, User:Tulkolahten, User:Svetovid, User:Markussep, User:Ruziklan, and me for several months. I guess this is his latest move against us. Tankred (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"move against us"? So you list a few users and suddenly you become "us"? I don't see any diffs above from any of these users, this complaint is solely about you and your ehtnic campaigning containing statements about "dealing with" "Hungarian editors". Hobartimus (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above complaints appear to be an overflow of a larger dispute involving multiple Hungarian and Slovakian editors, on a variety of pages. In order to try and centralize discussions (and try a new dispute resolution technique per WP:WORKGROUP), I have started a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are no objections, I will move the above complaints to that page, and this particular complicated thread can be taken off ANI. --Elonka 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:[35]. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users, with names :). Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:[36], from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:[37].

Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users[38] (last comments)

Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution process between us is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Why are you posting the same stuff here? Tankred (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be mostly dealing with content but yes, a large discussion is taking place there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review this threat to see if any action should be taken? Dreadstar † 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call the local police immediately, and notify the WMF. Give the local police clear instructions on how to find the article on wikipedia, and how to find the edit in the history. Do not call their emergency line. Specific hit lists are probably the second highest level of trouble of this sort we can see... (per BEANS, i say no more.) ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's disturbing. Hopefully this will turn out to be an empty threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. --clpo13_(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've located a phone number for the closest police station. Has anybody called yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the phone. John Reaves 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting ready to call the LA County Sheriff's department. You got it John? Dreadstar † 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the page, because for some reason the user wasn't blocked on sight. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) edited at 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC), apologies for last comment[reply]

Would it be worth locking the original poster's talk page? (Per WP:VIOLENCE, so that nothing gets posted?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been (not by me) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John beat me to it. Any details, John? Taking this seriously and reporting it to the police is in accordance with WP:TOV. John, if they give you a case number, a name of the officer you spoke with or something you may want to post it here just so there is a record of it. I did this when I called the police in the Plano HS case. Thanks, John, for making the call. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in contact with a detective and we're attempting to work with the ISP. John Reaves 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, John. You have made me proud. You may want to give a brain dump of who you spoke to and such just for history and transparency sake. I did this with Plano HS, just so it could be entered into the log and anyone (including the detective I was working with) would see a visual history. Good work. Bstone (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have gotten through to them: [39] Nice work John...RxS (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope plenty of people have bookmarked this entry to point to later when others ask what WP does when this happens. Also, it'd be nice to hear if the police & ISP get anywhere with tracking the threatmaker down. BBC story about UK school boy threatening the president Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOV, which is the latest effort to detail how to respond to these sort of things, it only an essay. In my opinion is should at least be a guideline. I invite you to come over and chime in on the talk page. Bstone (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update the situation, after searches were done on students yesterday, the school was closed (LA Times) today, and the alleged editor of the threats has been arrested. We did a good job everyone and I'm glad we got on top of this, whether harm was to come to somebody or not. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested oversight since some possible students at the school were named in the threats. I missed a diff in the E-Mail, and subsequently that revision, which also named those mentioned in the original threat, still remains. I'm sending a second E-Mail to Oversight. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work Wikipedians, especially Dreadstar, for bringing it here, and John Reaves, for acting on it. As a former public school teacher, all threats are serious threats. The moment one is brushed off as "not serious" is the moment that CNN reports the number of bodies in x classrooms. I'm thrilled with our quick response. Absolutely thrilled. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This would make a great story for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. However, I was surprised how many errors were in the LA Times article. It said that the district's article was vandalised, but it was actually the High School page itself. Also, it did not mention any involvement by Wikipedians who reported the incident, and it listed 33 families insetead of the 23 listed in the threat. It also did not mention a third threat posted by an anon which led to the arrest by IP adress. Also, it seems unlikely that the incident went all the way from being reported to the press to being posted to asking Wikipedia "officials" to remove it, when it was removed almost instantly. Also, you'd be surprised how many people call our contributors "officials". This would definately make an interesting story for the Signpost, as an entire high school was closed due to a Wikipedia threat and the perpetrator arrested over that. Could someone provide the Signpost suggestion page with more info? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another story from the Pasadena Star-News about the arrest. As for why there were errors in the LAT story (JMO here), the details that the threats were from WP only came out publicly just today and weren't within the stories posted about the searches while class was in session yesterday, listing only 'the Internet' as the threat source. Since the source for the LAT story seemed to be a parent with a printout of the threats they may not have delved further than just the two pages, not going further into the diffs, along with this thread, so I'm sure a more complete story with accurate details is on the way (note that the article I linked came out only an hour before my timestamp so it was probably a rush article for their website). Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early newspaper/wire reports of any story are wontedly laden with little mistakes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as a long-time reader of the LA Times I can say that eggregious factual errors in reportage are more the rule than the occasional early-reporting exception, and they are very rarely corrected later. They seem to have a very casual atttitude to concepts like truth and facts. The other local papers usually do much better. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to be restrained about it however the above is true. Most newspaper stories get the broad sweep close enough (fire, threat, hurricane, car wreck, whatever) but the smaller details will very likely be riddled with mistakes. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the poster of the threat has been arrested I'm going to go ahead and delete the contribs relating to the shooting threat.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making a mess of the Sviatoslav Richter page. In spite of the recent attempts of several users to engage him in discussion on the talk page, he merely deletes cited material and inserts his own opinions. He was previously blocked for two days, then was up to his old tricks after the block was liftedTHD3 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the users mentioned by THD3 and I entirely second his opinion. Steiner Redlich's attitude has been consistently disruptive and disrespectful of Wikipedia rules. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please get the username right. There's enough puzzles around here anyway. Second, the article's been protected and he's been warned to level 4. If he continues again, report him to AIV. He's been warned repeated so you guys should be using {{bv}} immediately on him and then reporting to AIV afterwards. Once again, an emphasis that he needs to use the talk page rather than complaining through edit summaries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a number of "Annotated bibliographies" created in the last two days:

1. U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography
2. High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography
3. Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography
4. Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography
5. Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography

They have all been created by different authors but follow a similar pattern. These seem an unusual article format and my interest was piqued when I noticed there were at least these five. They are problematic because they fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and each one has been at least PRODded by various other editors. There's no evidence of anything untoward going on here; it could be a coincidence, or if there is a link it could be a school project. But I thought I might flag it up for people to keep an eye on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the five is currently on AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are problematic. I once considered making such a list for mathematical logic texts, but decided against it because the criteria for inclusion are so broad as to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Any annotation is likely to be original research, unless we have published reviews of the articles to refer to. But I think the WP:NOT issue is more central. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another created in the same time-frame and following the same pattern:

1. The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography

I have also taken this one to AFD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those really look like something created for a school project devised by a person who doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is. Just delete and leave a note to the authors that if they need the content they can request to get it userfied. - Bobet 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All six were created within a few days, and for all six, this was the first and only creation. One placed a link in an existing article, and none responded on their talk pages. I agree that this looks like a school project. I also don't see any of the usual POV pushing or promotional overtones here, rather it was probably devised by, as Bobet suggested, someone not familiar with WP. I think that once the AfDs close and the articles are deleted (almost for sure), we should leave something more than the usual note on their talk pages, per WP:BITE. Even better, userfy with a note. — Becksguy (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another two are appearing in search results now:

1. Middle Eastern Governments: An Annotated Bibliography
2. The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

Already PRODded; I'll also take them to AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost all of these have been created by separate WP:SPAs. What effort to engage with these authors has taken place? Have any responded? --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

1. Annotated Bibliography: The Future of International Accounting Standards

User:RHaworth has explicitly asked the authors of three of the articles if this is a school project here and a question about whether two of the articles were linked was asked [here]. No responses were given. Ros0709 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the text they aren't even trying to be an article, some of them are just notes the person has written for themselves and includes things like "this will be excellent material for my essay." I have written to one or two of them asking politely if they are the same person, I stopped short of saying that their content is inappropriate for wiki, until I got the verdict of the AfDs for the two of these articles I've come across. (the divorce, and ADHD ones.)Merkin's mum 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't the only creation for at least one of them, if you look at User_talk:InterserveVB it mentions another article of his that was deleted. It just doesn't show up in his contribs because the article's gone. Merkin's mum 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned here that these look like school projects. In two of these, Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography and Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography, the author put their name and email at the end. Both are University of Florida addresses. I'm going to send them both an email and ask if they're a class assignment. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a reply back, it is indeed a school assignment. The author stated that they would fail if it was deleted before May 2; I replied back that there was a problem, specifically that all of them were liable to be deleted within a few days. I also told them to have their professor contact me with any other questions; if they do, I'll point them to WP:NOT. Can we userfy them for these users, or is that a WP:NOT#WEBSPACE concern? I'm leaning toward the latter on this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these are intended to form articles (some of them) otherwise they would be written as an essay/articles, not called an "annotated bibliography." These are just collections of their own notes, primarily for themselves. Unless they are intended to one day be an article, they shouldn't be userfied. Some extra leeway/encouragement should be given to User:InterserveVB because he has other contributions mentioned on his talkpage, though they've been deleted. Perhaps an admin can view his deleted article Joseph R. Grutta to see what it was like. Merkin's mum 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that academics are trying to find ways to use Wikipedia in their classrooms; this is certainly an example of how not to do it. Considering how academics organize class assignments, I wouldn't be surprised if the bibliographies were followed up by articles on those topics, which would be a good thing for Wikipedia's content and for its credibility among academics.

If Jeremy or anyone else who has established e-mail connections could get the address of their professor, it might help to point him to this discussion.

If the prof. planned this project to end by writing articles, he should have had his students start by writing stubs consisting of only a bibliography on which to build their articles. Maybe an appropriate response would be to rename the present annotated bibliography articles as topical stubs. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine the professor didn't know about wikipedia guidelines, and was thinking it was a place to post, well, whatever you write. In any event, it's going to be pretty much all or none with the deletions, and I doubt he'd give everybody in the class an "F", so I'm not too worried for the students. Hopefully the professor will get in contact with me, or come here, so they can get an idea of what the guidelines are. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read here previously that there is a rule about an admin blocking a user they are in an edit conflict with. As such I am asking for someone to review a block on the grounds the admin was in fact in an edit war with the user he blocked. The user in question is Travb, the article is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, yes that article, the admin in question is user:William M. Connolley.

• user:William M. Connolley some time ago arrived on the article in question and fully protected it from edits: [40]
• He then proceeds to remove much of the content while the article is edit protected: [41] much of the content was under discussion on the article talk page. In either case the admin should not protect a page then go forth editing it against consensus.
• Additional content removal can be seen here [42] I am not arguing for or against the content, this edit is to simply show William was involved in the article.
• Numerous people have reverted Williams edits that were made under the full protection state: Including RedPenOfDoom who makes a "protest 1RR" BernardL who also makes a 1RR in protest of the editing of the article while it was protected.

Not only does this show William was involved in editing the article, making him and Travb at opposite ends of a content dispute, but he edited the article while it was fully protected which is another no, no since the content was not being removed due to BLP or an act of WP:OFFICE. The block in question can be seen here: [43] clearly by an admin who should not have made it, and specifically for Travb's edit here: [44] which was not a particularly nice edit summary, however as I recall in the recent case of another admin, this was grounds as some put it for the removal of admin rights, and at least for review as the other side argued. I therefore am asking for some admins to chime in if it is ok to block users you are clearly in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such fun, but thanks for IWS for letting me know. This article has a long and controversial history, recently exacerbated by abusive socks. Fortunately, the worst of these are now blocked [45]. Travb was restoring the edits of this blocked sock [46] and this lead to the article being protected (well, Travb ran off to req-for-prot to get it protected. Sadly for Travb, it got reverted yet again before protection). But the article doesn't (now) need protection, it needs disruptive editors kept away. So I've blocked Travb and unprotected the article (note that the article was protected on what is nominally my preferred version) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the discussion as I was not fully sure of the rules, however you did not address the concern presented which is blocking users you are in a content dispute with. Is this permitted? If not do you regret breaking the rule? Just so other are aware, I am not asking for Travb to be unblocked, I am asking for a clarification to the rule. I was under the impression that BLP violations were the only cases except for "oversight" that allowed for an admin to block someone he was edit warring with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't always so, IWS; trolls and impersonation accounts can be blocked by the user they're trolling or imping (at least from my experience). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the user is neither, they are a long time editor of the article, they made a revert to a version which William did not agree with, which William honestly admits, and were blocked afterwards. The article as far as I know had a sock issue, however I do not believe any of them have been linked to Travb. If William knows otherwise please let me know, if its true that he has not been linked to any such accounts, I would ask William clarifies what others are misinterpreting as an allegation against Travb. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the issue of your involvement in the article, editing it while its protected, and blocking an editor on that article whose content opinion opposes yours? Avruch ^T 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (cur) (last) 20:24, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": experiment [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:19, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (150,213 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: restore ref; rm the) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 07:34, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (150,047 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: trim W; rm creds. See talk) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:09, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (152,684 bytes) (→Europe (1945-1989): what is this to do with state terrorism?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:06, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (158,288 bytes) (→Background: fix ref?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:01, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (158,287 bytes) (rm defn section - there is an entire article about it, we should not do the details here) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:13, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (164,875 bytes) (protected) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:12, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": the usual [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (undo)

• The above is generally discouraged, and for good reason. Based on your activity in this article, are you sure you should be protecting it and blocking people without asking for an outside admin? Avruch ^T 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ON the basis of that evidence I have unblocked Trab. WMC was in no way in hell an uninvolved admin. Viridae^Talk 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I look forward to your help keeping the article sane. Perhaps you'd like to restore the banned socks edits yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some way to do it that doesn't involve using your admin tools to bolster your side of the dispute. Viridae^Talk 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened and your characterization is somewhat presumptive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Case on point: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62. Avruch ^T 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite any uninvolved admin to block Travb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on the merits of his contributions in the last 24 hours. Nothing but disruptions and personal attacks. Even if you think WMC might have been the wrong one to do it, but it was a righteous block. I'd invite the unblocking admin to review the merits of the reasons and reblock or explain why he shouldn't be blcoked. Then you can be uninvolved and still help the project instead of just being a bureaucratic enabler. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong person, good block. I've reblocked for 23h (the original 24 minus the one hour already blocked). — Coren ^(talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV major edits to an article after he protected it. This is certainly not advisable, if not unacceptable. Black Kite 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually another user that was blocked that William was in an edit war with, again a violation of the blocking policy. This was overturned without it coming to AN/I with user:Supergreenred also around the same article in question. The user was later blocked however for being a sockpuppet. I am starting to think perhaps this article is causing a conflict in Williams ability to act as an admin objectively. I notice above there is an Arbcom hearing for removing admin ability, while I do not think this is needed as the problem is revolving around one article, can an Arbcom hearing be called simply to ask William not be permitted to edit this article further? I think perhaps it will help all, the editors who are having these tools used against them as a heavy hand, and William who seems to put himself in a bad situation by continuing to remove and add protection at his sole discretion and block users who he is in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block was clearly legit-- Travb was edit warring and reverting to the preferred versions of sockpuppets. Perhaps this specific admin shouldn't have done it, but the block certainly was well-deserved. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue is whether the admin used admin powers in unacceptable ways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I noted specifically I was not asking for the block to be removed. It seems it is the second instance of blocking someone he was in an edit war with on this particular article, as well as now two instances of misusing tools to either protect, or remove protection from an article he was engaged in content disputes over. What I am not wondering if there is a way to institute an article block to prevent further actions. Much of the damage could possibly have already been done, I personally stepped away from the article prior to these incidents, however how is anyone to oppose William's opinions knowing the articles content is subject to his approval or receives, or has an editing block removed, and editors reverting him face a block. Especially considering the reverting was done by a large swath of users and only those opposing Williams views have faced any penalty. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a horrendous battleground for a long time; a locus point for extensive socking, incivility, terribly POV editing, and whatnot. Like others of its class, including Views of Lyndon LaRouche and List of events named massacres, it needed extraordinary admin attention, and WMC stepped up. His actions seem commensurate with the level of TLC this wonderful article needed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is a very narrow set of users. I'd also add that User:William M. Connolley is hardly a right wing ideologue or an apologist for American foreign policy. The fact that the core set of people are complaining about his edits and deletions speak to how far gone the article is. It, and its spinoffs, are perhaps the WORST articles in Wikipedia. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means--and these were long term established editors, most of whom are protesting these actions. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What the admins Political Party affiliations are irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. Clearly this is the issue, and no one disputes that this is a factual occurrence. An involved admin in a content dispute jumps in to help out one side only, and punishing the other. He does this through very heavy handed means: editing through protection to suite his views, and blocking only one side of those edit warring. And doing this multiple times. These are the facts--no matter who is right on the POV question. This kind of abuse of the tools sets a terrible standard. Correction for abuse of the tools in such a repeated and blatant fashion is simple: remove of the tools. This will stop this problem. Again the facts: the admin protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? And what do we do about it when it happens? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping.

I will also point out that large amounts of legitimate content that was added through consensus among many established editors, and through compromise, was simply blanked without discussion, to to mention without consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then it was correct to restore the material, as Trav tried to do. Yes, he edit warred by reverting 3 times, but guess what? An editor on the other side of the fence of the content dispute did the same thing, reverting 3 times. And only ONE party was blocked--the one the admin disagrees with in the content dispute. That is wrong on a number of levels, but it clear only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished, and not a single one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and despite them doing so against consensus. This is sending a chilling effect to all other editors, and this bullying though use of admin powers to effect content disputes is not only against policy, but sets a terrible example that should not go unchecked.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block was 100% good. This thread is a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The block is reasonable. The editing through protection is problematical, especically when you see "Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now." For what it's worth, my enquiry as to why Connolley had edited through protection received the following reply; ": I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more" ([47])... so much for assuming good faith. Black Kite 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_by_an_administrator.2C_redux_from_above this new ANI thread. Black Kite 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a note, Travb is NOT a long time editor of the article. He showed up out of the blue and began reverting to the same version as several sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong as his edits go as far back as December of 2007, [48], I would say that satisfies long time. I can check for ones further back but I think your mischaracterization has been proven wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travb might be the single most longtime editor of the article, though he absented himself from it for quite some time. His edits seem to go back to August of 2006. He has 148 edits to the article itself and 856 to the talk page per wannabe kate. That's a fairly easy thing to check out, and it's better to do that first before accusing someone of showing up "out of the blue" and acting like sockpuppets. Part of what makes the article inhospitable is the constant accusations and bad faith from both sides.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He never passed 3RR also, he was on his 3rd when he was blocked. Just wanted to note that. Further Dance With The Devil who reverted Travb 3 times, was not blocked for disruptive editing, the only difference is one was supporting Williams edit,s the other was not.[49] [50] [51] --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this mess got to? I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV edits to an article after he protected it. - I didn't. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now - WTF has this got to do with me? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have refactored my comment from "why he made POV edits" to "why he made major edits". Black Kite 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other line was my sad attempt at humour pointing out the radical views of some of the other contributors. Apologies if it didn't come across as I intended. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, confusing. I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting BK, who appeared to be quoting me. At least, he was using the quote against me, which I found inexplicable, and still do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was here a few days ago, but I'm wondering if any outside admins are willing to check out the situation at this article. I'm no fan of the movie or its viewpoint, but the article has some very blatant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems, immediately in advance of its first public showing tomorrow. A steady stream of editors has arrived to complain, but with all the noise it's become quite difficult to deal with. I think people would like to avoid protecting the article, but if a few admins or others might look in with focused and specific ways to help, it might do a good deal for the article over the next few days. Mackan79 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 seems unable to accept the requirements of NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and has made accusations of WP:SYN on content sourced from the National Center for Science Education used as a secondary source from a mainstream viewpoint. Additional eyes will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 has also brought some very good points to the table. A formal peer review of the article would be most helpful. Angry Christian (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many in comparison to those that ignore WP:NPOV Undue Weight. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Indeed, my concern is particularly with the first overview section here, discussed here, which has significant WP:SYN problems as well as strongly opinionated language ("The film openly sets out," "The film ignores," "Stein tries to dismiss," etc.) The WP:SYN issue relates to sections that are sourced only to articles about intelligent design, but predating or not discussing this film. Some editors say this is necessary to present the predominant view on a type of pseudoscience (a characterization I don't dispute), while I and various others are trying to clarify that this is an article about the film, not about ID, which means so satisfy WP:SYN we need sources that discuss the movie. I think it can be appreciated if people read the section at issue, linked above and again here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sort of disingenuousnesses in Mackan's comment more than a little hard to leave unrebutted. He's been been trying for days to remove the majority viewpoint from the article, ignoring the consensus of established regular editors from Wikiproject Intelligent Design like Dave Souza and FM. The "steady stream of editors" he mentions have been ID promoters by-and-large, and are the only ones there who've supported Mackan's proposed changes; so what does that tell you? Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me that the vast majority of editors who think ID is a pseudoscience and should be thoroughly debunked - but are nevertheless interested in applying Wikipedia policy - are scared off the page by persistent incivility and accusations of bias and whitewashing. This needs to be cleaned up, with civility parole if necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of bias cooking in that article, and it probably needs a top down overhaul. It currently reads like an attack piece on ID, instead of simply presenting the unbiased facts about the film, and the film's reception. Based on the FOX News review, just an unbiased reporting will show what a load of steaming dookie the movie is, so remove all the attacking and smears that can't be readily supported and shown to be relevant. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us one example of such a "smear" then? Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given them. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that Odd nature appears to be one of the more problematic editors on the page. His first comment to me was here, where he told me to "stop trying to whitewash the page" (based on no other interaction that I'm aware of). He repeated a similar comment here. He's the one who most recently replaced the current version here, also removing the NPOV tag placed by another editor here, but doesn't seem interested in discussing the problems on the talk page. I'd attempt to reinstate an improved version,[52] but my concern is that Odd nature will continue to revert without discussion and that this will lead to page protection (just as the movie is about to be released) Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a cursory pass at some of the most obvious problems, like some of the phrases cited above, some poor grammatical constructs, and the spreading of review material throughout the article to further knock it down. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the look and the revisions. I wonder if having reviewed the section you'd have an opinion on the version here by comparison (any other eyes would still be welcome). Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author of the page, I have watched with some dismay but sense of inevitability as the page language has become more and more twisted and distorted. The English is tortured. There are all kinds of textural infelicities. This is what happens when you have the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" and it is on a topic that many are excited about (a controversial film opening tomorrow). We have had a large number of editors who have never been at the page before, and some who ostensibly have never been at Wikipedia before, on all sides of the issue, showing up to edit. And redit. And edit and edit again. Under these circumstances, it should be no surprise that the article is a load of stilted awkward prose. Of course it should be rewritten; I have said this repeatedly. I have done it twice already, top to bottom. And under this kind of editorial assault, doing it again at the moment is somewhat pointless; no edit has much chance of "sticking". All we can do is manage it a bit so it does not descend too rapidly into nonsense, but it is inevitable that it descend under this type of pressure. No one can guard it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and even if we could, it would be highly inadvisable and contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. --Filll (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do to get a formal peer review? Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The smartest thing to do is to wait until the movie closes, probably in a week or so. And then everyone loses interest. And we split off a couple of sections into side articles. And then when it is quiet, and much smaller, it can be rewritten.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we would give up on the article while so many people are coming to visit it. These are the important days currently, when by far the most readers are looking to Wikipedia as a resource for this film. Right now we are blatantly failing our core policies, with a number of editors on the page actively preventing compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; if those are non-negotiable, then we need some admins or others to step in and take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NOR. Too many editors, new to the article, want to give credence to the views of the film makers presented in primary sources without third party evaluation, and to push the majority scientific view off into other paragraphs or a separate section, blatantly contravening our core policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am giving up on it. All my edits were reverted as POV pushing, even the ones where I clarified what 'it' and 'he' means, where they were unclear. When grammar is POV, it's not worth fighting it. OrangeMarlin can run that page however he wants. Don't cross the admins. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll (talk · contribs) has given the best advise. The film is at its most controversial today. Sort of like Snakes on a plane: remember that? Two weeks after release, no one did. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can see what happens, but it isn't actually just today, and I'm fairly doubtful things will change. Like various things, it's something experienced editors would pretty much have to check out the article to see. Of course, most of these would probably know better than to get involved, but I guess that's a different story... Mackan79 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most experienced editors actually know what NPOV is and so on.--Filll (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Not the ones who perpetually revert all edits not made by their coterie, even to the level of grammatical fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if additional eyes will come, but it should be clarified that the issue here is not driveby editors, but a question of whether a film that promotes intelligent design should itself (the film, in an article about it) be treated as a fringe view, thus specifically removing the NPOV requirement that it be treated "fairly." For example, we currently have an overview that, instead of stating what is in the film, immediately jumps in the second and third sentences to what the film ignores, and stating that the film is confusing and inconsistent. This is being defended by long term editors of the page. I understand we could have a long mediation on the issue, but I think it is a clear enough misunderstanding of NPOV that a few more eyes could be helpful in resolving the issue while so many people are reading the page (the stream of reader complaints here is well more than I have seen on any other page). Mackan79 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard argument from proponents of WP:FRINGE views: "I do not like what the mainstream sources say, especially the criticisms, so we should ignore those and just go with the positive sources". Riiiiiight. But sorry, that is not WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large part of what turned What the Bleep Do We Know into such a battleground. Once we all agreed to live by the painful restriction that only sources that actually mentioned the film were admissible, it got better. Still, that article seems to be under permanent protection, so I can't hold out much hope for this one stabilizing.Kww (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying needs to happen in terms of the sourcing here, Kww, but is being denied by Filll, Dave, and some others, apparently on the theory that anyone who suggests this is pushing a fringe view. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79, as well as the many readers called in support, evidently want a POV balance that is not reflected in the reliable secondary sources I've looked at. The film first and foremost promotes pseudoscience, demanding that it be given a pass from actually having to produce a testable theory or any research work on the grounds that it's a matter of religious faith. Mainstream science and education organisations have provided detailed background on the disingenuous claims made in the film and in its promotion, and NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight or credence to the fringe view. All statements should be verifiable from reliable sources, and not based on the presuppositions of the editors or their political or religious views. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off: I am about as far from a fringe-believer or -apologist as one is ever likely to find. However, I find this an interesting conundrum; because the movie is in fact ABOUT something considered "fringe", it almost seems to me that "undue weight" works BACKWARDS from the norm in this situation--in other words, the constant insistence on scientific viewpoints, in an article about a movie which is ABOUT fringe-science, would be the "undue" in "undue weight". Wouldn't a compromise view be something to the effect of a caveat at the beginning, like "The movie states this. We know there's a whole 'nother viewpoint out there, which is commonly considered more scientifically viable; however, this article isn't about that, it's about _____________"....in other words, sort of a scientific equivalent of an "in-universe" tag that could be used here??? Just a thought....Gladys J Cortez 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys has this about right. The 'anti-fringe' folks seek to fight the fringe view itself on the article page, rather than simply report that the film is about a fringe view, and then discuss relevant issues, like out-of-context quote controversies, and critical response. They instead seek to expand reasonable anti-fringe NPOV policing, which is sorely needed in SOME PLACES, into a place where it is NOT needed. Links to 'intelligent Design' and 'Theory of Evolution' will provide more interested readers places to go to expand their understanding of both the science and the non-science, and the controversies and the nonsense. But to fight that war where instead we should be writing an article about a film and only what is germaine to that film, is a wrongheaded idea. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Gladys & ThuranX. Too much of the article (okay, of the version I looked at) is dedicated to refuting the movie; anyone who is informed about current American culture wars will know what to think from the first sentence (which states, in effect, educators are forbidden to teach Intelligent Design). I skipped several of the middle sections, & had all of my answers about the movie answered by reading from "Critical reaction" on. (FWIW, I've lost a lot of respect of Ben Stein after reading this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the movie, lose more. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. At this point I consider going to see this movie an exercise about as informative as repeatedly beating my hand with a hammer to see whether it will hurt: not only do I already know the answer, but doing this is wastefully painful. -- llywrch (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> While I fully accept that m'learned friends are well aware of the nonsense being peddled by this film, unfortunately a significant part of the population of the US, notably the school boards and legislators of Louisiana and Texas, believe all that the film tells them and aren't going to click on links to find out otherwise. NPOV rightly requires us to show all significant views on the subject, and while I'm confident that the article can be tightened by use of summary style, splitting it to make the mainstream view a POV fork is not on. .. dave souza, talk 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, that's bullshit. We aren't the thought police. It is NOT Wikipedia's job to become an activist site for Science OR Religion. We are to create an article about a MOVIE, which happens to be about FRINGE material. The place to provide refutation to the FRINGE material is on the page about that FRING topic, not on the page about a movie. Material about criticism of the film and its apparent biases, as reported by WP:RS can be included, refutation of ID by WP:RS is NOT, because it is tangential to the FILM, at best. ID refutation goes in teh ID article, or a 'criticisms of ID' article. ThuranX (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think this is the right place to go, but if not, please let me know. As usual, this problem grows out of a content dispute. User:Viriditas and I had a night of strong argumentation on Talk:Philip K. Dick over whether the category "Christian writer" should be restored to the article. Once it was clear the argument had run out of anything substantive to talk about that night, I backed out of it, because my comments were clearly getting Viriditas upset. [53]

During the discussion, Viriditas added some section labels to it,[54],[55], [56], [57], this one with the edit summary "Fixing derailment of discussion" which I did not object to because they helped to navigate around what was a long colloquy. I did change the names of the sections to more accurately reflect the contents (for instance he put in "Response from Ed Fitzgerald" which I changed to "Dialogue: Ed Fitzgerald & Viriditas"),[58],[59], and later put in a marker to show where the conversation had originally been.[60] Since then, the conversation between us has pretty much stopped, with only a few comments added, but Viriditas keeps refactoring it, taking my remarks from the places where they occured and putting them into a separate section - in effect, attempting to "ghettoize" them as being disruptive, irrelevant and not pertinent to the "real" conversation that he prefers to keep separate form my remarks. [61],[62].

This afternoon, I undid his latest refactoring, restored what was there, and put his latest comment in the place it would have been otherwise in the conversation.[63] I then started a new section on the page asking him to stop refactoring.[64] His response was to refactor again,[65], change the section labels,[66] and leave me a message accusing me of trolling.[67], [68], [69] This is not the case, my comments were all either pertiment to the subject(s) under discussion (whether Dick is a Christian writer or not, and whether the Carrere biography of Dick is a reliable source), or directly in response to his comments to me.

Ironically, while Viriditas has accused me of having ownership issues with the Philip K. Dick article and of trying to control the conversation, at least four times during our discussion he has said directly to me "If I want your opinion I'll ask for it"[70],[71], [72], [73], [74], [75] and has attempted to bully me off the page, as if it was his talk page to control. Along the way he's been constantly condescending, asking me if I need some books in order to understand what he's saying,[76], [77] if I understand Wikipedia policy, referred to my relevant comments as "empty huffing and puffing" [78], called me a "little man" [79], accused me of inciviity and misbehavior[80], and of trying to force my views on others [81], and in general, has just been pretty unpleasant.

I fully understand that it "takes two to tango", that both Viriditas and I bear responsibility for the tenor of the argument, and I would not have brought it to anyone's attention if it weren't for the refactoring, and the blatant attempt to remove and downgrade my comments by "ghettoizing" them in a section away from the rest of the discussion. If an admin could look at the situation and, if appropriate, speak to Viriditas to ask him to stop refactoring the talk page that would be great, as would restoring his latest refactoring, which I have not touched.

As soon as I post this, I will put a notice on his talk page about this complaint. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did post a notice to Viriditas' talk page [82]. It was removed with the edit summary "Get a life" [83]. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so about twelve hours have gone by since I posted this, without comment here. Two people have been by Philip K. Dick and removed categories, and one person removed a personal comment by Viriditas about me on the talk page. I can't tell, of course, if those actions were provoked by this complaint or not, and I'm a little confused about how to interpret the lack of response here. Does it mean I should take the complaint elsewhere? Does it mean I'm totally in the wrong and that I'm a real dick (pun intended) for bringing it up in the first place? Does it mean I should simply attend to undoing Viriditas' refactoring and restoring the comment thread myself, at the risk of starting an edit war? As it is now, the discussion seems very disjointed to me, because of his manipulation of it, and I'd prefer that it be put back into a more coherent order, but I'm reluctant to do so myself without some guidance from above. Anybody? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of a response is because your account leaves me with the impression that this situation needs dispute resolution, not admin intervention; and that this board is dedicated to the latter but not to the former. Sorry. Sandstein (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was clear that my complaint had nothing to do with the content dispute, but with the refactoring of a talk page discussion by someone involved in in a dispute in the discussion. Unless I'm mistaken, that's something that Wikipedia would desire to be discouraged. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what admin intervention do you propose in reaction to this? Sandstein (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I would like the latest refactoring to be undone, so that I (a partisan in the discussion) don't do have to do it (or at least be told that it's OK for me to undo it), and I would like Viriditas to be informed that refactoring a discussion when you're involved in a dispute within it is not kosher. That's about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, undoing the latest manipulation of the discussion would mean reverting these two edits: [84][85], which would put things back to their previous state. The rest of Viriditas' edits in that same session did not have to do with that thread, and he did not add an additional comment to the thread at that time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but reverting an edit and leaving a message for an editor does not require administrator privileges. You're on the wrong messageboard. This is essentially a dispute between you two, and I advise you to use dispute resolution methods. Sandstein (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)So what you're telling me is that admins have no interest in a user manipulating the order of comments in a talk page discussion to reflect their personal POV when the user is heatedly involved in the discussion? That seems odd to me.

In any case I wish someone would have seen fit to get involved because things have escalated a bit. Viriditas has now templated my talk page, warning me about edit warring because I removed a long lede section from Bibliography of Philip K. Dick because it was too long, duplicated the main article Philip K. Dick, and wasn't focused on Dick's writing. I've replaced it with a shorter, more focused lede, but I have a feeling after I post this I'm going to find that he's deleted it.

Can someone please take a look at Bibliography of Philip K. Dick and cool things down a bit before they get out of hand? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, come on, is this really appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is pretty much being used exclusively to post AfD notices. I'm wondering if this is proper, what with WP:CANVAS and all. It doesn't seem like the project is being used to collaborate on improving articles at all, but rather just to save them from getting deleted. Any thoughts? Equazcion •✗/C • 05:43, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

For easy reference, the AfD discussions referenced there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly just Cirt doing something recommended—I don't see a problem with that. If the project isn't doing anything, you can tag it as {{historical}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users have in the past complained that adequate notice is not given for WP:AfDs relating to Scientology, so ample notice is given at WP:SCN/AFD and on the WikiProject's talk page. It does seem lately that the talkpage has only been used for Afd notices (not just by myself but others as well) - but if you look at the archives you will see that the project talk page has been quite active in the past, on numerous other topics of discussion. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this isn't canvassing - it is just a notice that an AfD is happening, posted in one central location only with no other text about the article itself, and in a spot that individuals from various backgrounds/inclinations probably monitor - so as to make sure due notice is given about the AfD, and to gain input from individuals from all sides interested in the subject matter. It should also be noted that it is sometimes the AfD nominator doing the notifying, and sometimes not, so it isn't really a matter of trying to save an article from getting deleted/not deleted. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that after posting this, that the notices were actually sometimes by the nominator (usually you). My concern was that the Scientology project might be an inherently biased place to post such notices, but I'm quickly seeing that that isn't really the case. Although I'll continue watching, because it seems not too many people have paid attention to that project in a while, so it's hard to tell right now who these notices are targeting. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The notices aren't meant for anyone in particular, that's why they are posted to a public WikiProject talk page and not a user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there has been a lot more activity in the past, but that tends to be the case with a lot of projects which comparatively small scopes: the main articles get created, pretty much made B-class, and then people move on. I wish there were more activity, particularly from people more involved with Scientology than I am, but that's the way it works sometimes. That project will always welcome a few more eyes, though. Whatever you think of the guy, moving his page to "L. Ron Butterfly" like was done yesterday and similar vandalism in the past is contemptible, and just, well, stupid. Butterfly, of all things? John Carter (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is bad, but "L. Ron Butterfly" (In the garden of Eden, of course) is slightly funny if you get the joke.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the edit summaries in [[Special:Contributions/<removed>]] be deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for oversight. They should disappear shortly. --B (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the name of the user, not needed any more here. Cenarium^Talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on that I'd say the user needs a much more substantial warning than the one I previously provided on his talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is now blocked indef. Rightly so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked the user as vandal only after reviewing the whole account. I am just looking up how to entirely get rid of them: bit beyond my normal actions. --BozMo talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Back as User: Mr nibble Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page needs deleting, salting and oversighting. Should also do this to the original account. MER-C 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to oversight request. --B (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A little bit narked with this ladies n gents. I'd already issued a temporary block to the original editor to stop any further disruption to the project, and with a couple of others had already started reverting all the edits, and it was also to give me time to look through the whole issue. There was no pressing urgency to change the block without discussing it with me first and to find the reasoning behind, whether anyone agreed with the length or not. There was already a discussion on my talk page that would have immediately made the situation clear. So in brief if there is no immediate potential disruption to the project please discuss it, and think to ask other administrators without overriding their decisions and causing bad feeling please. ^Khukri 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are referring to me but I am pretty sure there was no temporary block in place when I indef blocked this user (unless they were concurrent). Certainly no block notice either or any note to say it was with you. --BozMo talk 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:B unblocked ot re-block, and it appears User:BozMo Blocked at the same time ; [86] and [87] Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here also via some attack talk pages that I deleted, and after a further note that i dropped at the user. Personally, I suspect that it relates to Iamdoctortran (talk · contribs) being warned and blocked yesterday, but it is just a guess.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through User:Thingg's past to see if I can see anything but SOBS's started editing on the 9th one edit then started his anti-Thingg rant today. Thingg is a pretty prolific VP'er so it could be anyone looking though it. I've watchlisted his talk page for now just incase we get a sock or two. ^Khukri 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extending your block to indefinite, blocking email to prevent further harassment, and annotate the block log to note that the offending revisions may be oversighted should anyone ever review this block in the future was all non-controversial and obviously correct. Permission or prior discussion is not necessary. Your complaint was left on my talk page four minutes after I reblocked him, before I had a chance to leave you a courtesy note. Bringing it here when there is nothing to resolve, an unambiguously correct decision, and you have already expressed your concern to me is pointless. --B (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Back again as User:Hoppin' bonkers Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And they're back again as User:Swav swan -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Husond has once again started engaging in improper, undiscussed page moves, moving Mihai Suba to Mihai Şuba in this edit. He tries to justify it by attacking me and my motives in moving it to align page name with the cited sources,[88] rather than addressing the issues involved.

The Mihai Suba spelling is not only the one in the cited reference here; is is also the spelling in both external links in the article and in the book he wrote with the ISBN 0-08-037141-8 citation in the article. It is quite reasonable to think that these spellings are accurate and correct spellings, the way this British resident for the past 20 years or so (since before he wrote his book, the main reason why he is notable) in generally known in English.

Husond's move is an improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, it is contrary to the spelling of his name as the author of his book mentioned in the text.

That the move Husond made was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there already was a talk page discussion before his move. His move was clearly much more inappropriate than the original creation of the page under an unreferenced spelling contrary to that of the sources by User:Krakatoa, who—unlike Husond—hadn't then had it specifically pointed out to him/her that the spelling was contrary to that in all the sources.

Note further that even if he can and does find some sources supporting the spelling in the move he made, that would be sufficient to list the alternative spelling in the article. It is not by any means determinative of the spelling of this English resident's name in the article's name under Wikipedia:naming conventions. But so far, we have absolutely no evidence from any reliable source, nor even from any unreliable source, that the "Mihai Şuba" spelling has ever been correct at any time in any language whatsoever.

Note in particular that Husond did not change my correction of my spelling of the name of the author of Dynamic Chess Strategy from "Şuba" to "Suba", the name of the author as it appears in that English-language book he wrote. He knows better than to deliberately change that to a spelling different from that used in the book itself (LCCC listing, which is reachable by following the ISBN link already cited in article and clicking on the appropriate "find this book" link), yet he thinks it is okay to improperly move the article containing it contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions, without even discussing the points which had already been made on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and you are discussing many issues of the content dispute here. Please spend more time looking for resolution on the article talk page or the user's talk page. You are far away from needing to bring this issue to A/NI. Husond should engage in a talk page discussion over the correct name of the page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside view, I noticed Gene that you made no attempt (at least that I can see) to resolve this name dispute with Husond. This feels like tattling. Do you have some sort of history with this particular editor to bring you to AN/I so quickly. This seems like a simple dispute that could be fixed on article talk, user talk, even WP:RM. Why the AN/I drama? This isn't traditionally a first stop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The valid core of this complaint is that Husond should have brought the move to WP:RM. He knows, better than most, that all diacritical moves are likely to be controversial. Instead, he argued in the edit summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husond has been notified of this thread. Rudget 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Husond revert a prior move that wasn't brought to WP:RM? He has the page named the same way the original author had it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And contrary to the spelling of the sources (see the links in the article). Husond disagrees with WP:UE, and has every right to campaign for his minority view; but the way to do so is to discuss and poll to see whether he has gathered support, not by move warring. Gene at least discussed his move on the talk page; Husond did nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not regard this (as it stands) as warranting sanctions, in either direction; but is this not a reasonable place to ask for a third opinion? It may require adminship to act on a move war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this isn't the place. (Read the header). It's a dispute. We have Dispute resolution. We have third opinions. But before those even get going, we have talk pages. Nobody even went to Husond's talkpage. Calling the article talk page a "discussion" is rather laughable. It's a one liner by Gene Nygaard "telling it like it is". That's not a discussion, that's an order. I wouldn't have replied to that either. This thread should be closed. Husond and Gene are disagreeing on something, outsight eyes need to be on it, I agree, before it gets ridiculous over something rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to. I'll try to make this brief. First, Gene strangely failed to mention that right after I reverted his move, I reminded him on his talk page that he is under community probation and may not move articles in order to remove diacritics without going through WP:RM first. Second, Gene seized the opportunity to move this article under the grounds that the only source refers to this person without the diacritic. Any search on Google with most adequate regard for Romanian sources will clearly show that this Romanian citizen's name is clearly and naturally written with a diacritic [89] and that all the other sources are lacking this diacritic simply because most non-Romanian keyboards don't have it. But this, in case someone forgot, is an encyclopedia and accuracy is imperative. English speakers who know how "Ş" is pronounced don't have to be mislead into reading the name wrong simply because most English speakers don't know how to read it. Those will likely read it as "S" anyway, while the ones aware of the correct pronunciation would read "SH". In my view it is thus logical that in an encyclopedia readers be provided with an accurate and clear presentation of the subject, starting with its correct pronunciation. Gene Nygaard and Septentrionalis think otherwise, they defend that everyone has the right to be dumb, stay dumb, and make everyone else dumb. But that's not for here. I am surprised that Gene brought this issue here without contacting me or User:Krakatoa, the creator of the article. But I see that Gene has just declared on his talk page that the probation does not exist, which is false: Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log is marked as inactive but as one can clearly read there, his probation is still active (and for good reasons). Gene has once again moved the article, which I will revert once again and block Gene Nygaard per his probation if he attempts to move the article once more without going to WP:RM. Húsönd 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to ...

Husond, please stop the mud slinging. Gene tried to discuss this twice - on the article talk page and on his user page - and your reply was to threaten blocking. Enough already, quit stirring up trouble. --Duk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for one week. Tiptoety ^talk 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Husond is an admin, and party to what is apparently a two person dispute where one user is an admin and one is not and (ii) I'm not sure that protection is necessary, particularly if Gene Nygaard ends up blocked for edit warring and violating a community probation. Also, Husond, it would be a bad idea for you to block Gene yourself. Avruch ^T 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection because a user who often teams with Gene Nygaard joined in and moved the article again. Didn't want this to go on forever. As for blocking Gene Nygaard, I understand your concern but I don't view this as a situation where I'd be using the block tool to have advantage over a dispute. Gene's probation is very clear and whenever I monitor his recent contributions I always find violations. He has been warned many times and I could've blocked him right away for persistent violations. And perhaps I should have, because I'm always lenient and explain to him over and over what he is not supposed to do, but then he always attacks me and this time came up with this unnecessary thread. The fact that Gene and I have a long history of disagreements does not mean that I may not enforce a clear community probation when it is blatantly violated. Húsönd 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a clear community probation is blatantly violated then there is likely to be another uninvolved admin willing to block, so to avoid the inevitable filing of a complaint why don't you let that happen? Indeed, if you are insistent on performing the block it may become the view of some that you appear more willing to act on matters where you have some interest than with keeping as much drama out of Wikipedia as possilbe. It may even be considered that acting in such a manner is disruptive. If there is a blatant violation of community probation then why not contact me and request me - or any other uninvolved admin - to perform the block (once satisfied)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Husond. I wouldn't recommend you blocking GN, regardless of the probation. Even though you may "technically" be within your rights to do as much, the perception of admin abuse, and inevitable drama to follow, would not be in anybody's best interests. I recommend letting the community handle any potential blocks (and at this point, I don't believe any blocks or other sanctions are warranted). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your argument is sound- drama would be inevitable indeed. Okay, I won't block Gene if I see further violations, but I may be reporting them here if they do occur. Húsönd 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I appear to have quite accidentally ignited World War III. I was the original author of the article in question. Husond notified me on my talk page of the resulting controversy. In case anyone cares about my views and the genesis of my use of "Şuba" rather than "Suba," this is what happened. I wrote the article First move advantage in chess and cited therein a book by Mr. _uba. I have a copy of that book, "Dynamic Chess Strategy" by Mihai Suba (that's how it's spelled on the title and cover page). I accordingly spelled the name "Suba" in First move advantage in chess. Upon seeing a redlink in the article, I searched Wikipedia for "Mihai Suba" and found that there was no article on him, but that he was mentioned (as "Mihai Şuba") in the article on the Romanian Chess Championship. Knowing how obsessive people are about proper punctuation of names and not wanting to offend anyone (Hah! Silly me!) , I wrote the article on "Mihai Şuba" and went back and changed my spelling of the name in First move advantage in chess. Gene Nygaard promptly went ballistic and moved the article from Mihai Şuba to Mihai Suba; evidently Husong went counter-ballistic and changed it back. FWIW, all the sources I saw, other than the Romanian Chess Championship article here on Wikipedia, used "Suba" rather than "Şuba." I don't really give a @#$%, myself, about the resolution of this tempest in a teapot. Krakatoa (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Krakatoa, you caused quite an eruption. ;-) Do you mind if I copy some of your comment to the article's talk page? It seems to me reliance on the sources will be the best way to resolution of this. Jonathunder (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husond has skirted the three-revert rule by making his third revert in six hours,[90] [91] [92] and then in the very same minute as his last reversion going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and requesting that his version be protected[93] (gaming the system to his advantage what he knows from handing such requests on a regular basis, taking advantage of "The Wrong Version" opinion page often cited there).

Even that has some appearances of collusion beforehand. Within five minutes of his request, there were two different editors who protected the page (one of them three times)—one of them before Husond decided to amend the request he had just written, four minutes later. There might, of course, be a perfectly innocent explanation, but that is not the norm for the time frame for handling those requests for protection, and there wasn't much time for any editor granting the protection to make an independent investigation of the circumstances. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a short page protection is a good idea in this case. Gene, would you consider removing the 3RR/gaming complaint from Talk:Mihai Şuba since you've already noted it here? --Duk 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to be presenting themselves as a parent of Jenna Syken and recently made this edit. In the corresponding edit summary they spoke of contacting an attorney due to libel. This is the whole edit summary:

We have been in touch with an attorney pertaining to libel and slander written by wikipedia about our minor child. There is a record of everyone who redoes Jenna Syken page by wikipedia people

Is that considered a legal threat, should something be done?
Thanks. 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a legal threat but before any block I think this IP should be approached very gently with some help. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, their page does contain 5 warnings about non-constructive edits on the above mentioned article. SWik78 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're all standard warning templates, not very informative. Blanking is a common response by non-users to what we call BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a gentle notice at User_talk:69.253.242.57. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article makes a very striking, unsourced claim about a living person, and suggests a motive. Neither is supported by the existing links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The who is check goes to Mt. Laurel, NJ. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI: her mother has contacted the Foundation before so this is likely her again. John Reaves 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The negative, possibly OR spin on her career has been rm'd. Meanwhile if the IP doesn't answer and carries on with threats, a block would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs appear to be evading an indef-block on NaomiSyken (talk · contribs) from behavioural evidence... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what was unsourced, and sourced the rest. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else check out whether this is a sock? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like it to me, RCU? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a point to this, it seems totally obvious. In any event, we should probably not pursue a real aggressive RBI policy toward relatives of BLPs. Polite conversation and gentle education would seem more appropriate here. Thatcher 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for answering so quickly, it is obvious and I agree, which is why I suggested a gentle approach to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The named account has a page full of warnings, suggestions and finally instructions from the blocking admin on how to deal with the situation; the IPs (see 167.112.160.33 (talk · contribs) as well) both have flurries of warnings... at what point do we step out of "gentle education," especially considering the rather blunt legal threats? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question is worth talking about. I'd say with this article, when thoroughly sourced information is being removed with legal threats not to put it back. We're not there yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Gwen Gale post at 16:01) I gave the account User:NaomiSyken a personal message on how to address their concerns when I indef blocked the account, per here. I also note that it appears they attempted to contact the Foundation. From the continued edits to the article and the message on the ip talkpage it appears either the editor is continuing utilising an improper avenue to influence content in the article while contacting the Foundation - or they are unsatisfied with the Foundations response and have reverted to what is generally considered vandalism. In either case what they are doing falls outside of permitted behaviour. As the main account is indef blocked (I made it clear that a block can be lifted if the improper editing stops) I suggest sprotecting the article, and noting on the ip talkpage that concerns can still be addressed to the article talkpage. Perhaps someone can find out from the Foundation what the state of play is there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) ps. If anyone wishes to make edits to the article but are concerned about possible legal consequences, contact me and I will make those edits on your behalf.[reply]

Thanks. Since the unsourced information has been removed, I would suggest that if the IP blanks (or mostly blanks) the article again, that the IP be blocked and the page s-protected. I'll try to ask about any contacts with WMF. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed text has been in the article since it was created in August 2007. Beginning in February, the IP began trying to remove it. There seems to have been contact about six weeks ago, but a look at the edit history shows not much was done to keep the unsourced text out of the article. Ever since, User:NaomiSyken (through the IP, too) has been editing back and forth with a few editors and other IPs. She has tried blanking the page, taking out the text, replacing the text with website addresses and so on. Each time, the material has been restored, often as either a vandalism or COI revert. The thing is, the text she wants removed is indeed unsourced and so far, seems to be only an unverifiable interpretation. Until (or if) a strong and reliable source ever shows up I suggest watching the article and keeping the disputed content out, following WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Merged from above Mr.Z-man 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

63.145.29.12 has been spamming the same link across multiple pages. Can someone please revert all the changes (not just the ones today, but earlier ones too) and block accordingly? Looks like someone trying to advertise. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider posting your request at WT:WPSPAM. That noticeboard is listed under 'Spam' in the header above. (See the line for 'Report Abuse'). EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - someone has already taken notice. John Smith's (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the talk page appeared empty - it's always a good idea to WP:WARN user's about the unacceptability of spamming and advertising on this site. Scale it up according too. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Asd124 (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet, though I don't know how it would be determined what user they are a sockpuppet of, exactly, so I can't add this to suspected sock puppets, and the situation isn't serious enough for checkuser. I believe this user is a sockpuppet because of this diff, where their first contribution, they add a question to a user's RfA, specifically relating to sockpuppetry and administrator abuse, specifically a line where they state "This is not a joke question because the issue of sock versus admin abuse is common in Wikipedia." —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like an SPA asking a loaded question. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a SPA ask such questions if it weren't a sockpuppet? Or could the account have been made so that the user could contribute to RfA? Are anonymous users able to contribute to RfA? —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at any diffs, the answer is Yes. Anonymous users (aren't we all, anyway?) are allowed to contribute to RfAs. In the discussion section, or asking a question. The only thing IP's are not allowed to do is cast a !vote in support/neutral/opposition. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a sock. I said SPA because there is clearly some history behind the question along with a singleminded reason for creating the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user hasn't made any other edits, so there's doesn't appear to be any need for a block, even if the user is a sockpuppet. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last entry has added a reference which is simpy from a wikipedia mirror site. Not sure what to do. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it, although this should have been dealt with on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just thought there would be a standard informative template - its quite a hard concept for a newbie to get their head around. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sounds like you're catching on quick :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Gwen said, it could easily be taken up on the article's talk page. Always a good idea to cite reliable sources so that the editor is aware that citing another Wikipedia site or a mirror just won't cut in - and that the source is likely to be removed. boldness works in this situation. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canplex has only edited his userpage to serve as a corporate advert. I warned him on talk, he continued to edit it, it was blanked once, he has reverted and continued to self-promote. He hasn't responded to warnings about how to use Wikipedia. Admins please? ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanked and protected. User has been advised to offer an undertaking not to replace that content before the page will be unprotected. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using your company name as your user name for promotional purposes is a blatant violation of WP:U, and I have softblocked the account. The user can come back with a new user name if he/she wants to contribute in accordance with policy. --MCB (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ratehr BITEy, given that I'd just given him a lengthy explanation of the basics. Now, you go an d block him, so we look uncoordinated, and unsupportive of new users. Not a good move, when you could've jsut explained it to him and asked him to contact you from a new account. Given the problems of COI he was having, leaving him on an obvious, easy to watch name made sense, at least till we'd established that he understood the bigger principles. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inishbofin, Donegal has been subject to persistent vandalism since January. Initially it was done by an anon IP (or various IPs), but since a couple of days ago User:Tropicanmanofthesea has been deleting the accurate text and replacing it with nonsense. His/her version looks plausible at a glance, but it is in fact rubbish. He/she adds photos of (a) Tory Island and (b) Slovenian forests, and gives the distance from the mainland as things like 37.54 miles - and 37.84 miles in another sentence - spurious and inconsistent accuracy. But in any case there is no island in the location he/she gives. There is no nature reserve. The stuff about legal status and international waters is rubbish. It's quite subtle in some ways, but it's a spoof. I left a fairly gentle message on the talk page, but Tropicanmanofthesea has not seen fit to engage in discussion there. He/she has received warnings from three different people, and two "last warnings", for vandalsim of this and another article. Something needs to be done! Thanks. Snalwibma (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit by User:Tropicanmanofthesea here. Could someone ban this user for a while? Snalwibma (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather worrying... seeing as attacking FT2 is the "in" thing right now, and Proab's contributions to WR have been more polemic than actually discussion, is there a net gain to having him on the project? Sceptre ^(talk) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His contributions to WR have no basis whatsoever on his continuing status as a wikipedian. Viridae^Talk 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why the hell was FT2 blanking that in his userspace anyway? Viridae^Talk 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better question would be why did anyone need a copy of that in their user space? And was threatening to "publicize" something really necessary? Shell ^babelfish 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - you could go and ask him? (novel idea that one) Viridae^Talk 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see an issue with this. This kind of stuff occurs in userspace all the time. As for his WR comments, they aren't always the nicest, but that's WR not here. Majorly (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These reports have no purpose, they are far too old to be actionable and this is the first time Proabivouac has edited anything for weeks. He seems to have left, probably a wise decision on the whole, but seems to pop up foroccasional pot-shots at his old foes. I don't think that's terribly helpful, and there is past history of problems from Proabivouac, so I have blocked for now. If he demonstrates an intention to come back and contribute to the encyclopaedia then I have no objection to an uninvolved admin unblocking [note: I do not count Viridae as uninvolved due to past conflicts with me]. But I don't think we need people whose only contribution is drama, and not much of that. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have unblocked Proabivouac as I see no consensus for the block - and having one person who is arguing against such action being declared an opponent of the blocker, and therefore whose opinion is presumed invalid - and there was no indication of IAR. I am not aware of any RfC or ArbCom which allows for this action. I therefore consider the block to be entirely improperly made, and have undone it accordingly.

Now, if there is a discussion regarding whether the main account is contributing, or is capable of contributing, positively and the consensus is that it is not then I agree that the block be re-imposed (and will impose it myself, regardless of what - if any - my opinion is of the matter, if need be). Can we get away from simply indefing someone whose opinions and presence at other places we don't care for, and use the processes and principles of Wikipedia to guide our actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like acceptable conduct to me. JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate. Were a consensus to emerge that he was mistaken the block could be reversed. But you have no basis, and frankly give no reason, to reverse a block by another administrator for harassment. Please reconsider your action. WjBscribe 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was that JzG does not need consensus or admins do not need consensus? I would draw your attention that the first two responses on this thread were opposed to any action, so I think there was already a consensus not to block. JzG's actions did not reflect the direction the discussion was taking, even among those who considered the (re)creation of the userpage to be seriously problematic there was as yet no demand for summary blocking. Further, if the account is moribund then a block is not preventative. I hope we are now able to properly consider what may be done in the matter of this long term contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it BRD, admin style. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are Guys actions suddenly sacrosanct? You need more to indef someone that a vague "he isnt really helping much as of late" Viridae^Talk 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo LessHeard vanU - we have ways of doing things on wikipedia so contributors are not ridden rough shod over by admins. Indeffing on that basis is not one of those procedures and likewise to the deletion. If you want Proab gone - start getting consensus, if you want the page gone (which was proven sockpuppetry by the way, contrary to Guys assertions) MfD it - there is nothing in the speedy deletion policy that covers that sort of deletion. Viridae^Talk 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All mentions of OIC bar one are by Proab... I think this is crossing into Wikistalking myself. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really - so the entire SSP page is also wikistalking...? Come on you can do better than that. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia Review, I mean. Looking at the SSP report, it's very tenous at best... the Unabomber, OIC is not. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous? He admitted it? Whats bloody well tenuous about that? Viridae^Talk 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know OIC admitted it. But the SSP itself is clutching at straws. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how tenuous it was? It was i believe what prompted the investigation. Viridae^Talk 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the page about Oldwindybear or the one about Orderinchaos? WjBscribe 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, apologies. I did get the two mixed up :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As did I apparently. IN that case - subpage shoudl still have gpone through MfD IMO, but the block was definately unwarranted. Viridae^Talk 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not a contributor at present, merely a drama whore. Were he a contributor I'd have left him be. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A WP:drama whore? Why am I not surprised the link is red? Even if the block is agreed to have been ultimately correct, such language indicates that entirely the wrong person enacted the block for likely the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So because you declare him a dramam whore, that magically gives you the basis to indef him - not to be overturned until you decide he isnt a drama whore? Viridae^Talk 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you claim that he doesn't edit much anymore and appears to have left, and simultaneously claim that he's a drama whore? What a bizarre block reasoning. Extremely poor. -- Naerii 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Whatever s/he is, should our server space be user to host material that even if contemplated for use here, would be dismissed out of hand as stale if it were so used? I think not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 problems. OIC actually admittted to being a sockpuppeteer, and the server space will remain whether it is visible blanked or deleted. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the OWB page, but I'd be interested to know your justification for the keeping of the page about Orderinchaos given those were thoroughly investigated and evidence provided to an arbitrator/checkuser that 3 separate people were indeed involved. That page seems to be being kept for harassment, especially as it serves as a springboard for some pretty personal comments Proabivouac has been making about the people concerned off-site. WjBscribe 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed OWB to OIC in your post. Then you are mistaken. Orderinchaos admitted the three users knew each other and had shared computers but they were not his sockpuppets. He supplied evidence confirming they were three separate individuals. WjBscribe 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah confusion on my part. NOt the only one - see above. Viridae^Talk 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not -gasp! Wikistalking!:) A lot of people have pages collecting diffs etc and preparing stuff against other editors. Some times they are deleted as attack pages, if people feel that way, maybe do that. But it's hardly 'wikistalking' to do something in his own user space.Merkin's mum 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is clearly very little merit in the claims on Proabivouac's subpage. Support deletion, don't really care about the block (may as well AGF...he might find the next OWB for us if we're lucky). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding JzG's disgraceful and vulgar characterization of me as a "drama whore," I did not initiate any drama here: FT2 blanked my user subpage, I restored it, and now this.

WJBscribe's interactions with me have consisted of little but threats, taunting me regarding my probation, and uncivil denunciations as a "sanction-evading sockpuppet." I would be surprised if he were to consider himself a neutral respondant, and if he doesn't, then I wonder why he would see fit to handle this report.

I believe that JzG has defamed me by falsely accusing me of "harassment." I have never harassed any Wikipedia contributor, and the appearance of malice is plain enough. I find that…uncivil.

It is also, though not particularly damaging, equally inaccurate to say that I "seem(s) to pop up for occasional pot-shots at [my] old foes." I believe my last appearance on the noticeboards was to defend an "old foe", BhaiSaab, from a ban which was extended based upon false (and unretracted, so typical) charges of sockpuppetry - are we projecting our own vindictive nature onto me?

As for Orderinchaos…I have no basis to doubt that there are individuals who claim to be DanielT5 and Zivko85, and may very well have posted under these names at one time. What is clear to me is that Orderinchaos himself posted via these usernames as well, thusly stacking deletion debates along with a number of other polls throughout most of last year, as well as tag-teaming User:Joestella off Wikipedia - a despicable tactic, in my view.

Now that the report is deleted, you may have trouble evaluating it…which come to think of it, may be precisely the point. I won't recapitulate too much of it here, seeing as I would be "reposting deleted material" to "harass other users" - this being the language by which we cover up evidence of corruption nowadays - but slip-ups like these are at the very least suggestive (and this is only a fraction of the evidence)13:07, 14 January 2007, 13:10, 14 January 2007, 13:14, 14 January 2007, 21:22, 31 May 200721:47, 31 May 2007.

It cannot be overemphasized that Orderinchaos did not deny that he posted using the DanielT5 and Zivko85 accounts - abusive sockpuppetry, regardless of the alleged existence of seperate individuals behind them at one point or another (which I have no basis to doubt) - even as the question was directly posed to him by at least two editors:[94],[95],[[96],[97] His response? "remove trolling"[98]

Is it so vital that we retain corrupt administrators that we must ban and slander those who point it out? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, for it's already been answered.

JzG writes, "Were he a contributor I'd have left him be," which rather begs the question of why I stopped contributing: because JzG himself drove me off. Is it not more than a little daft to drive someone off and then blame them for not contributing? Prior to that, I had 15k edits to Wikipedia, across all spaces of the project, and zero blocks. Now you have blocks creating bad blood, creating more blocks and more bad blood, to no discernible purpose, and JzG's buttons are all over it. I wouldn't stoop to calling anyone a "whore," and the word "drama" has long since lost its fire, but he certainly has a knack for initiating conflict and complicating its resolution.

He and a very short but powerful list of others have done everything possible to turn a serious and dedicated contributor into an enemy of the project. I'm not certain if JzG is aware that the Arbitrators and I were working on a solution to this mess - if he was, this would be characterizable as outright sabotage. Perhaps it has now fallen through, and JzG can relax in his familiar role as warrior in a Manichean struggle between the purity that is WP and the blackest evil that is WR, for that's where I'll have been exiled - isn't it again rather daft to drive contributors off of here and over to WR, then criticize them for posting to WR rather than to here? What do you want, JzG?Proabivouac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the block for the page, his actions, his contributions (or lack thereof), for being dramatic, or what? I don't get it. Why couldn't the page go MfD and put less scrutiny on the editor and more into what the page actually said. the_undertow ^talk 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting arbitrator FT2's courtesy blanking of the subpage was Proab's first edit for a month. He has not made a mainspace edit since October 25, 2007. I judged that unblanking a stale and discredited sockpuppet report on a user in undoubted good standing (Orderinchaos) amounted to harassment of Orderinchaos, especially since the blanking was performed by an arbitrator - frankly if he'd left it courtesy blanked, that would have been an end to the whole thing with absolutely no further action asked or needed. <sarcasm>But I acknowledge that it was foolish of me to admit that what Wikipedia needs most of all is Arbcom-sanctioned editors whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to pursue old grudges</sarcasm>. Proab has done a remarkably good job of concealing the links to the former account under which he was sanctioned, but admins may wish to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans. Note the enforcement section, and the disruption of WP:AE. I think that "drama whore" is not an unreasonable characterisation here of an editor whose contribution to Wikipedia has been, in no small part, to disrupt it and its processes. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to respond with two points here. Firstly, as this is something that happened nine months ago, and that checkusers with the full weight of evidence in front of them "pronounced themselves content" after the matter was over, I see no great reason to defend myself here. I was in receipt of, and am grateful for, a lot of advice as to how to handle this situation at the time, and I took it on board. As such, I decided that if doubts emerged about the veracity of my explanation, checkusers and/or ArbCom were in the best place to handle that. They didn't, so I left the questions be and moved on. Besides, I had already denied the point in earlier contributions and particularly in my unblock request at the time.

Secondly, in nine months, people can change a lot. You are obviously quite aware of my contribution patterns prior to 3 August. Do you see me at RfAs and AfDs now? Occasionally, yes - but you could probably count on one hand the number of times I've voted in the last month.

Like I said at the time, I had developed a problem. It's a bit like obsessive-compulsive, and I'm sure some other volunteers can relate to this (it doesn't just happen on Wikipedia, I've actually seen it in others in voluntary associations and political parties) - I had taken on an irrational need to protect Wikipedia's credibility. When one becomes convinced for whatever irrational reason that denying one's vote to an argument or letting flawed arguments stand unanswered risks an adverse outcome which could set a bad precedent (ignoring that common law traditions of precedent really don't work on Wikipedia anyway), then one ends up voting on all sorts of things to try and stem the bad karma flow. Some of the threats seem so major that they become part of conversation with others, be it in person, on phone, on SMS, by email. I'm not talking simply the two individuals in question - an independent administrator at the time found that me and another friend who was not accused of being part of the mess had voted 67 times in the same way on the same debates. It goes without saying that, not unlike alcoholism, if one surrounds oneself with people with a similar affliction, it tends to be mutually reinforcing on all members of the group. On at least one occasion I'd be up at 5:30am on the phone to someone expressing outrage at the latest comment by some person in a debate and the response would be like "as soon as I get into work this morning, that guy's toast." (Mind you, others kept a bemused distance from it all and no doubt wondered what I was on!) I would sometimes even get SMSs during university lectures from others keeping me updated as to how certain debates were proceeding.

I agree as no doubt everyone would that it was a wrong way to act. The claims of sockpuppetry actually hurt me at a fairly deep level, as those who knew me at the time can attest. So did the fact people may believe I would do that - people who I'd developed a high opinion of in my time here. I have a very strongly formed moral sense and I had it hammered into me from childhood that to lie or deceive is one of the worst things you can do. But in a way it was good it happened - it was a shock to the system. It made me realise that my life was out of balance. I was using Wikipedia as an escape from problems for which more appropriate stress management approaches could be found. At the time, I apologised to the community for this and made a commitment to change - which I followed through on and acted upon. Occasionally, I'll get overinvolved in some trivial debate again, and I'll then go out for the day and think "maybe I can kind of leave that debate alone now."

Today, I'm able to stand back and see that. I would say I have a healthier and far more rational take on it now, and I daresay it helped other areas of my life and in particular my university studies, which picked up to Distinction/High Distinction levels after August and are still there as we speak - I just got my last 2,500 word essay back from the marker this week in fact. One of the other two users involved in this graduated his degree and is now out in professional practice. The other I believe is still hammering away, although I've lost touch with him months ago and have no idea what he's up to.

So in short, yes, I'm human. Yes, I made mistakes. No, I did not sockpuppet, there were three people posting under three accounts, although certain aspects of my living and social arrangements at the time caused a check of me to fail. Yes, some aspects of it were unhealthy, although borne out of a desire from all concerned to do good. Yes, I learned from it and have changed my approach to Wikipedia and moved on. And no, it will never happen again. Orderinchaos 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you have anything to apologise for - yes, we all make mistakes and, yes, we all hope we can learn and grow and move on - but this was a case of another editor and their actions (relating to you). The contentious material was quickly removed, which I agree with, and the editor summarily blocked - which I considered contrary to practice, need and the consensus was already forming, and so reversed it. The discussion, which I note has now stalled, regarding what action should be taken regarding Proabivouac should take its course. You have been previously exonerated and are free to pursue your editing of Wikipedia. Hopefully, reasoned debate can provide a framework by which you need not be bothered by these matters again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page was felt objectionable, after the blanking was reverted the first time, it should have went to MfD to be decided by the community. An arbitrator has no more standing than any other administrator to enforce his views of what needs blanking and what doesn't. Blocking a contributor because that was their only recent contribution seems an overreaction to me, (JzG, it's not really helpful to call someone a "drama whore", is it?) and I support the unblock. (no, consensus isn't required to block, but it is required to sustain a block, and we don't have that, I don't think) I probably would have supported keeping the page, because I'm not sure it's constructive to remove all evidence of bad judgement... those who cannot remember the past (because it's been memoryholed) are doomed to repeat it. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bedfordshire has been editted many times by people at the University of bedfordshire. My attempts to balance the discussion seems to upset a number of other editors who might also have connections with the University.

I do not know what tools you have available to check that they are not using Wikipedia for advertising but http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=University+of+Bedfordshire might help Alfred Vella (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong (and if so apologies in advance), this all rings a bell with me. I'm sure that user (talk) (maybe not under that name) was warned off that article last year because he his edits were WP:UNDUE and did not represent WP:NPOV. I'm sure has all been discussed before here. This ring any bells with anyone else? --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage needs urgent attention (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT a battleground etc) I would strongly recommend that potential staff and students avoid Luton (and therefore Bedfordshire) university like the plague until it is honest about its past. , If you have any tales to tell about Luton (preferably with evidence), I would like to hear from you. I have been battling since 1997 to have the wrongs done acknowledged but the UK is not a very open country with lots of things hidden from its people. (Plus contact details). Yes this is the editor I was thinking of. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for people to collect evidence for off-site grudges or campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deeper I look into this, the less I like it --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now remember why the name rang a bell in connection to wikipedia. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an ongoing edit war between Alfred Vella and university staff. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but that user page is a violation of policy, we don't allow people to use user space to run campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already removed the soapy content from his user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87.113.17.166 seems to have joined just to get into this argument. Is this allowed? Alfred Vella (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the regular editors on Bedfordshire Uni, I just want to make it clear i have no connection with the univeristy, and in my view any editing by university staff is not that significant. However it would be usful if someone with no connection to the article could oversee it to try to avoid some of the 'edit-wars' and personal campaiging which has dogged it from time to time. The articlewas protected for a peroid of time a year back which certainly helped.GazMan7 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can appreciate the lamentable fact that Chiropractic is back again in discussion here, I feel that I need to present some facts that will hopefully result in clarification of the issues raised. I declare the conflict of interest that I am a chiropractor and a kinesiologist.

First, QuackGuru is making seriously misleading statements and is seemingly gearing up a smear campaign to make it look that I'm a bad editor. Diffs [99] and [100] and [101] claimed by response on the Talk page of chiropractic to a query of a fellow editor was disruptive and he proceeded to delete my comments and concerns I raised.

Next, User:Orangemarlin a medical doctor, made 2 reverts which blanked all of the scope of practice section that was added citing "NPOV". It first occurred here which then I asked OrangeMarlin to please not blindly revert and participate in Talk first [102]. 3 minutes later, without even acknowledging my cocnern, OrangeMarlin blindly reverted again here using TWINKLE, an automated tool that I believe is used to revert acts of vandalism. The revert he supported was done by User:Eubulides who is also, coincidentally, a medical doctor.

Shortly thereafter, Chiropractic was protected due to the "edit war" which ensued. Admin Swatjester, a completely unbiased, neutral party restored the blanked scope of practice section here citing it was indeed NPOV and well-sourced. He was then overturned by admin Vassyana who proceeded to revert admin Swatjester who explained his case here rather well.

I also believe that User:Eubulides acted against the spirit of wikipedia in several ways the first of which was fully reverting the inserted material which had been discussed on Chiropractic Talk for over 1 week and that had no comments from the skeptical editors until (surprise, surprise) I asked permission for it to go then. Eubulides claimed the citations weren't working whereas User:Levine2112, User:DigitalC, myself and others had no problem viewing the citations. Then he claimed the citation format was incorrect. After it was fixed and I inserted the scope of practice, he reverted claiming that he did not have time to check the citations. Looking at his contribs I saw that he had been actively editing other pages the entire time (I counted 25 separate edits) while the majority consensus had to wait for his approval (a paternalistic and/or arrogant behaviour that implied other editors were not somehow discern that the section was good enough for inclusion). Anyways, he has since made a list of grievances all of which are minor and I personally view as stall tactics and obstruction. Given allopathic medicine's history of trying to contain, supress and eliminate chiropractic (more context which can be seen [103]) I find that the editing tactics of Eubulides and OrangeMarlin to be disruptive at best, not in good faith, at worst and ultimately go against the goal of the project here which is to provide expertly written articles that are reliable and high quality. For contextual purposes, I have included the section which was reverted and declared "NPOV" and "poorly sourced" by the aforementioned editors in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs)

_{lenghty cut and paste from article page removed once again - don't do that again, it's a sure fire way to piss people off. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Please assess and see if this is POV with poor sources. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==

Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester is succintly described the argument I was trying to make. It was too wordy, but I felt I had to provide context and diffs. Gwen, I tried to use RfC and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I would like it to be known that the disputed source is a World Health Organization (basic training and safety of chiropractic). I feel that there are a few editors at Chiropractic (listed above) who are being disruptive by objecting to trivial little things and resort to reversions rather than talking about it first. It's not in good taste, it's its being done by experienced editors who know better and are gaming the system here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the protecting admin, and am keeping an eye on things. I've gained two observations: 1) These guys have larger than average egos, and 2) They are debating content productively, though in fits and starts, occasionally tripping over observation 1. I feel they will resolve the issue by themselves in time, maybe up to a week. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look the other way at point #1 :) #2)one editor is holding up something that 4 agree on. (QG does not count, he's always on the 'nay' side no matter what). CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorticoSpinal = User:EBDCM, an indefinitely blocked edit warrior. I'm not sure why he was unblocked, but I guess I don't care. Just realize this editor has a COI as someone who has a continued interest in promoting the chiropractic POV. Otherwise, this posting isn't worthy of too much response. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring, it doesn't address why you reverted and blanked the scope of section page citing NPOV. Also, you've already suggested that you don't need to talk things through, as per your discussion with DigitalC. Admin Swatjester has the same concern, you don't have to answer me since you're so glib on labelling me, amongst other things "anti-scientific" "POV warrior" "edit warrior". What's next, the Ultimate Warrior? Sheeeesh! CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been vandalising the Bully (video game) article over the course of a few days. As per his contributions log [104], this is the only thing that he has contributed to wikipedia. McJeff (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to report vandalism to this page: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Apis 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was unaware of that page. Have posted on it. McJeff (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else block him? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, lets give him a least a proper warning first. I have issued him a final warn, lets wait to see what happens. (Next time please take this to WP:AIV) Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry if I sounded a bit unhelpful, I just wanted to point you in that direction since you probably get a much quicker response there. I'm not an admin so I couldn't help with any blocking etc. =) Apis 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just in the future, scale up the levels of warnings and then report to AIV. Of course, this page is also suitable for reporting long-term abuse as well. It's just a judgment call. Nice job alerting the admins though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as it is a shared IP, and they have stoped editing I think we can mark this resolved and move on. McJeff: if they continue to vandalize, give them a warning and if they continue after that, report to WP:AIV. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please revert this mess-o-move-vandalism? Special:Contributions/Werningly (It seemed a bit of a big list for AIV). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this will be fun. Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not envy the admins that have to clean up mess. Be nice if y'all had a big "undo all contributions" button for stuff like this :( Collectonian (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we got it all. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my own edification, what's the easiest way to clean that up? (Or is it something that you need a mop for?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the pagemoves I use a script I wrote, the deletion of the redirects is still done manually for now, until I can integrate that into the script. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to RFCU. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still need help with the errors on this page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, purging the page fixed the error.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Quick work...though note to myself for the future: do not look at images uploaded by vandals. I may lose my animal crackers from going to undo the replacing of two of those images. *ugh* Collectonian (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just stayed away from the images from the start. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Now, I have a question: Is it too much to ask we not draw attention to Grawp with the title? I'm asking for a rangeblock of his IP addresses so that we won't have to deal with him for a while. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have used a more generic (page-move vandal?) term. --Bfigura ^(talk) 09:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did anything worth worrying about - but you probably could have just said "that guy, you know the one" and provided links (as you did), and the meaning would have been clear enough. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the RFCU has come up empty handed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not much work with images, and have not been able to revert to the previous image of Image:Eccehomo2.jpg which used to be a painting and is now a disturbing image of an accident victim, It is used in several articles. The file history seems to show it is reverted to the painting but the bad image still shows up in the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the above mentioned Grawp vandal. I deleted that revision, and several other ones he uploaded. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I clicked "revert" at the image page it showed the dimensions of the proper one but still displayed the vandal image. What does it take to remove a bad image which a vandal has used to replace the original image?Edison (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the "reload" button on your browser. --Carnildo (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted, its just stuck in your cache. Try a hard refresh...and trust me, I wish I hadn't seen it either (as one who reverted until it could be deleted). Collectonian (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I seem to have been banned for making this AN/I report.[105] I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post[106] to an Administrators attention is a Ban Offense. I was completely unaware of this ban as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after ThuranX's post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April.

My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack [107] against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned.

I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns.

Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with is troubling.

I thank you for your time. 75.58.32.90 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you use {{unblock|your reason here}} on your Talk page to request for an appeal. And for your information, your block is lasting for 7 days. GaryKing (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has never been blocked per block log [108]. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the person's post, the user has stated that their IP address is dynamic. Their banned IP can be found here. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley_2#William.27s_violation_of_Wikipedia:BLOCK.23Disputes_with_others

Myself and another editor was blocked by William M. Connolley in an article he was personally edit warring on. I decided to check his block log and see if there were other abuses of administrative powers.

In about 50% of the blocks, William uses his administrative power to block other users he is in edit wars with.

In the past, admin FeliciousMonk and Viridae have reverted and protested about his blocks.

What are the options, other than RfC? Inclusionist (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you really shouldn't keep reposting this. There's already an RfC open about it. Jtrainor (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it looks like forum shopping to me...--Jaeger123 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [109][110] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [111]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [112] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impoliteness, incivility and difficult communication with User:KolevTome. Deleting sourced material, attacks on ethnicities and nationalities. Has been kindly warned but he doesn’t seem to care. Will someone do something? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user. Take follow-ups to WP:ANI Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure how to figure out the range of an IP, but there seems to be persistent vandalism coming from a shifting one. 122.104.199.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has vandalized quite a bit of pages under other IPs (check the history of the articles he's vandalized out) and shows no signs of stopping. JuJube (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually be reporting this to AIV. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would, except the IP changes frequently and many of the previous ones are already blocked. JuJube (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some joker has moved Scotland to Och Aye. I cant revert the edit. Would somebody oblige? Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just looked at his contribs: He seems to be doing the same all over the place. I would be grateful if somebody could see to all of the moves. Thanks in advance. --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a vandal, reverted and blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has gone through and deleted a large number of subpages in other peoples userspace under the heading "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". The problem being that he 1. failed to notify the pages authors of the deletions in any way shape or form or even ask them if they wanted to keep the pages and 2. speedy deleted them, circumventing the MfD process used for this kind of deletion and completely misapplied "non controversial housekeeping" which is actually "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, or performing uncontroversial page moves." - to include deleting someones subpages under this heading has stretched the term "non-controversial housekeeping" to beyond breaking point. To make matters worse, he then proceeded to refuse to overturn such deletions [113][114]. And accused me of wheel warring when I complied with a very reasonable request from one of the editors to have his page back [115]. Now I am apparently banned from his talk page so someone else might like to go and point out the deletion policy again. Viridae^Talk 10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you reverse his deletion without discussion with him BEFORE? Don't do that. There's seldom a rush to undelete, and if you disagree it is better to get a consensus of admins than to start wheel warring.--Doc^g 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? He had alrady shown himself unwilling to overturn his supposedly uncpontroversial deletions (clearly not by the way) at the request of the authors. So why the hell shouldnt I undelete a userpsace copy of an uncontroversial article on author request when they have been improperly deleted? Viridae^Talk 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is "improperly deleted" is always something to discuss. If we all just undeleted anything we thought "improperly deleted" then we might as well wind up WP:DRV now. That's not the way we work. Always discuss BEFORE jumping in with tools (unless there's urgency). You can't complain that JzG unilaterally used tools without discussion, and then do the same yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.--Doc^g 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way can you be considered uninvolved. It would be extremely inappropriate for you to undo any of Guys actions without having a consensus behind you and frankly we have enough admins that you shouldn't get involved. DRV is thataway... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was discussion - see WP:AN where there is consensus that there is no reason for pages sismilar to that one Guy has complained about to be deleted. I like how Guy suddenly has carte blanche to flout the CSD policy, claiming clearly controversial deletions are uncontroversial housekeeping, stonewall those people who complain about such deletions and refuse to undo them at the authors request (which, if they were uncontroversial would be the obvious thing to do...) Viridae^Talk 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You of all people are not qualified to judge a consensus on an admin action of Guy's. I get the impression that the only views you judge significant are the anti brigade. This was a shocking decision. For someone as wedded to doing the right thing as you purport to be I'm amazed that you didn't do the right thing here and take it to DRV. Be warned your own behaviour is as disruptive as you claim Guy's to have been and righting wrongs can cut both ways. I strongly advise you to completely avoid using your admin tools in any issue even tangentially related to Guy. You can't say you haven't been warned if you wheelwar again and we know how the arbcom voiew wheelwarring don't we! Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, it is wholly unacceptable to reverse the admin actions of another administrator with whom you are in long-standing dispute. Wholly, utterly, completely, unambiguously wrong. Never ever do that again, please. Second, you undeleted one of these pages without giving me time to discuss it with the user at all, which is doubly unacceptable. Third, you have not looked at the overall context. Most of these pages were userspace copies of articles made while the articles themselves were protected, and have been edited a handful of times at most. The main editor on most of them is maintenance bots. Removing something that's been moved to userspace and forgotten, is not controversial. What is controversial is maintaining POV-forks in userspace, which some of these editors were doing, but that's another matter. I found I think six separate copies of human with varying numbers of edits serving different POVs; long experience indicates that POV-forking an article into userspace is an atrocious way of handling a content dispute.

I am staggered by your chutzpah, coming here and drawing attention tot he fact that you are reversing the deletion of abandoned POV-forks by an admin with whom you are in dispute, while those deletions are already being debated in another venue with uninvolved admins looking on. I am now making a formal request, as I have made several informal ones: unwatch my talk page, never post there again, never revert another of my admin actions. You have declared an agenda against me, and your continued harassment is not appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop flouting policy and you wont hear a peep from me Guy... Viridae^Talk 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what declared vendetta against you Guy? Oh and why are you objecting so loudly to me overturning a deletion you marked as "non-controversial housekeeping" - if its so non-controversial, surely when the author requests it back you should give it to them asap... Viridae^Talk 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, there are means for you to pursue any complaints against Guy. Do not use your tools in a dispute. If there's a pressing need for things to be undone without DRV, there are plenty of others to do it. If you continue down this line, desysopping is the likely outcome.--Doc^g 11:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a pressing need to placate those who have been wronged as quickly as possible WP:EM Viridae^Talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, actions like these are already on RfC for guy, and he clearly hasnt learnt. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So take it to arbcom, do not use your tools in a dispute. It is quite unjustifiable.--Doc^g 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, you are confusing policy with process. Policy says we don't have POV forks (WP:NPOV), we don't allow users to indefinitely keep deleted content in userspace, and we don't use unreliable sources. Oh, and we don't wheel-war. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of these massively contentious deletions:

• User:Sherurcij/cars (edit | [[Talk:User:Sherurcij/cars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | [[Talk:User:Noahcs/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both copies of List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was deleted by robust consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers. Neither was being actively worked on, the latter was copied to userspace by request in December last year and not touched since. I don't think there is anything in the least controversial about removing userspace copies of resoundingly deleted content which are not actively being worked on (as in: not touched other than by bots for at least six months). Maybe I'm wrong about that.
• User:Jaakobou/Temp2 (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Temp2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin (edit | [[Talk:User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two copies of the same article in the userspace of an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who has apparently begun to mend his ways. Kudos to him for that, but what's the purpose for having two separate forks of the same article, when the main article is still editable?
• User:W1k13rh3nry/Human (edit | [[Talk:User:W1k13rh3nry/Human|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human8 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human8|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Homo sapiens (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Homo sapiens|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Goethean/Human7 (edit | [[Talk:User:Goethean/Human7|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and various other forks of human
• User:Huysman/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Huysman/Sandbox1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Huysman/Sandbox1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) two forks of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda not touched since September 2006 in either case.

But you know something? Part of the reason was, and I will freely admit this, laziness. I was removing citations to Free Republic, which is an unreliable source and riddled with copyright violations, and yes, I admit it, I could not be bothered to fix the links in these abandoned userspace forks rather than simply getting rid of them. The staggering assumptions of ill-faith from Viridae are amusing, but simply wrong: I could not see the point in fixing articles which have been lying around in userpsace untouched by anything but bots for months or in some cases years. Still, why even ask for the truth when an assumption of bad faith is so much more satisfying? I think I made around 1,500 edits to get rid of the links and bogus "citations" to Freeper threads or copyvios of mainstream sources (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic) and yes, I really was getting thorughly fed up with it and lost a bit of patience when I found these abandoned forks. On the plus side, we no longer have contentious facts about living individuals supported by reference to Freeper rants about their evil pinko commie subversive ways, so some good at least has come of all those hours of effort. I'm sure Viridae did something to improve the encyclopaedia in that time as well, besides shit-stirring and wheel-warring with an admin with whom he is in dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current policy does not lay down how long archived article material may be kept in userspace, if it isn't being worked on. I do think we need a clearer and more specific guideline on this, to avoid such conflicts occurring in the future. I do think that JzG was wrong to originally delete these pages under CSD G6, since that criterion is expressly for routine and non-controversial deletions, and these are self-evidently controversial; however, I applaud the fact that he has now sent them to MfD, which is entirely appropriate. Depending on the consensus which arises in those MfDs, we may be able to add a paragraph to WP:U detailing precise rules for these types of pages (maybe allowing the deletion of such pages if they haven't been worked on for three months, or something like that). Walton^One 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice, however, has it that it is not acceptable to leave deleted material hanging around in userspace forever without being worked on, as an end-run around WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do see the sense in that argument, and I have seen such material put up for MfD many times in the past, it has never (for good reason) been eligible for speedy. The problem is, it's often hard to tell whether someone is trying to store their own preferred POV fork of an article, or simply intended to work on the material and hasn't got round to it yet. I don't think speedy was appropriate in such a case, but we'll see what consensus develops on the MfDs. Walton^One 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous...two admins attacking each other over some silly user-sub-page deletions. Shame on you both, I would have expected more from admins. JzG, really you should have notified before deleting, and Viridae, just don't undo his actions, take it to his talkpage first.--Phoenix-wiki 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how can someone unilaterally decide that certain source (say Free Republic) is "unreliable" and then remove it from all articles and user spaces? Was it officially "blacklisted" somewhere?Biophys (talk) O'K, I see it here: [116]. All these sources, including YouTube seem to be unilaterally blacklisted. But on what grounds? Was it a proper procedure? This way one can eliminate a lot of sources. For example, if a site (say YouTube) has occasional copyright violations, should we exclude all links to this site, including those which are not copyright violations? I do not think this is right.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. See, for example Little Tich for an example of a YouTube video that's free of copyright. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No one should blacklist sources simply because they are deemed unreliable. For example, even if Free Republic is an unreliable source (which is debatable), it still may be appropriate in the article about Free Republic itself. Therefore, the blacklisting and such edits [117] are inappropriate. Especially when the blacklisting was justified by simply telling "Fuck no" (see here [118]).Biophys (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it hasn't been brought up (didn't read the above section, just noticed this), in the case of a site that's being widely misused (no idea if Free Republic is or is not), but, is still valid in one or two articles, specific links may be whitelisted... SQL^{Query me!} 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sites he blacklisted were used in too many articles. I am arguing about a proper procedure. If a source is simply "unreliable" (which may be disputed at any time), it should not be blacklisted simply because it is unreliable. Just to clarify, a racist blog like "stormfront" might be eliminated like that, but blacklisting of a good educational site "Spatakus" ([119]) has no justification whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic is undoubtedly an unreliable source as far as WP:RS goes, and shouldn't be used to back up claims of fact. However, it might well be a relevant source/external link in articles about Free Republic itself. I do understand, though, that we have to avoid linking to potential copyvios; I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I defer to the judgment of the community on this one. Walton^One 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Republic was discussed on WP:RSN and the consensus was that it was unreliable.[120] Aside from being copyright violations, the materials posted there are edited and followed by large amounts of highly POV commentary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting a site simply because a few editors find it unreliable is a very, very bad idea. The purpose of the blacklist is to prevent links to spam sites, sites that might be hosting viruses, etc. It is not there to enforce WP:RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Please note that not only "Free Republic" has been blacklisted here [121], so the argument about "Free Republic" discussion is not relevant. Did anyone discussed "Spartacus" and YouTube? I used this these sites many times. This is not spam. We must follow the existing policies for sources.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← There is a discussion on the blacklist talk page, and it was absolutely not just my call. The problems with Free Republic include: polemical content about living individuals; egregious copyright violation; lack of editorial policy and oversight. It is simply not a reliable source. Not even slightly. But the major problem was citations to sources flagged as "subscription required (subscription free copy at freerepublic.com) kind of stuff. Simply not appropriate. I removed links to YouTube a long time back (and a few more recently) mainly due to copyright concerns. Spartacus Educational is an odd one; there are a lot of links, and my original research shoewd that a very large number of them had eben added ot the site owner. The content looks good, but there is no evidence of editorial oversight or to support the incredibly wide ranging expertise that would be required of the site owner if all the content is genuinely his own work. I seem to recall some copyvios (from newspapers) as well. This is not really the place to discuss editorial actions, though, since neither YouTube removal nor the few Spartacus links I've removed involved any admin tools, only blacklisting Freep required that, and that was a perfectly routine blacklist following discussion in the relevant places. There has never been any assertion or evidence that Free Republic satisfies our sourcing requirements. My personal page on unreliabel sources is just that: a personal page. It's a work list, of no particular relevance other than that it allowed me to give an edit summary that explained in some detail the multiple reasons why I was removing citations to Free Republic; this was a response to several questions on my talk page. Very few came up after I started linking that in the edit summaries. It's a user subpage, so obviously not asserted as any kind of policy in and of itself, though I reference policy for the Frrep case since that's what I was doing at the time. You'll notice that I also identify Stormfront as an unreliable source; I removed most of the links to that a long time ago and there was no dispute about that. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a good idea to blacklist any source simply because it is deemed unreliable by several people. As about "Spatacus", you admit you are not sure if it is reliable or not, but you still deleted some links. This would be better done by users who edit the corresponding articles, after an appropriate discussion, rather than as an administrative action.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that FreeRepublic.com was blacklisted simply because it is an unreliable source, it started out that way as my original question on the Blacklist page shows[122], but my request to have it blacklisted was because it was being used primarly for linking to for its unauthorized reprints of copyrighted material which is in violation of WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material.[123] Prior to JzG going through and removing a vast majority of the links, there were over a thousand links to Free Republic that were clearly reprints of copyrighted material that was being reprinted without permission of the owner of that material, something Free Republic has gotten in trouble with before.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am sure people would not even have suggested blacklisting if the site was not being linked to excess and in breach of policy. But it was - widely, systematically and in some cases quite blatantly, with link summaries that made it abundantly clear that the material was a copyright violation. Free Republic asserted at trial that hosting copyright violations was protected under the First Amendment; they lost. It's not clear to me what is lost to the encyclopaedia here. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if you can't find an alternative source then I'd suggest the information was pretty fishy in the first place. We wouldn't need to pblacklist it is people didn't use sources that breached our fundamental values and ethos.Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really has been going on too long. I'm sure everyone is by now aware of the contempt that Viridae clearly holds for JzG's judgment. His longterm habit of reversing admin actions by Guy that he disagrees with without discussion is totally inappropriate. This is far from the first time this board has wasted time dealing with the fallout. If Viridae thinks JzG has made the wrong decision, there are processes he could use to challenge them. But simply undoing everything is overtly antagonistic. There are over 1,500 admins, I see no reason why it always seems to be Viridae reverting JzG's actions. I think the time has come to ask Viridae to agree never to undo Guy's action however strongly he feels about them - he is clearly not sufficiently neutral to do so dispassionately. WjBscribe 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the Viridae-Guy beef is as well known on Wikipedia as Tupac and Biggie (though my rap knowledge is wanting). Neither should be reversing each others actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be productive if both were to agree to not revert or otherwise edit each others contributions - certainly not undo eithers sysop actions. I would point out, to be impartial, that the disrespect between the two parties appears mutual (I am certainly aware of it) and that it isn't only the one who instigates derogatory comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Viridae was clearly in the right as far as reversing the original deletions goes (since it was self-evidently inappropriate to cite CSD G6, a criterion which relates only to non-controversial housekeeping, in making deletions which were likely to be controversial). However, I do agree that, given that he and JzG clearly have an ongoing feud, it might have been better if he had sought a second opinion from another administrator before undeleting, or taken it to DRV as per normal procedure; there was no urgent need to undelete straight away. But the pages are now at MfD - which, IMO, is the correct forum for resolving this - so I think we should leave it be, and close this thread. No harm done overall. Walton^One 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that I only undeleted them after discussion on the subject in which Guy had refused to overturn his own deletions and only undeleted those pages for which the original author/subpages owner had requested undeletion. I didn't go through and undelete all of those to which the speedy had been misapplied. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No other admin seems prepared to point out Guy's questionable actions. -- Naerii 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing them out would be different then undoing them without discussion. John Reaves 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy doesn't really do discussion, though. It is true that he does sometimes listen, but generally only to those people whose point of view he has sympathy with (and vice versa) while anyone else is fair game for his pretty individual interpretations of not quite in violation of WP:CIVIL responses. Discussing Guys actions with anybody else just brings out the "valuable contributor with refreshing bluntness" vs. "rude prat who uses the tools inappropriately" cycle (jerk) responses. Generally, it is best that sysops do what they are supposed to - act in what is believed to be the best interest of the encyclopedia. Afterward we can discuss the whys and wherefores. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But as it turns out I've had quite a productive and civil dialogue with Jaakobou. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I am pleased to have been proven wrong. I hope I continue to be shown up as being mistaken; it's good for the encyclopedia, and something that I have been used to (on occasion) over the years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you initially flatly refused to undelete, and despite saying you would provide the info by email at a later stage you didn't offer that upfront, meaning the editor was unaware of that option. Viridae^Talk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voicing in as Jaakobou's mentor, I'd like to respectfully request a strikethrough of the pages from Jaakobou's userspace from this discussion. The recent thread about those deletions was a chain of maybe-not-the-best-decisions by several people that got resolved pretty quickly once they began communicating. Wikipedians have little miscommunications all the time; as long as everyone is reasonable that's not a big deal. So let's pass over this bit instead of letting it plague us. Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Jaakobou agrees with me or not on this; it's a major holiday for him and the middle of the night in his part of the world. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing to clarify: Jaakobou was not singled out for any sanction by the arbcom; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute articles are under general parole. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has made 3 request for unblock with not really a reason why they should be unblocked. 1st unblock request was already declined with a promotional username.--I am sooooo cool! 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to have a look at User talk:NRen2k5 to see if I have any of the following harassment, personall attacks, threats, and other psychotic babbling as what has been claimed here. I feel I have been Civil and have kept inline with good faith. I just need help and advice. -- Bidgee (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, he's been blocked for 48 hours. You must understand that being blocked is very frustrating, and that's what made him say that. He'll be back in two days, and by then he'll have cooled down, so stop trying to make it even worse, as far as I can tell you just want to keep dragging this on untill some more lasting restriction is placed on NRen2k5, forget about it.--Phoenix-wiki 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check this out. The articles I tagged for notability which unbeknown to me where related to the user(or the user choose to take an interest in) are Klaatu barada nikto, Religious Reform in Antebellum America, My Wife and Kids, Cadillac V8 engine and Volkswagen advertising history. It seems to have blown over now, but I thought it useful to raise notification of the situation. SunCreator (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goody, a content dispute about a content dispute... From a quick review the tags were incorrect, and in one case at least replaced the appropriate tag. However, this is not a sysop matter and you should take it up with Viriditas (who appears to be correct, and from whom you may be advised why). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read up on WP:NOTE, as it seems you have a misapprehension of the guideline. It boggled my mind that you would tag any of those with notability templates, especially an article about an engine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTE. "Notability requires objective evidence." WP:NOBJ. "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: ... Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag." SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but please be aware of WP:COMMON. Articles on a specific V8 engine or a four year running television show do not need to be tagged as though they exhibit questionable notability. As the excerpt you quoted says, it would have been better to look for sources anyway. Would you place a notability tag on a stub of a town in Italy if it didn't have any citations?? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of a number of places that have gone to Afd for WP:HOAX like Albania, Colorado Afd, today and Wimbledon, New Zealand, yesterday and the ease of which places names can be located on google maps, verifiability is the issue so tagging would seem quite sensible, else it could be tomorrows Afd. SunCreator (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've bolded an important part of the bit you quoted - "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,". Dan Beale-Cocks 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Remember, sometimes it's better to follow the spirit of a guideline instead of the the letter. I understand that your tagging was in good faith. However, be wary of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes it's better to follow the spirit of a guideline instead of the the letter. Maybe it's just me, but that's the first time I've seen that bit of common sense stated so explicity. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swav swan (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked for a stream of edits with attacking edit summaries, but the summaries are all still there in his contribution record. There must be some way that can be obliterated? JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask for oversight. Rudget 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring case treated above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_edit_summaries.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight requested. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and offensive edit summaries have been removed. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[124],[125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that STBotI may be malfunctioning. I noticed that in the past few minutes the bot, run by ST47, is tagging free images from Commons with {{di-no fair use rationale}}. Examples: [131], [132], Image:1JPY.JPG, Image:1 2 3 Willow Road Hampstead London 20050924.JPG. Images that have valid rationales are also being tagged with {{di-no fair use rationale}} [133]. I left a message on the bot's talk page, but ST47 appears to be out. Could an admin take a look and possibly pause the bot's operations until ST47 returns? Bláthnaid 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, ST47 is back. He replied on his talk page just after I posted this. Bláthnaid 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia user is revealing personal information about me, including my home address, in that user's edit summaries. Is there any way to stop this and delete these records? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Is there a bureaucratic tool that can deal with this, or should an OTRS ticket be filed? —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:Oversight. — Coren ^(talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. Another admin already deleted the offending edits and filed the oversight report while I was looking it up. I knew it could be done; I just couldn't remember where. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous report was removed by bot after 24 hours, without any admin comment, and the false personal identity linkage is still not removed from archives. User:Babakexorramdin attempts to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different physical person.

On April 16th, after my edit of Azerbaijani people, User:Ali doostzadeh left the following edit comment:

• Good source. Just fixing the technicality based on the source Atabek provided and adding a little more detail

Following his edit, and referring to the same source, User:Babakexorramdin leaves this edit comment:

• good source by Javid, I agree

Prior such attempts to link me to the SAME person were made by User:Artaxiad - [134], for which he was banned - [135]. User:Kirill Lokshin subsequently deleted from archives all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned for a year now and links are removed from archives for the same period.

In addition, I am also a subject of harassment by User:VartanM - [136] by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - [137]. Note that prior such harassment against User:Ehud Lesar resulted in ArbCom case, where "identity revelations" were proven false, but neither of the perpetrators were punished. Enjoying a complete lenience towards his conduct, VartanM now made another statement on archived ANI report [138]:

• Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.

I am not sure what entity VartanM represents to turn Wikipedia into personal witch hunt, and mislead others link User:Babakexorramdin to make false personal associations, but please, take a note of WP:HARASSMENT below:

• • WP:HARASSMENT says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself."

I never linked myself to named identity. I have additional evidence I can provide by email. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This just came in my e-mail. The blocked spammer was User:Pixaerial (also a role account, you will note). Emphasis added

I'm very concerned at the negative attention my block is receiving on Wikipedia, as it is still appearing as a spam report under google searches.

It is clearly self-evident, as a government-sponsored organisation, that we are not spammers and were merely raising awareness of this project, which has been part paid for through public taxation. The intention is to get people using and enjoying the site, not to make money. All articles we chose to place our link within were places covered by our project.

I accept the need for rules, but I think there is need for more caution before deciding an event that happens more than once is automatically 'spam'. Now, I have completely dismissed Wikipedia as anything other than a body of information governed by largely unaccountable 'editors' who seem to have an over-representation in the US. There is also a question of the negative, possibly libellous attention our organisation is receiving, and we may well need to appoint a lawyer to address this issue unless some form of reasonable action can be reached.

I would be grateful for your response.

John Rowlands

Project Director, Pixaerial.co.uk

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's not an non-profit, it's a commercial organisation which has been contracted to take some photos by various public bodies (also goes under the name Fotonix Photography). I see nothing of concern. The legal threat is without merit and would be dismissed as such. if they send another email, pass it over to the foundation. --87.112.39.93 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pixaerial.co.uk. See the prior ANI posting about this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive139#forwarding you a message from a self claimed .22government associate.22 i just received. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send them details for contacting the office, for sending lawyer stuff to. This does raise another problem - people with bad usernames get very short templates that don't do much to explain WP policies. If you want you could point them to relevant policies, and explain why role accounts aren't allowed, and why COI is bad, and why WP isn't somewhere for people to dump links to their companies. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...an over-representation in the US"? Would that be the US where the servers are located, from where the founder lives and works, in which the administration offices reside, and in which over half the English speaking peoples of the world live? Strange that... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen a number of these as well, and I have proposed that we retitle them as "link issue" reports or some such because of it. A lot of these are not actually spamming in the sense of links added by the company, they may be victims of a joe job or obsessive fan. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion towards renaming either the WP:WPSPAM project, or at least renaming the associated bot-generated reports seemed to have some support; but the discussion seems to have stalled out with no changes successfully made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This again, I emailed the Welsh Assembly Government about this a week ago. Never got a reply. Just for Kicks I will do it again. Rgoodermote  01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I just do not believe this is a government run site. Well we should find out if they bother to read their email. Rgoodermote  01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate I generate a huge amount of interest on Wikipedia, comments and amateurish psychoanalysis of me by FT2 are now, in my view manically dangerous and are amounting to personal attack. I have posted this on his page "I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am beginning to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts. Please stop." While I appreciate he is the Arbcom's appointed spokesman such introspection about me, by an unqualified layman which is then published to the internet is damaging not only to me, but to the project. I make no comment on FT2's mental state, but I want an admin or Arb to ask him to desist in his obsessive behaviour towards me. There are 15? Arbs, his interest in me is now beyond a joke, and I am feeling threatened and unnerved by him, not to mention his comments which are preserved on the internet for posterity. I have as much right to feel unthreatened here as anyone else. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II, you are a great contributor to WP, but you must avoid taking troll bait, or whatever it is. Take a deep breath and let others investigate the matter, and block or take other action, if necessary. Please take care! Bearian (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is a voluntary project. We're all here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can see you're just pissed off at the arb ruling. I know nothing about you're history, but shit like this shouldn't be posted. This page shouldn't even exist for fucks sake...nor should arbcom...it's just people who want to make bad shit happen to people who have done stuff to them out of spite, that's why this page is here, to report crap like that, not to start it. Forget about it, you're just stirring up drama, go edit the mainspace.--Jaeger123 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Naerii and I support this comment! 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, that comment was very inappropriate. I realize you apologized in your edit summary, but the comments you made here were just plain uncivil. Please read WP:CIVIL if you haven't already. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tough one, this. FT2 is not good at soundbytes, I know what he's trying to achieve, but I am talking to him about this precise issue because I think he needs to do it in a way that will include rather than alienate Giano. Giano is a good litmus test for a lot of things to do with the community; like SPUI he is not easy to get along with, not slow to tell you his views on anything, and can be perceived by those not familiar with him as aggressive or domineering. Giano is, surely, Italian? Are we not aware that Italians have a reputation for being mercurial? I sincerely hope we are not trying to assert that only milquetoasts will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully. If someone is busy, and trying to work something through before the next edit conflict, then maybe they are brusque, and this can sound like aggression. And I can see why Giano is frustrated and feeling persecuted, and I can see that FT2 is trying really hard - and thinking at great length, being FT2 - about how to address a perceived problem without driving Giano away. I think we should see what Geogre's thoughts on this might yield, I believe he may be able to codify what a lot of people are thinking but having trouble articulating. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaeger- there is usually no need to swear to a great extent, however strong your feelings. Merkin's mum 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I behaved like that, I never have, you would all be rightly calling for me to be blocked for ever. I say my piece, unwelcome as it normally is, and I'm on to the next subject. This is get a stuck in rallying the "lets all hate Giano." organized and seemingly condoned campaign. In the last few days I have emailed 2 Arbs with my concerns - neither commented on them. So fine, I am hated in certain quarters, I have broad shoulders, I can cope with that. However, the Arbcom are encouraging this, no one is stopping him, thousands of words, longer than even my most boring FA, all on pure attack Giano are being written by this man. I am feeling personally alienated and personally threatened and attacked. He is obsessed with me, completely obsessed. If the Arbcom won't see that, I hope the community will, and encourage him to stop. Any other editor would have been blocked for such attacks and odd behaviour, am I so wicked and evil that the usual pritections of an editor can no longer be accorded to me - or is this part of a grander plan? Giano (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Guy in that Geogre's thoughts are very often worth hearing... However I have a fairly high confidence I already know what he'll say. Good suggestion nevertheless. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to place the indent here. Broadly agree. Some of FT2's rambling monologues look just like personal attacks. See my comment on FT2's talk page, and one on Giano's page. I can see how it would come across as threatening. The Rationalist (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Oh yes and if Guy can say Italian can I say North Korean. Some of this stuff is just too creepy. The Rationalist (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see here is classic example [139] Brown haired girl - never forgiven me for opposing her in the Troubles arbcom, they encourage these people, all they want to see is me gone. Soon they be very lucky. FT2, he is obsessed with me. he neds to stop. Giano (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some people bear grudges. Fuck 'em. Unwatch their talk pages, and ask them to unwatch yours. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I unwatch her a long time ago, I think she likes being on my page. Giano (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YAWN! This whole drama between Giano, FT2 & Arbcom is just about as exciting as User GoodDay himself. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said? AndyJones (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. In the future, WP:UAA and WP:AIV are better places for this. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Abecedare is not allowing anybody to contribute to article Bhavishya Purana and claiming everybody as banned socks. Note, This user is perhaps an sock puppet of an Admin and locks the pages without notice. Could an admin inform this user to allow people to contribute to article Bhavishya Purana. User seems to be watching that article and reverts any edits made. Further the claims on the article are way off and need to be put in place. --MianJi (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Major sockpuppetry outbreak over there, as detailed here [140]. Redrocket (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with article Bhavishya Purana ? Recently some users user:Aryasamaj and User:Khansye couldnt contribute because of this user Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how this user:Redrocket claims all users as sock puppets of User:DWhiskaZ when this user Redrocket is not even mentioned on DWhiskaZ page or talk contribution nothing. Note - Seems to be another sockpuppet of User Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Funny?" Why, I think it's hilarious. You caught me. I've been lurking for an entire year, making more than 5000 edits and just waiting for the day when I could chime in on this argument. Congratulations on seeing through the black shroud of my elaborate deception, Johnny Sock.

To get back to the subject, the article is rife with confirmed sockpuppetry pushing a particular POV. Sockpuppet edits from a banned user are reverted on sight, as is policy. Nothing more to see here. Redrocket (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I think I'm hearing some quacking here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have that many confirmed sockpuppets attacking an article as a team, it casts suspicion on any new editors who suddenly create IDs and become experts on a specific subject. Both of those editors (and you) have only been on wikipedia for about sixteen hours, it seems, and all of you started in with the same edits to the same article. It seems a mite fishy, at least from the outside. Redrocket (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sock puppet goin on about nobody can contribute to articles. this section is for admins to deal with User Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering about the context: This is not a content dispute; it's kookery. The Bhavishya Purana ("Bhavishya" means "future") is a traditional text, last updated some time in the 19th century, with the charming affectation of having its contents cast in the future tense. For some reason, an entire drawer of socks are taking a close interest in the BP's "prediction" of Muhammad. The sock-puppetry is best understood in the light of this discussion. rudra (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Rudrasharman is another sock puppet or team of User:Abecedare. The concern is on contributing to Bhavishya Purana and fix up the article. Article needs to be in shape just like any other article on Wiki. --MianJi (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the confirmed sockpuppetry and the fringe theory noticeboard pages linked above, the article appears to be in good shape. I would suggest if you have changes to make, you discuss them on the talk page and try and gain consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin talk to this User:Abecedare and notify user on edits. --MianJi (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try and do as I suggested above, and make your case on the talk page. That's really a better solution for you, I promise. Redrocket (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• quack, quack

1. MianJi (talk · contribs)
2. Padma10 (talk · contribs)
3. Hindustan10 (talk · contribs)
4. Mian Kumaran (talk · contribs)
5. MianWala (talk · contribs)
6. Padma 101 (talk · contribs)
7. Padma4Life (talk · contribs)
8. Padma1000 (talk · contribs)
9. Pandit101 (talk · contribs)
10. Persian194 (talk · contribs)
11. Kannan94 (talk · contribs)
12. Danger10 (talk · contribs)
13. Ajmad (talk · contribs)
14. NaSuraLK (talk · contribs)
15. MalverNParkS (talk · contribs)
16. Ctrains (talk · contribs)
17. Amod10 (talk · contribs)
18. AmodhaTani99 (talk · contribs)
19. Geodeo (talk · contribs)
20. Barryboy1987 (talk · contribs)
21. PureHindi (talk · contribs)
22. MadJatt13333 (talk · contribs)
23. Kapanad (talk · contribs)
24. Pundit194 (talk · contribs)
25. Kumarans194 (talk · contribs)
26. Kannan87 (talk · contribs)
27. Hindustan13749 (talk · contribs)
28. Sarabjeet87 (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed Thatcher 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thatcher. I was not even informed of this thread, but am glad to see sanity prevail. Can some admin., please block and tag these accounts ? The sockpupeteer in DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs) or his sockmaster Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrains is not an account...—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I thought I copied it straight from the checkuser output. It is CTrains (talk · contribs). Thatcher 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been making numerous unexplained edits, and seems especially keen on changing arena infoboxes to stadium infoboxes [141]. User has been asked for explanation without reply, warned and final warned, but there has still been no response. I'm near the 3RR on Stansbury Hall (West Virginia University), so I can't do anything more to fix that article if and when he comes back. Because of the final warning, I reported user to AIV, and I was directed here. DarkAudit (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to edit war, and has removed warnings from their talk page. From this point, the arena/stadium edits without explanation will be considered vandalism. I only warned him, and he followed up by blanking the page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that User:Nwwaew/BJAODN be deleted. This was resurrected temporarily to help out with another Wiki, but we no longer need the page. I'd tag it for speedy deletion, but it's fully protected to prevent editing. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please investigate editor and administrator "bullying" tactics. Rather then discussion, these editors/administrators resort to non consensus revisions, edits and warnings to good faith edits in order to quash any dissension. See Above mentioned User talk for examples. Thanks. Zenasprime (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give some detail into the incident. User:Snottythetroll gave warnings to User:Orangemike‎[142], for something which Mike never did. The user was also a potential violator of 3RR, for which he was given a notice by me but he replied back by warning me not to bite new editors. Then after the user got blocked for disruptive editing, he claimed that

"...this(block) was a personal request by the relevant parties to an administrator favorable to them who then quashed a "troublesome" user for them. Wikipedia, at least from this editor's point of view, seems to be governed, not by mutually agreed upon policy, but by gangs of internet thugs..."

There User:Zenasprime joined him and left this comment at his talk page,

"Be constructive instead of destructive. Just because the users in question have no ethical values in relation to be a constructive member of wiki doesn't mean you should be so also."

and also reverted edits here back to edits of above user, for which he was given a warning by me. After which he accused me and reported the matter here. --SMS ^Talk 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin to which the user is referring is User:Swatjester and the user to which he is referring is myself. SMS ^Talk 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the warnings for my comments were in regards to Wikipedia:Civil which I dispute as being unwarranted. Also, my edits were done in Wikipedia:Goodfaith, which in my belief should not warrant accusation of Wikipedia:vandalism. Such tactics are not in good faith and seek only to punish dissenting points of view, a wholly destructive practice. Zenasprime (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another legal threat has been issued against editors (including myself) and Wikipedia on the Talk:Giovanni di Stefano page, this time by a registered account User:Pnazionale. I've sent an e-mail with the link to the diff to Mike Godwin. Avruch ^T 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, here is my advice for any editor tempted to take up cudgels against Mr. di Stefano: Run away, very fast, and keep running. He is resourceful, intelligent, rich and a lawyer. This is, in case it was not blindingly obvious, a fearsome combination. Every single edit should e backed by attribution and if possible personally sanctioned by His Holiness the Pope. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that account for legal threats at any rate. John Reaves 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've just noticed I was included on that list...John Reaves 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case (I have looked at it) I endorse this block. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been afd'd, I hope it is successful and agree with Guy (well other than re Ratzinger). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily for me and the rest of us, there is a pretty high bar to proving a case of defamation in the US, proving it in Italy will have absolutely no effect on me, I have a couple of friends in the ACLU, and I at least haven't made any edits to the page that added unattributed information ;-) Thanks for taking care of the block, John. Avruch ^T 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note there is an AfD running for this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano. I think the closing admin should consult the WMF before any action is taken. KnightLago (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well I already said there has been an afd two comments up, sighs. While I ma glad to hear, Avruch, that you feel immune to prosecution I hope that won't allow you to ignore the plight of those less fortunate than yourself. Are you certain that wikipedia is not subject to prosecution. And if not why are you so blase about the plight of others and of the organisation for which we work that you, perhaps, have a role in having created merely, merely because you personally are immune from prosecution in Italy. Your argument would allow any penniless teenage to defame who they wanted because they personally were immune from losing money because they have not made any. For e this argument is not being a good worker for wikipedia, its the "I'm alright, Jack xxxx everyonme else and the organization for which we work" argument. Thanks,

Zee effect of Barrett v. Rosenthal is effectively that if you are in the US and a statement is made by a penniless teenager online there isn't much you can do about it.Geni 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your comment. I think at this point everyone is overreacting. We should not be taking rash steps without guidance from the foundation. Has Mike Godwin even seen the threat, the AfD? Like I said above, the closing admin needs to consult the foundation before taking any action. KnightLago (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block I have just placed; The modus operandi of the above editor is to add non-existent services from airlines to airports. I seem to remember that this was a trademark of another vandal, and wonder if someone familiar with that character could check over the contributions and confirm that this is either a sock or a clone. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain that User:S marky 90 originated as 87.30.72.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). From his picture uploads (often without proper copyright tags) it looks like he lives in Venice and editors/administrators have had difficulty communicating with him in English, and he might have difficulty understanding the rules, MoS and WikiProject guidelines. The IP added Venice as a destinations to many airports around the world (thus experiencing mass reverts, warnings and blocks) but as a registered user he had focused on Venice Airport (where there probably aren't enough knowledgeable editors monitoring the article or verifying its contents).

Sock. Special:Contributions/Blindmansbuff. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

206.148.20.9 (talk · contribs), an anonymous IP claiming to be Contextflexed, threatened to "out" the real identity of Irishguy. [143] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [144] in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Carl.bunderson voted to not include Afghani and Afghanistani in the info-box in his own poll that he designed to push poll, shows his true intentions. He crosses out other polls that he does not like the results of, he then makes his own poll in a way to push poll, he then votes his own choice. He also claims to keep up the discussions while reverting but he took out all support for Afghanistani. In addition, he has broken 3RR like 20 times now and also insults other users by calling them "blind" "idiot" etc... and he throws around accusations. I think an admin should get involved in this case. 02:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)