Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522

I am certain that Partisan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and Catherine2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) is the newest reincarnation of Bloomfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (35 identified socks since at least 2005). See this edit where Partisan1 in essence reverted the article to October 2006 version by his other sock AHAPXICT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). All older socks are too stale for a checkuser. This user has a very long history of (at best) questionable edits: he creates what seems as legit content, but upon closer investigation becomes clear that it's total OR & POV. It literally takes years to clean up after him. See my ANI report in 2007 His latest hobby is copy & pasting bits & pieces of WWII articles about the Baltic states.

Opinions what to do? Renata (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the {{user5|Username}} template helps provide us much easier access to analysis links/tools - if you're making a complex report here, I recommend its use.

I'm looking into the histories now. Are you aware of archived sockpuppet / checkuser investigations on this set of socks?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed to the user template. The main checkuser is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield. There has been additions to it in Dec. Here's another: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kidsunited. And for a desert: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnu Trubetsky. Renata (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the report... I agree with the behavioral evidence on these two. I have indefinitely blocked both of them on that basis. Also see below... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this thread. Sorry for being late, but the indefinite block is a very serious matter and has to be supported by foolproof evidence, which is NOT there. I looked carefully at all the links provided and wonder why there was no request for check user filed in light of such serious accusations of sockpuppetry. User:Renata3, who is Lithuanian, is also User:Partisan1’s content opponent over a series of controversial articles written by Partisan1 about Lithuania including Kaunas massacre of October 29, 1941 and Lithuanian partisans (1941) , which I edited also by adding Google book references to it. In my opinion the article was legit, but was replaced with a disambig and vanished without as much as a deletion request (an insidious way of getting rid of controversial content). Renata claims in her opening statement (above) that Partisan1 is a sock of AHAPXICT, but please consider that there’s no proof of that other than her own earlier suspicion dating back to February 2007. None of the links to earlier incidents are about Partisan1, so where is the fail-safe connection to Bloomfied? I don’t see it. In any case, the decision to block this account indefinitely was made entirely on smoke and mirrors. That’s not good enough. --Poeticbent talk 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more of Bloomfield's socks who I believe have falsely been accused of being someone else's socks: Poetcourt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Belarus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Bloomfield

Washingblack, a new user here at Wikipedia, has very recently begun creating obvious hoaxes. In addition to being unsourced, there is not a single piece of evidence. I suggest that the community take the appropriate action through deleting the entire list of articles and proceeding to either give a final warning or block directly. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I chose option #2. DS (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful when nuking, however. His article Chapple Norton has had a source added, [7]. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to dont bite the newbies. Have we thrown that out the window? SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Norton fought in the War of 1812 but was born in 1731? That's what I'd call a spry senior citizen. arimareiji (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. While a bunch of these are hoaxes, a few are actually real. I'm individually searching the authentic ones now...Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a hoax? The few I checked all looked sensible. SunCreator (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. One of them, Scottish_Captain_Donald_McDonald has been already deleted. Would you like more? Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And another. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

one we could actually look at would be helpful. Artw (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoah... Articles about people who took part in the American War of Independence, where, on checking sources, seem to veer off into fantasy. Rings a bell, that does. There were a couple of those a few weeks ago from a different user. Going through my contributions of two weeks ago, but style and content is very familiar. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, it's very familiar. Mfield (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Which resulted in me posting this ANI :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, Adelhoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is who I was looking for. The problem a couple of us had there was that while the articles were built on existing redlinks, the details didn't stand up to any scrutiny. There were a couple of members of the British artistocracy mentioned, and a quick look through the various copious sources available indicated that the details of the lives, even birth and death dates were fabricated. And all the articles created related to participants in the Ameerican War of Independence, on both sides. I notice at least one of this batch of articles has a reference to the Battle of Flamborough Head, which was something that popped up in one of Adelhoch's articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the above-referenced article on Chapple Norton, some facts matched the source and some appeared to have been created from whole cloth. arimareiji (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's about the size of it. I came across Adelhoch while I was patrolling at New Pages when I was looking at the Henry Mowat article. I originally thought all the article needed was a few sources and an unref tag , as Mowat did exist and was involved in the Burning of Falmouth. I was looking for a few quick sources just to send the article on its way, and noticed that the article asserted that Mowat was later killed at the Battle of Flamborough Head, and that's when Houston was called, as none of the sources there mentioned anything about him, which was a bit unlikely. Really, everything will have to be checked thoroughly in every article created this case. (Yes, obviously by that statement I mean "more so than normal" :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this - my initial impression is that he's being quite sly about this, he's picking people who *could* have been involved in such battles at that time and in those places. However when you dig into the sources, it certainly appears that the battles and events are fabrications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is almost certainly Adelhoch (talk · contribs) back again. He did James Campbell, 5th Earl of Loudoun - a real person, with all sorts of picturesque detail, and when checked every single detail - dates of birth and death and marriage, father's name, wife's name - was wrong. He's doing deliberate fiction, and should be blocked a.s.a.p. It's bed-time here, but I'll help clear up in morning. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the incredible effort this person put into these hoaxes, I suggest we do a checkuser. I'm guessing this is one of those "prove that Wikipedia is unreliable" editors. I doubt this is their first time, or that blocking would stop them. Dcoetzee 23:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't for fishing. Unless there is some evidence of a link between this and another account checkuser would be inappropriate. ∗ \ / (⁂) 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an obvious link between Adelhoch and Washingblack. And, frankly, CU should be used for fishing. Yeah yeah, I know. Never happen. But we'd have FAR fewer problems. //roux   23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I actually passed several of those articles as "patrolled" when doing some new page patrolling, and worked to do some cleanup (spacing and spelling type issues), categorization, and adding relevant wikiprojects. What a waste of time, and that was probably far less than that spent by many of you in cleaning up after this guy's mess. :( Aleta ^Sing 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you about you wasting your time :). Categorization and adding relevant WPs will at least send the article in the right direction and people specializing in the relevant area would soon spot the fraud. All of these articles were based in some sort of fact and at least one or two facts at the start of each article would check out. I have seen a lot of articles that were in a lot worse condition that these ones, but were the basis of useful articles. Doing a bit of gnoming on articles that aren't in the best of condition when they arrive is a heck of a more useful time spent than tagging for speedy deletion anything that arrives at New Pages which isn't a perfectly formed Featured Article candidate. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you make some good points, and I appreciate hearing them. Aleta ^Sing 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have optimistically filed an RFCU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adelhoch. We'll see what transpires, I guess. Looie496 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request denied by OhanaUnited. See reasoning above. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for posting after closure: I just wanted to say thanks to all who have dealt with this. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am up to 3RR (and believe I should revert indefinitely) what looks like a very significant BLP violation at Bill Ayers - a poorly founded accusation of murder, made for political purposes. This is a placeholder. I will comment in more detail in a bit, once I have found the extent of the problem. If any admin is tempted to block me, please just warn me instead and I will stop. However, BLP violations should not be allowed to stand in the encyclopedia, particularly accusing well-known people of murder. This comes on the heels of the media hoax by the Web News Daily reporter on the same subject. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For convinience: Ism schism (talk · contribs) is inserting [10] this text repeatedly. It has references, though I haven't checked out how reliable they are.--Patton^t/c 20:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into it and those three supporting references appear reliable. Don't know about the format of the info and having it in its own section though.--Patton^t/c 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Weatherman (organization) BLP issues?.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Page is now protected for 24hrs to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My battery just died and I have to leave for a few hours to attend to other matters but I'll see if we can figure out the best forum for discussing this proposed content addition, which as I said I think is a pretty grave BLP vio. There are 42 current google news sources on this latest thing (including unreliable ones), and this one at least[11] suggests that it is a politically motivated statement rather than a legitimate accusation. At the very least we should frame it correctly. However, when political partisans accuse people of murder there is a very high threshold regarding whether the information should be repeated at all. We've dealt with this very issue a few times before, in this specific article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the wise and fast administrative action for diffusing / calming with the least fuss. This gives me hope that not everything here creates drama! Given that the discussion is over at BLP/N now, maybe we should mark this resolved as a "pages protected - discussion moved elsewhere". Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There's one article you missed, which the editor in question has continued to revert war on: San Francisco Police Officers Association‎. Could you please edit protect that one as well? Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a notable event that has been the subject of numerous reliable sources. Wikidemon has yet to show where there is any BLP violation in including this event in related articles. For more information, please see;

San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing

The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight

Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing

WorldNetDaily - [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91546 Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?]

Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case

FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited

KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing

The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical

Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ism Schism is not dealing a full deck here. Edit warring that into five articles at last count is just just plain tendentious. The editor recently edit warred it back into an unprotected article, after three other articles were protected due to the edit warring, and left me a 3rr template (and a cut-and-paste of the above list of sources) in the process. This whole thing is another tentacle of the fringe stuff that just caused so much trouble on the Barack Obama page, with the same off-wiki cast of characters. Wikidemon (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These are members of a police union, in conjunction with a partisan organization called "America's Survival Inc."speaking out about their personal opinion of the matter, rather than the result of an official law enforcement investigation. If you actually read some of the links above (apart from WND and FrontPageMag, which do not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria), no one has ever been charged in the death of Sgt. Young. The articles also state that there is no evidence to connect Ayers, or anyone, to any of this.

This isn't an issue of reliable sourcing at all. It is an issue of whether or not the personal opinions of private citizens in regards to Ayers being responsible for a murder are fit to be included in the Wikipedia. IMO, any sane and sensible reading of WP:BLP policy would find that it is wholly unfit for inclusion. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hr on March 11 for edit-warring at Rigveda. Following block expiration the edit warring has resumed -- the editor continues to revert the same material into the article against a consensus of at least five other editors. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week - pretty clear resumption of the problems that resulted in the first block. Black Kite 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 See section above, as noted below.

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user was unblocked on the promise to stay away from Obama-related stuff. It did not take long for him to break his pledge, as he posted a bad-faith nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JustPhil/Userboxes/Obama against a user who has a little userbox that's pro-Obama. Axmann8 clearly cannot keep his word. Can something be done about this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

please see my comments about that deletion in the section further up from a few minutes ago. Mfield (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected Barack Obama as things seemed to have calmed down. I ask that everyone keep an eye on it for the next few days to prevent further trouble. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but please don't refer to the POTUS as an "it" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the secret service spends quite enough time keeping an eye on him (Obama), but I expect they leave the keeping our eyes on it (the Obama article) to us.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of John McCain's infamous "that one" gaff. :-P Dcoetzee 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Keep an eye on the Obama article? Ok, I'll add it to my watch list. Maybe you should also advise the BLP board so we can make sure we have enough eyes watching it.(jokeing) Tom 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone else can watch it this weekend. I dealt with enough of the killer mushrooms last weekend. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me your're not serious, the president article is the most vandalized page on all Wikipedia! The Cool Kat (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What you call vandalism, some of the rest of us call properly cited, verifiable, and notable material.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note -- you didn't unprotect, you changed from full protection to semi protection. Different kettle of fish.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This usuary have a point of view that is different of the one I've been working for months. He simply told me he went to erase revert all my articles he didn't like, maybe because he has a political orientation like he says in his userspace, and don't understand that in wikipedia can be other points of view than his categorizedand don't respected the rule of trying a consensuos. He "advertised" to me and undid again my work. I would like this actitud will finish, because I spend a lot of time creating articles and improving them everyday and this user comes twice a month for destroying. Thank you--Auslli (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs? Or at least what articles you are talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the auto edit summaries in a large portion of Rastrojo's contrib history is some indication, a lot of reverting of one editor over a range of articles (although the subjects appear to be often related). I will have a look at some examples, and see what is being reverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true, I do, he revert. There is no dialogue, he just threat me User_talk:Auslli.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this appears to be a content dispute - Auslli adds the category Kingdom of Leon to articles, and Rastrojo removes them (with terse messages to Auslli giving notice). I don't believe this is an admin related matter, as the obvious path is to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little more general than that. The dispute is whether places and institutes in the area that what was once the historic Kingdom of Leon should go in categories saying so--involving both places & things which were present in the area of that Kingdom at some time during the period when it existed, and those which did not come into being until later. I have no person opinion. There needs to be a centralized place to resolve this, and I suggest either the ethnic conflicts noticeboard or the talk page for the Kingdom. DGG (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the porposals that signify dialoghe where everyone can show their opinions. I'm against politics of threating usuaries if tehey don't agree with political opinions like Rastrojo ones.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I consider that Auslli is violating the NPOV. He's adding the category Kingdom of León to all the articles related to the provinces of Salamanca, Zamora and León. Some examples: Baloncesto León (Basketball Club of León), Roman Catholic Diocese of Astorga, List of municipalities of Salamanca and a lot of examples. Then, he has added the leonese names to some articles (León airport with "Llión" and curiously, he does the opposite thing with articles about Asturias and Asturian names: Luarca, deletion of the Asturian name) and he has created some categories like Category:Airports in Llión (deleted) with a bad name and no sense, because there is one only airport in the province of León and the articles can be added to Category:Airports in Castile and León. Another example can be Category:Political parties in León, that can be included in the category about Castile and León, but the user says that there're parties with activities only in León... so what? UPL has activity in Zamora and Salamanca, so the correct category is Castile and León, or should we categorize those articles with the province and not the autonomous community? I don't want an edition war, but I consider that Auslli is categorizing articles with political interests (Leonesism: es:Leonesismo) and the NPOV is being violated. Best regards, Rastrojo (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of obtaining a consensus; do articles that may have an affiliation with a historical kingdom that is now incorporated into a sovereign entity have a category in respect of the historical political entity (much the same argument could be made of the historical kingdoms that made up England, which is now part of the United Kingdom - noting that England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland (and Cornwall...) a still categories within the larger - might be so categorised) or not. It is not a matter of reverting, it is a matter of finding what practice and consensus and policy seem to determine. NPOV is not one middle ground viewpoint, but a distillation of various viewpoints that are noted within the context of the subject. Start an RfC, go to mediation, ask for a third opinion but please, do not edit war, do not try to get each other banned, do not seek to divide opinion but resolve the matter through discussion, compromise, and polite debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well LessHeard vanU, I think that you've expressed the sensible point of view of the trouble: what Auslli is doing is like if I put the category Category:Catalan Countries in all the articles related to this territory, or in historic terms Category:Crown of Aragon. What is the reason for categorise the articles with "Kingdom of León"? Simple: political interests. Best regards Rastrojo (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Catalan Countries are a political purpose. The Kingdom of León is a territorial and historical fact, like England, Scotland or Britanny.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rastrojo has undid some articles only because he has not the same point of view I have. He didn't respect the Wikipedia politic of good practises. There is nothing incorrect in what I did is reasonable, and could be a valid point of view. There are arguments that support this fact. But what I want to resalt is the way of undiding my work is no correct, it is absolutely unpolite and there are places for arguing and he didn't do it. He just imposed his points of view, and that's opposite of wikipedia rueles. Here we are not talking about if the content is reasonable or not, and we are seeing there are different points of view, we're talking about Rastrojo simply undid articles becasue he didn't agree. A lot of articles. It can be said that the only contributions he did in wikipedia in the last months were to undid the articles whose he didn't agree politically. I have more or less created almost 70, I have more than 1,000 edited articles and undid less than 20. He has created non article and undid more than 30. That's a fact. I suggest a bit of respect for the work I've developed, and I can understand that a category I did could be debatable, and I have tones of arguments for suppoting my point of view, but the way he undid my work is absolutely unpolite and the threats he let in my usuary talk, I guess are not compatibles with Wikipedia.--Auslli (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

At We Don't Wanna Put In, there are users continually re-inserting WP:LINKVIO links into the article. [12] [13] [14] [15]. I left a warning on the talk page at Talk:We Don't Wanna Put In, advising people that these are linkvios, yet they have been re-inserted; first by an IP user and then by a user who has previously re-inserted the links twice. I have asked for lyricstranslations.com to be added to the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#lyricstranslations.com due to the re-insertion of the links by the IP user, but the re-insertion by an established user is just not on. I think I have made it quite clear why these links have been removed, and why they should not be re-inserted, and it's unacceptable that users continue to re-insert them, even after being advised why they have been removed. Admin presence is requested here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I have also alerted the latest registered user to reinsert the links on his talk page at User_talk:Hapsala#Admin_intervention_has_been_requested. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you try to have a discussion with any of these users on their own talk page? From what I can tell, you haven't. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he has: [16]. It seems, that User:Hapsala has now reinserted the WP:LINKVIO material for the fourth time, all the warnings given: [17] Offliner (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would be likwise helpful if you could provide any proof, or substantial indication, supporting your assumtion about copyright violation in this case. --Hapsala (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The "discussion" was a notice of this AN/I report, not an attempt to resolve the dispute before that. We should generally request that editors attempt to resolve disputes directly before coming here. This is not a claim that there were not such attempts before, but only that this was not shown here, nor is this any claim of the propriety or impropriety of the link insertion itself. --Abd (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your diff is the equivalent of standing in front of your neighbour's house and yelling "I'll sue you bastards!". It's definitely no attempt to discuss. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure the linked Youtube videos are copyright violations. The uploader seems to specialise on this type of video, and recently Youtube has been used by some copyright owners to promote their material, e.g. the Monty Pythons or Sesame Street. [18] [19]

I have not seen, here specific allegations of WP:LINKVIO (i.e., why? what specific problem?). Copyright law effectively prohibits knowingly linking to a copyright violation; there seems to be some difference of opinion on "assumption" of copyright violation as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (Is "proof" of compliance needed? What kind of proof is sufficient?) Clearly, however, we should not link to a site which, more than exceptionally, contains copyright violations, nor to any known copyvio page. Before proceeding with this, and especially with blacklisting, consensus should be found that it is violation, or that the violation is clear such that the legal situation applies. Until then,, this is an ordinary content dispute and should be resolved as such. Simply giving warnings, if they were no more specific than this, does not cut the mustard. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's only so far an ignorance defense can protect a site. When something is brought to our attention, good faith defense whenit comes to a lawsuit is to treat such claims as serious and to perform due diligence into investigating them. Just assuming that any claim of copyright violation must be wrong and insisting some iron clad proof -- especially in what appear to be bloody obvious cases -- is just the equivalent of sticking your finger in your ears and hoping it goes away, which is not a sound legal response to complaints. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the nominator's tireless lovefest at the page of Vladimir Putin, it's obvious that the real reason for this complaint is the belief that the lyrics are not lovely enough, and the LINKVIO alphabetsoup is merely a pretext. Dismiss with prejudice, as Wikipedia is not censored. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin is just one example of how Russavia and Offliner are working notably closely together... --Hapsala (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask WTF the Putin article has to do with it? Just because I dare protect the article against people who wish to make "grotesque" articles? Listen Digwuren, you are so far off base with your nonsense, that I see that a link to eurovision-georgia.ge has been provided on the article. As this is an official site, and content on it would be licenced, or permitted, I have no problem with this link. Your lack of assumption of good faith in this matter just makes you look drongoistic. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, this seems pretty straightforward:

• Lyrics sites, unless they are the official site of the band of the label are songs so old the are out of copyright (ancient folk ballads), are clear copyright violations. This has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Between being lyrics of an entire song instead of snippets and not having any sort of educational discussion etc., it's just a sraight forward infringement. The one being added is clearly a violation, and thus cannot be linked to.
• The video on YouTube is not necessarily a copyright violation, as the uploader maybe somehow has the rights, but it seems extrmely doubtful, and the assumption on YouTube links from the massive amount of copyright violations there should always be that it's a violation unless demonstrated otherwise. On top of that we don't normally link to YouTube. Both of these issues have been extensively discussed on the talk pages of the policies in question, and recently at that.
• The BBC news link, however, that I saw in one of the edits being complained about, is perfectly fine.

The alleged political motivations of the poster aren't important to determining whether his claims of infringement are correct. He may or may not be biased, but two of these three links quite spectacularly fail our very clear rules. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about translations. The actual lyrics aren't on the site, these are translations into English, and I don't know copyright law or policy on that point. I've advised the editor who was adding the links to avoid edit warring and also allegations of bias, they are irrelevant, in fact, content and content policy are what may control here. "Official band site" certainly establishes copyright legitimacy, but it does not follow that "other site" is then necessarily violating copyright, and the matter may be examined specifically, and should. It's clear, as well, that YouTube pages may be linked to under some conditions. Discussion is required, which is why AN/I is the wrong place to try to deal with this. AN/I is for administrator intervention, which should generally be avoided when it's a content dispute. On the other hand, alleged copyvio is indeed grounds to keep the link out unless consensus for inclusion can be found. That's what's missing here: adequate discussion and use of DR procedure. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment of the rest of this, but US law is pretty clear that a translation of a copyrighted work is a derivative work. Unless it's clear that the lyrics on that are authorized by the original copyright holder, we shouldn't link to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talk • contribs)

I would agree that the discussion doesn't belong here. Discussing these kinds of rules on article talk page is also usually a waste, as the people actively following a page are usually unfamiliar with our rules and laws. I recommend the people who are still confused check out WP:EL and raise any questions they have on that talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In spite of repeated warnings 1, and a block 2, Jersay continues to revert sourced and notable information from List of terrorist incidents, 2009. He's been given many warnings in the past week, yet User talk:Jersay continues to edit in the same manner. It is becoming literally impossible to add additions to the article when he reverts everything, revert 1, 2, 3. I included the IP because that user is editing the same articles Jersay frequents so I just assumed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is only the one edit since the block expired, so this is pretty much the same problem revisited since the last complaint. However, I would comment also that in the 250+ edits since the beginning of the year exactly zero are to any page outside of article space; the only way this editor is interacting is in infrequent edit summaries and their reverts/edits. If the earlier patterns of ignoring pleas for discussion and making edits against consensus continues then I would support an indef block for as long as they are unwilling to discuss concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He refuses to respond to discuss edits and rarely leaves edit summaries. Jersay removed a source believing it to be an act of "sectarian violence" rather than terrorism. The source explicitly refers to the act as terrorism. He continues to edit but under an IP rather than user a name: 1. I'm almost 100% certain it is him. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely him. He has removed this edit twice already: 1. Please do something about this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He continues to remove cited content: 1 without a summary or any explanation whatsoever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is the campaign image on User:Axmann8 acceptable? Besides the fact that there is no copyright statement attached to the image (the Palin campaign probably would not mind the image being put up wherever they can get it), is the use of a campaign image a violation of the no polemical statements provision of WP:USER? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than the copyright thing, I don't see anything too wrong with that. We have "this user is a democrat/republican/anarchist/whatever-the-hell" userboxes which more or less serve the same purpose. The image isn't attacking anyone or deliberately provoking them, so it can stay until it's deleted for the copyright thing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he still here? Huh. *checks* Oh, he only got a week this time. I've seen some other similar pages, doesn't really bother me either. (Besides, I have a strange suspicion that editor won't be around much longer anyhow.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with him, I dont take issue with it, Its a copyrighted image, so thats the only issue. As was said earlier, we can have userboxes that say "This user voted for hope and change, not country first." --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a stolid Democrat, and I don't see any problem with it. The sour-grapes item about Obama is gone, and that was polemic. Wishful thinking about a possible future candidate, in a positive way, is harmless enough. Besides, she's cute. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see the image was deleted, so it's a moot point. Good thing I downloaded it already. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User now appears to have stirred up further controversy by nominating another users obama userbox for deletion (incorrectly the first time). He first jumped into voting on a rash of AfDs, with very brief comments or misused terms and then did that one. I suspect his first wrong attempt was from not understanding Twinkle properly. Anyway, the above nom looks like a WP:POINT thing. I have left him a message[20] urging him to stay away from deletion noms, certainly in controversial areas, until he is fully familiar with policy. I think this is erring on the generous side, as nominating an Obama related item for deletion with his specific block history can only be seen as a bad faith act. Mfield (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb somewhat and guess what Axmann's argument is going to be on his own behalf. Henrik offered to unblock Axmann on the condition that he stay away from "Obama-related topics". [21] Axmann only promised to stay away from the Obama article specifically [22] and made no promise to keep away from Obama topics in general, and he is liable to argue that he has stuck to the letter of what he promised. [And my prediction was correct. See below.] In essence, he stomped on the good faith that Henrik showed him by unblocking him. Axmann has been blocked 3 times in 3 weeks for this kind of behavior. Can something be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is given his interest in political issues, attempts to force him to stay away from anything connected are going to be impossible or fruitless, at that point he may as well stay away entirely. As far as I see it right now he needs to stay away from the kind of disruptive editing as demonstrated by such actions as nominating things for deletion to make some kind of point. Those kinds of issues are very black and white whereas conditions on what he can edit are open to a degree of interpretation and bending. Continued violations of WP:POINT or disruptive editing on the other hand have clear sanctions and will eventually get him blocked indefinitely. If his next block is not indefinite then it needs to have explicit conditions, delivered as part of a consensus of his actions, that are not open to any reinterpretation. Mfield (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone pointed out on his talk page, there is plenty of room for positive contributions, if he wants to. He's so hung up on the negatives and the rumors that he can't get past it. What's happening with the Obama stuff, especially since the election, is similar to what was happening in the Palin article from when she got the VP nomination until the election - the article was besieged by all manner of attempts to post gossip, rumors, inuendos, and every negative thing they could pull out of thin air. If someone wants to really grow as an editor, they should try taking an article whose subject they disagree with, and fight off the POV-pushers and keep the article neutral. That takes some serious discipline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to gently steer him away from the sort of non-productive polemic editing he has engaged in, and I'm urging some patience here. Mind you, I'm not interested in giving infinite amounts of rope; another stunt like this deletion nomination and he'll be very close to exhausting the community's patience. At the same time, he is willing to engage in discussion and seems willing to listen, but still hasn't quite grokked the community standards. I still have some hopes of reform, but it would help if he didn't have the sort of attention he has attracted with many watching for the slightest mishap or borderline behavior.

On another note, The easy solution would of course be to ban every problematic editor, but we should be ready to recognize the need for a diverse set of editors, including those who take a bit longer to catch up to the community standards. henrik•talk 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it pleases, I'll stay away from Obama-related topics. Staying away from the Obama article was the only explicit stipulation. I will fully admit to have broken WP:POINT, but I very much take offense when people nominate my images on my userpage for deletion when 1. I had no idea this was even a discussion here until another user pointed it out and 2. It seems like anyone who doesn't support Obama is automatically outcast and thrown to the dogs. I see there is an Obama-supporting article with the blatantly anti-American statement "I voted for hope and change, not country first", however there was no such McCain-sided userbox created to negate that blatant disregard for NPOV. If my direction is to stay away from the political topics at all, for say... a month? I'd be willing to do that, but blocking me would only prove my point that Wikipedia is liberal-leaning. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that blocking you would prove that you are not working well in this collaborative project rather than proving any perceived biases. That being said, I do believe that some sort of topic ban is appropriate and one with terms that he can't wiggle out of. AniMate^talk 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 - admitting to the WP:POINT violation is a good sign, and your acceptance of the fact that you might have to stay away from whatever topics are stipulated for a while. I think if you immerse yourself into some other areas of wikipedia, some other non controversial topics that you are interested in, you will find that you will learn a lot about the way things work and the reasons why policies exist without the danger of getting into disputes that end up in going from bad to worse. This is a large and diverse community that has built up a lot of guidelines and policies over time and navigating and understanding them takes some time. You just have to give it the necessary time and other people the necessary respect in the mean time. Mfield (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

His userpage as now stands is fine. As has been said in many of these types of discussions, until Userpages are strictly limited to On-Wiki subjects like articles created, GA/FA lists and personal 'toolboxes' of links, then simple pro-candidate, non-advocacy, non-confrontational messages shouldn't be a problem; if anything, they help concrete complaints of POV pushing, which Axmann8 really does have issues with. It seems we're drifting into the area of topic bans, and I'd thoroughly support a block for a three month period on Barack Obama-related pages, and 6 weeks on all political pages. take him out of the echo chamber and the arena, and the young man may learn to chill more. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. //roux   22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked 1 week last fall,[23] and then three,[24] for incivilities, edit warring, threats, etc. on Barack Obama and Weathermen-related articles, vowed to devote himself to "stopping" me,[25] and harassing me and other editors claiming an "ongoing conflict", "harassment", etc.[26][27][28][29]. Has now reappeared to badmouth me in a WP:BLP/N discussion of the same Bill Ayers and related articles that got him in trouble in the first place: a drive-by accusation of "hypocrisy", "politicking for a cause", purports to expose "how Wikidemon operates, regardless of consensus... [and] Wikipedia policy can see him at work", "continued obstinancy", "I've never seen Wikidemon or his allies provide one", etc. In the last AN/I report over this here an administrator commented "This type of continued @#$^ is simply unacceptable" and "Any further harassment from this account will result in a block". There was further harassment, and he was blocked. He's harassing yet again. Can we please do something? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am going to collapse his personal attacks on me at WP:BLP/N. I would normally let harassment slide but he's trying through his personal attacks to derail an important discussion on a BLP violation and three edit protected articles.Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing untrue and provided links to past discussions related to the same topic or on the same topic, then mentioned, in passing, that Wikidemon has not answered the other side's points in past discussions and was not doing so in this discussion; that Wikidemon would not accept consensus in the past (and therefore may not in the future); and that unending partisanship is no way to treat other editors. This is how Wikidemon, in the midst of complaining about me, talks about others in the same discussion: Noroton was a long-term tendentious editor trying to disparage Barack Obama last year [30] ... ''Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. [31]

This is how Wikidemon deals with others: He collapsed everything I said in certain comments whether or not it all of the sentences mentioned him. Interestingly, that removed from view my arguments about the topic at hand. This is underhanded behavior. Why doesn't someone who is not involved review the collapsed matter and decide what should be collapsed and what shouldn't. Preferrably not some editor who's partisan.

I've already posted in the BLP discussion that I am done commenting on Wikidemon. I've said what I have to say. I assume that's why he's posting here at this point, because without further comments from me his accusations here will look increasingly ludicrous. And who's trying to "derail a discussion" if my comments not involving Wikidemon are being collapsed? [32] -- Noroton (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From a review of the previous ANI and the BLP/N discussion I see exactly the same problem arising; that reliable sources reporting a non reliable sourced comment is being used to certify the comment - in much the same way that newspapers of record publishing stories of some eccentrics theory that the world is flat might be suggested as indicating that reputable sources consider the world as being flat. This is exactly the same discussion as before, and last time it was reviewed it was considered that Noroton was "tendatious" in his pursuit of it. It appears that nothing has changed, including the targeting of the other editor(s) rather than the substance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the content disagreement are inaccurate and belong on the BLP/N page where the discussion is taking place, and where I'd be happy to respond to them. (Briefly, when the accuser publishes a book in 1977 and the accusations from his U.S. Senate testimony are reported in another book by someone else in 2008, neither published by fringe groups, we have editors and lawyers involved and something different from "look what the fringe groups are saying"; we have news reports that relied on law enforcement sources as well). You also misrepresented the nature of my comments which were almost entirely about the issue and addressed Wikidemon as an aside. -- Noroton (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noroton-Wikidemon break 1

Both editors really need to do a better job of observing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. At the BLPN board, Wikidemon had a problem with WP:AGF with other editors, and Noroton needlessly commented on Wikidemon's alleged motives. The BLPN discussion is a mess that isn't going to resolve anything, so both editors might want to disengage from it. On the underlying content dispute, it's mysterious to me why a plausible and reliably sourced allegation that Ayers was behind a fatal bombing has been scrubbed from the William Ayers article; BLP sure doesn't demand that result.[33] THF (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Umh. You might want to consider this very first edit of Noroton [34] as the starter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecX2). There is no "both" editors issue here, and I have no issues with AGF or civility. I am the one keeping the peace, and responding here to hostile personal nonsense from a rogue editor. The substantive question of the BLP violation we can handle elsewhere as long as people don't try to revert war it back into the various articles now that edit protection has expired. On the behavioral issue, Noroton seems to have a vendetta against me and does not seem to have taken his behavioral blocks to heart. If he truly refrains from attacking me again then fine, although if he is gearing up to restart his disruptive ways on Obama and Weathermen articles that is a problem to deal with. He is, and should be noted as, a long-term problem editor on these articles. I'm not adverse to giving Noroton one last chance to stay out of trouble - he is a smart, capable editor and good writer when he is not going rogue on us. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that Wikidemon can't comment on me without attacking me (rogue editor)? Why is it that Wikidemon's version of "keeping the peace" is removing my entire comments, both sentences that mention him and sentences that have nothing to do with him? THF has a point. I'll refrain from commenting on Wikidemon. I've said my piece about Wikidemon's method of operating and I don't need to repeat it. -- Noroton (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain me why you're first edit (at BLPN) was in part commenting on "the" editor (as I pointed out above)?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikidemon's past behavior of avoiding substantive discussion in favor of obstinate disruption was worth mentioning to editors who were dealing with him on the same issues. Only after I commented that Wikidemon was not addressing the issues brought up by the other side in the BLP/N discussion, he started addressing more than his own strawman arguments. He blocked a 2/3 consensus that went against him at an RfC, and closed discussions when they weren't going his way. He's done that in the past on the issue addressed at the BLP discussion and similar issues related to the same articles. I'll find the difs and put them here. Now that I think about it, I could have informed those editors just as well by email, but informing them is a good idea. -- Noroton (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

After the RfC closed, on October 10, I attempted to implement it with an edit. First Grz (who's shown up for this discussion, see below) reverted against the consensus of the RfC. After I reverted, Wikidemon did the same with this dif (note the edit summary) [35] I don't see that as an honest interpretation of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Noroton's proposal #3 -- for Weatherman (organization). I call that serious disruption. As I recall, it was at this point where I finally lost patience with Wikidemon and was intemperate in my language. As I recall, no admin gave a damn that the consensus had been subverted on changing the various articles. Not one admin gave a damn. It was reported at AN/I and simply ignored. The article remains to this day without the information that a consensus of editors approved for it. -- Noroton (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"He blocked a 2/3 consensus that went against him at an RfC...". You point this out w/o pointing it out. Any link for that and any links for "He's done that in the past..."? "...informed those editors just as well by email...". Sounds like some kind of canvassing and "who are the editors you want(ed) to inform??? Please explain as I always listened to you before posting and/or making up my mind. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I was looking for the diffs. I just posted a couple at 00:40 just above. Here's one example of where the discussion was going against Wikidemon on the Weatherman talk page, and his response was to close the discussion, charging that it was becoming "too uncivil to be productive". [36]Please look at the discussion and decide for yourself whether or not it was uncivil at all. As I recall, this matter went to AN/I, Wikidemon received no support there, then he started the Terrorism RfC. The same Terrorism RfC that resulted in consensus that Wikidemon then blocked (see links at 00:40 post, above). Now, it appears I distracted the discussion at BLP/N more than helped it by referring to all of this over there, but at least I was telling the truth, as these diffs show (similar diffs can be found, I think on the Ayers and Dohrn talk pages). -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From this edit [37]: "...but not give in to what look like delaying tactics...". In the middle of the election and you (Noroton) forgot that there is no dead line at WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm more than happy to review how Wikidemon was stalling in that discussion. He essentially had stopped raising points relevant to the matter at hand and raised issues outside the scope of the talk page. Keep in mind, it was a 3:1 consensus, with him on the short end. The discussion started Aug 29, Wikidemon participated until 16:21 Aug 30, I waited for him to respond to comments I'd made directed toward him, and waited and waited three days, until I made another proposal incorporating some of his objections on 16:10 Sept 2. Twenty minutes later, he responded with a suggestion that sounded more like playing power politics than attempting to get information into Wikipedia to serve the readers. Please read it:

I do not support the introduction of a section discussing the Weathermen as terrorists unless we agree that: (1) we do not officially endorse the characterization of Weathermen as terrorists, and (2) this is not used to shoehorn discussion of terrorism or classification as terrorists into the Ayers, Dohrn, Obama-Ayers, or other related articles. Although a section along this line may be okay I think there is somewhat too much weight devoted to the subject, and it relies fairly heavily on evocative quotes by sources of limited reliability. I am leery of participating further in this discussion given that it so recently broke down (so as to keep this page calm I will reservfe discussion of that to the article probation page). Until and unless we can have normal editing here I remain opposed.Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility he referred to was sparked by his unprovoked 04:33 Aug 29 statement This is part of Noroton's long-running WP:BATTLE to make Wikipedia mirror the current language of the political partisans who [...] link Ayers and Dohrn to Barack Obama. [38] (he later redacted this to replace "Noroton's" with "a"). The discussion history clearly shows we'd gotten past that and actually made some progress on language acceptable to all of us when Wikidemon took a break from the discussion. His comment on returning, quoted in full above, was just bizarre in stating until and unless we can have normal editing here I remain opposed. Now please read the weird turn the discussion took when I responded to the 16:30 comment above, rejecting his conditions:

Please limit discussion to the topic of this article. This is not an Obama-related article, even broadly construed; nor will you ever convince a consensus of uninvolved admins that it is. Your "using this as a shoehorn" is itself trying to shoehorn concerns onto this page that simply don't belong here. The topic is important to this subject quite independently of anything to do with Obama. This discussion should proceed normally. We have waited long enough for you to respond to previous concerns. Your actions have amounted to delaying this matter. There are no BLP concerns whatever with well-sourced material and NPOV concerns will have to be elaborated. This proposal appears to me to reflect what the sources say about this topic. You would need to make a good case for our acting here any differently than we would act in building any other article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no discussion at this time - you killed it. Now stop please. You need to step away from this subject, at least for a while. Wikidemon (talk 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Delay for days, come back with strange conditions for his approval and announce he was shutting down the discussion (and then he unilaterally closed it with a box [39]). I don't know what to make of it other than as a delaying tactic or some kind of politicking that isn't in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers. Three of us were in agreement and only he was opposed. He edit warred a bit when we added the information to the page, then went to AN/I, then did a smart thing by starting the RfC. Where he lost, 2:1. And then he, along with Grz, edit warred on whether to impliment the RfC consensus. You should see the tons of evidence I hauled into that RfC and the tens of hours of work I put in researching and writing proposals. All so that in the end he would refuse to accept the consensus and edit war. That was when I blew my top and eventually got blocked. Tell me, TMC-k, does that 16:30 Sept 2 comment by Wikidemon make you feel more or less confident that he's here to serve the readers or serve Obama? Is information to go into or out of articles based on what's best for the readers of that article or based on horse trading among editors to get some kind of political edge? Personally, I'd rather walk away from a discussion with none of my proposals approved rather than horse trade in a way that's not in the best interests of the readers. Because I'm not here to get an edge for my "side" but to present, as best I can figure it out, the fairest description of the article's subject as I can get. I don't see how the horse trading in Wikidemon's 16:30 Sept 2 post can't be attractive to people interested in educating, only, it seems to me, politicking. That's not supposed to be what we're about. If you look at the RfC, the Archived Weatherman page and now the BL/P discussion, you see me presenting research to convince people, not horse trades to keep information from readers. -- Noroton (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again misleading Noroton. The RfC was clearly no consensus, which you edit-warred against. Grsz¹¹ 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: how can you edit war against a lack of consensus? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, he edit-warred on the article claiming it was consensus. Grsz¹¹ 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I made an offer to Wikidemon that we hand over the decision on whether the RfC had achieved consensus to someone -- I suggested NewYorkBrad or FT2 -- who was uninvolved to judge. NYBrad even said on his talk page that he was open to doing that, but Wikidemon refused. The matter was brought to this page and completely ignored. I got so upset at that point that I was incapable of discussing this calmly, and I haven't been able to discuss it this calmly until now. -- Noroton (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not the subject of this report, so let's not allow a problem editor to twist it that way. An administrative complaint is by definition an assertion of bad faith and accusation of an editor. It violates policy only if unfounded. When founded, complaints about the behavior of other editors are one of the precise subjects of this administrative page. No doubt about it, Noroton has gone south on us again and if he continues we need to fix it. I collapsed the entire personal attacks as a less intrusive alternative to editing them to extract the small amount of legitimate commentary. Noroton, despite seeming to promise here that he would not make any further personal attacks on me, went ahead and re-introduced them by reverting me.[40] Re-posting personal attacks is the same as making them again. There is no legitimate reason for Noroton to insist on disrupting the project in this way. Having reverted him a second time, I will not do so further, but please, folks, can we please get him off my back? If Noroton wants to make his point without personal attacks he is welcome. If he wants to continue his vendetta or POV/BLPvio push, no. I'll be offline for a while, but I would really appreciate if we can take a no-nonsense approach in putting an end to this. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

At BLPN, you've attacked every single editor who has disagreed with you, not just Noroton. THF (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dismantling and debunking the poorly-constructed, POV-tinged arguments of others is not an "attack", no. Also, regarding an earlier statement, if you think that "BLP sure doesn't demand that result", "that" being the removal of one person's accusation of another of murder without proof or without charged ever having been filed, then I'd have to say that you really do not understand the Wikipedia's BLP policy. No offense. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith, as Wikidemon did in accusing those of wanting to add reliably-sourced information of trying "to cause harm to Obama" (14:19 15 March), is not acceptable. I'm not going to relitigate here, but your understanding of BLP is incorrect--and if you really believe that that is the BLP standard, I look forward to you edit-warring to remove the allegations of cocaine use and insider trading from the George W. Bush article. THF (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon might sees it more as trying to harm Obama; I see it as a coatrack that harms in a libel way the individuals at the article(s) like Ayers' and that's where we have to focus on. As for W. Bush: What does it have to do with Ayers'?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with BLP. The argument is that a reliably sourced news story about a pipe-bombing being attributed to Ayers can't be included because there have been no charges filed against him for this particular pipe-bombing, though he admits being involved in other pipe-bombings. Yet that BLP standard is not applied in a featured article. The claim of "libel," quite frankly, is ludicrous: the San Francisco Chronicle faces zero legal risk for its reporting of the story, and so would we. THF (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make it right. If there are problems at an article don't mirror them on another one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion: Will everyone please take BLP discussions to the BLP page and leave this discussion to just how naughty certain editors are? Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't like it here? Here it is about you - over there it is about Ayers. Different issues I might think (and I don't think I'm naughty).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I said at BLP/N: Wikidemon, your previous statements and actions in this matter look, to me, more like politicking for a cause rather than helping Wikipedia present the closest version to the truth that we can. See how this compares with Wikidemon's Our standard for accusing someone of murder here in the encyclopedia isn't "not outlandish". BLP rests on two pillars: avoiding committing libel, and avoiding harm to living people. Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. (14:19 March 15). Despite Wikidemon's assertions that he hasn't done anything wrong at all, he and I both made similar statements, and I think they both either went up to the line or went over the line: commenting on others' motives without proof, and in the wrong place, even if each of us hedged in various ways. My point that Wikidemon doesn't respect consensus when it goes against him has been proven by the diffs I've cited here. But I made my point in the wrong place, so I'll withdraw all of that from the BLP/N page. If I have anything to say about Wikidemon's conduct in the future, I'll say it on the appropriate pages and accompany it with plenty of diffs. -- Noroton (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking anyone's motives in discussion, and beyond that I won't dignify tit-for-tat nonsense accusation with a response. My edits are not at issue and have never been at issue. Noroton has been a long-term problem on these pages and gone through all the warnings and escalating blocks for this behavior, the last being three weeks. He started it again with a sneak attack while we were dealing with a different tendentious editor and BLP problem. It is onerous to have to deal with this kind of attack, and it should not be the price of editing articles here. Either he's going to desist or not.Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV is currently backlogged, can someone please look into it. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. — neuro^(talk) 04:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New editor Telepatty900 (talk · contribs) is on a rampage, making a large number of dubious (but not obviously vandal) edits to medical articles at a rapid rate, without edit summaries, and failing to respond to talk page notices. It seems that a block might be the only way to get his attention. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am considering a short-term block, but I need to examine the diffs. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have examined the diffs - I am professionally qualified to assess them - and have blocked 72 hours. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) - Another admin (thanks Anthony) has just come to the same decision that I was about to implement. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the user's edits a rampage nor massive disruption, and certainly not vandalism. I checked @all of them and all that I checked clearly are good faith edits. Some are improvements; some are not, but I can see the user was trying to improve the article. As for lack of response, is a new user supposed to know that a response is expected? This user made only one edit (19:13) after the level 3 warning by Nubiatech (19:08), and before the ANI notice by Looie496 (19:34). A 3-day block seems excessive, and I am disturbed by the blocking admin's ad hominem remarks.[41][42] I hope some admin reading this will choose to unblock the user. --Una Smith (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the blocking admin's remarks were rather restrained. There are only two possibilities: this editor is either a vandal or else very misguided. The blocking admin assumed the latter, and made an effort to get that message across to the editor (who still has not given any response whatsoever). Sometimes it is more important to be clear than to try to save somebody's self-esteem. Looie496 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, good block - while the edits possibly were made in good faith; this situation perfectly demonstrates the concept of a "preventative" block - well-intentioned or not, these were contentious and often dubious edits, marked as minor, by a user that was refusing to discuss them. A block is the best, and only, way to get them to stop doing it until they discuss it. If the user agrees to slow down or justifies his edits sufficiently there is no problem with removing the bock - but I certainly agree that one was warranted. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just got an email from the Volapük Wikipedia (vo.wikipedia.org). The problem is, the entire email is in Volapük (some weird kinda German but not lauguage, I didn't know exsisted). It also seems I have an account at the Volapük Wikipedia (never signed up for one). Is there anyway someone can translate this for me and figure out how I have an account on a Wiki I didn't know exsisted until just now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 06:40

m:SUL, no? 69.212.19.124 (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do use a unified login, but I didn't know it created accounts for all Wikis. I thought it was just for Commons, Meta, stuff like that. My main concern is my personal email account was used in this.....that worries me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 07:22

I got the same. Yes, SUL automatically creates an account for you there the moment you only open a page on that wiki while you're logged in on some other. The e-mail is just the automatic "notify me if someone posts to my talk page" feature. Don't know why, but somehow they seem to have that automatically activated by default for all new accounts. And the post you are being notified of is an automated welcome message from a bot. I doubt it's very clever of them to post bot welcome messages to automatic SUL account creations that have never even edited there, but then again, heck, no harm done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Got the same thing the other day from the Romanian Wikipedia. Freaked me out a little, but no harm done. arimareiji (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be worth looking into a way to turn off the receive e-mail feature for SUL-created accounts when the message is from a bot... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kashmircloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-
86.158.236.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.163.154.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.158.129.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.162.70.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The involved parties are 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) and Wikireader41 (talk · contribs). They were arguing over the reliability of government pages. I accidentally stepped in the middle by making a revert with huggle, and have ascertained that they both suspect each other of sockpuppetry. There is a lot of discussion relating to the matter at my talk page, and at User_talk:Wikireader41. Thank you Fahadsadah (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Nangparbat (talk · contribs). he has generally been very incivil and is pushing pakistani islamist POV on multiple articles even as the # 9 Failed state#2008 of Pakistan is sinking deeper into crisis and needs to be blocked. The Indian govt websites are widely regarded as a credible source of info about India. I dont wear socks ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The above is Wikireader41's accusation of sockpuppetry. 86.156.208.244 appears to be away right now, but he accused Wikireader41 of being a sockpuppet of Hkelkar: [43]. Fahadsadah (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AS Admins can see his hate and POV pushing for pakistan is clear his edits are similair to Hkelkar and Kashmircloud (who suddenly disappeared) anyways as his comments have shown his pov motives he speaks of matters not relating to this issue e.g failed state i will continue to remove his vandal edits 86.151.123.189 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

it is clear here that 86.156.208.244 (talk · contribs) and 86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs) are the same person. isnt that what sockpuppetry is all about. if he is innocent why does he not register. it is a well known and concerning fact that Britishers of Pakistani descent have extreme views and are being investigated by CIA. CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US  ????--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added {{Userlinks}} tags for all involved and allegedly involved parties. Fahadsadah (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Without checkuser evidence nothing can be proved. Fahadsadah (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As admins can clearly see this hater of pakistani people has created a new article against us and i will not rest untill he is removed from the pages of wikipedia forever bring it on HKELKAR or is it kashmircloud ? 86.151.123.189 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has created an article 'against us'. No article is an attack on you personally. The (well sourced and wikilinked) article is about notable extremist Pakistanis in Britain. It is not accusing all Pakistanis of being extremist, you are the one inferring that. If it were unsourced that would be another thing, but these issues are well documented and reported by primary reliable sources. It is a matter of record already. Personalization of the issue displays a clear POV and incapability of remaining neutral on your part, as such you should clearly not be editing the article at all. If you have sourced information to refute claims in the article then provide them at article talk. Mfield (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check his new pathetic article which is another attack on pakistanis 86.151.123.189 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is spilling over now...

Earlier today I blocked 86.151.123.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and then about 10 mins later the following sock IPs - 86.158.236.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 86.163.154.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 81.158.129.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

All the argument this time was over Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis which was being blanked with no discussion. The last IP was making claims about the article "attacking us" and posting talk page messages[44][45][46][47] on related pages soliciting (Pakistani) editors to delete the article and creators other contributions. I removed the disruptive comments and semi protected the two articles.

This afternoon another editor, UnknownForEver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) speedied the article as nonsense and gave me a warning for removing talk page messages with a "what right have I" speech. When I removed the inappropriate speedy tag with a note to AfD it properly if sound reasons could be explained, I was given another warning about removing speedy tags (apparently admins don't have the right to decline speedys). I have since explained to the UnknownForEver that as an (uninvolved) admin I am protecting the encyclopedia from disruption and that they should not attempt to have articles deleted by inappropriately tagging them - tagging this as nonsense was clearly POV. I think the moment has passed now but I doubt the matter is closed, there is still fighting going on at the article talk. Would be nice to have another set of eyes on it. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet again today: 86.162.70.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), breaking the 48 hour block to vote on the AfD with a long tirade attacking the article creator and posted other commentson talk pages canvassing for Pakistani users to vote for its deletion. Reverted all comments, blocked for 1 week. Left a message explaining that the editor needs to wait out the original 48 hour block and return to editing without the personal attacks or the blocks are going to get longer and longer. Mfield (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I have also posted a explanatory message on the AfD to hopefully catch the sock if he tries to repost the attcks before his block ends in 24 hours[48].I am going to be real world busy all week so if some others could watch Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_Extremism_among_British_Pakistanis and make sure it stays free of personal attacks and soapboxing that would be helpful. If the IP sock continues to post attacks perhaps it should be semi protected since he is on his 5th IP in 24 hours already and they from different ranges. Mfield (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41 has also been blocked previously for pov pushing.No lessons learnt yet, even an admin who has been know to collabrate with him also confirms his pov pushing [49].He was also invloved in here [50].He accuses other of Personal attacks without any evidenceWp:Pa [51].Constanly violating WP:TERRORIST e.g. [52].Using wikipedia as a crystal ball WP:BALL.Treating wikipedia as battleground as it can be seen on contributions to talkpages WP:BATTLE. Violating WP:SOAP on talkpages.Even violating Wp:civil while interacting with other users. yousaf465

See Talk:Citizendium#Wikipedia vs Citizendium. I believe the question is entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page, as it is not about improving the article. I and another editor have removed it several times. However, the originator of the question and another editor have restored it, and the discussion now includes material of some relevance to the article. I believe the original question still needs to be removed, but it's difficult to do so while leaving context for the followup.-gadfium 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a content dispute at the Citizendium article. I think a compromise has been reached. Another suggestion is "Image of Wikipedia". I think the compromise is NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not concerned with the content dispute, but with the talk page question which effectively asks for a pledge of loyalty to Wikipedia.-gadfium 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire thread is directly related to the content dispute. Is there any objection to the compromise. No specific reason has been given to deleting my comments on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would delete it as Wikipedia is not a forum. That section does not help improve the article in any way. But I shall wait and see what the consensus is here. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a forum. Delete. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your description is misleading. AdirondackMan's original comment was made on 18:13, 14 March 2009, even before your edit started that content dispute on 19:08, 14 March 2009; therefore AdirondackMan's comment was independent of that dispute. It was removed per the talk page guidelines, before you restored it, adding your own comments and tried to imply a connection which wasn't there. It appears like you are trying to make a point by parading AdirondackMan's comment as evidence that your adversaries in that content dispute make non-neutral edits, although that is a non-sequitur since AdirondackMan is not among them.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The original "loyalty" post was inappropriate forumish, and the subsequent implication that my own "loyalty" (aka bias) was colouring my edits was perhaps even less appropriate than that. But, somehow, the whole episode appears to have led to article-improving suggestions and to article improvements, and it has given context to appropriate action and discussion. I don't like the way it started, but I'd probably let it be. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "inappropriate" to "forumish" because, on second thought, Wikipedia articles are commonly put up for deletion as "POV forks," so why can't people voice objection to a project that is essentially a POV fork of Wikipedia itself? But alas, that issue is out of Wikipedia's hands, so such objection will have limited practical benefit on here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←This POV "POINT" has been pushed before. We have Criticism of Wikipedia already, and if someone wants to bash Wikipedia - take it to the wiki forum or IRC. Being an editor (actually we're called authors on Citizendium), of both places, I see no need to bash one site or the other - let each stand on their strengths, or fall from their weaknesses. They both serve a purpose, there is no need for any perceived "war of the encyclopedias". While the original post is forumish, I do understand the question - I've wondered it myself why editors that want to bash Wikipedia bother coming here in the first place. It is agreed that we must present a neutral point of view; but..., canvassing the Sanger, Wales, Wikipedia, and Citizendium articles in an attempt to push a "Wikipedia isn't as good as Citizendium" POV is simply unacceptable. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you .... wow. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 02:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• As to the specific "I wish to pose a question to everyone here. Who here is loyal to Wikipedia? Who would leave this for Citizendium. Despite their public words, it's obvious Mr. Sanger wants Citizendium to destroy Wikipedia. So I ask all who read this to tell me, who here is loyal to this project? I know I am." post - while admirable in intent, it is forumish, is not centered on the article itself, and User:gadfium was correct in deleting it. It would be fine for a user page, or user talk page - but not the article itself. I also question the "Mr. Sanger wants Citizendium to destroy Wikipedia" - that is highly doubtful, and I'd like to seem some sort of reference to back that up. While Sanger believes his site will eventually provide a more stable and accurate source of information, I'm aware of no such desire to destroy Wikipedia. I think that some people perceive a dislike between Wales and Sanger that simply does not exist - even Jimbo said recently that Sanger didn't get the credit he deserved. This simply appears to be building up a war that does not exist. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My description of the content dispute is honest. AdirondackMan's original comment directly led me to improving the article. My edit was made after I read AdirondackMan's comment. I archived all the older threads and resolved disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not, and would not, ever imply that an editor was not being WP:Honest, (without some extreme evidence of an outright attempt to deceive), I was merely stating the obvious fact that a lot of the Wikipedia/Citizendium topics contain a lot of POV pushing. Also, I was addressing the particular post on the talk page of Citizendium which was a forum post. I was not even addressing content dispute, or the 3RR that was touched. Nothing more ... Nothing less. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Aquahsocker had been removing information about Arabic names for stars and constellations from some articles and also removing Arabic-looking category links that direct one to foreign language versions of WIkipedia articles on the same topic. I've reverted all the changes made by the account that didn't seem to have a real purpose. This may be nothing out of the ordinary, but somewhere in the back of my head it sounded like it might be something I saw discussed here before about a continuing problem editor. Just thought I'd bring it up just in case. If it doesn't sound familiar to anyone, then never mind and sorry for wasting your time. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A new user, doing a very specific and potentially objectionable activity, with the syllable "sock" in their name? While I do not have any personal recollection of a problem editor doing this particular thing, those three things together would certainly ring bells in my head too. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be a typo: The name could have meant to be "Aquashocker". No comment on the rest. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have become involved in an edit war with the above author who exhibits signs of WP:Ownnership of articles relating to Harold Pinter, Bibliography for Harold Pinter, The arts and politics amongst others. I and other editors (User:Wingspeed, User:BehnamFarid, User:Rodhullandemu, User:John, User:F_W_Nietzsche, User:Jasper33, User:Alai, User:SMcCandlish, User:Jayron32, User:Wrad, User:TJive, User:SlimVirgin, User:Florrie) have had occasion to comment that User:NYScholar's comments on article talk pages have an elitish, patronising and arrogant tone, frequently propounding the view that he/she is an expert and that others do not understand. The main cause of dispute has been the readability of articles which have been taken over by this editor. Good faith talk page comments have frequently been deleeted by [User:NYScholar]], and an ongoing RfC at Talk:Harold_Pinter#RfC:_Article_style was archived by User:NYScholar after two days, only reverted when I complained about this at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Move_of_RfC:_Article_style_from_Talk:Harold_Pinter_to_Talk:Harold_Pinter.2Farchive7.

I freely admit that I have one one occasion revrted to abuse when confronted with this editor's inappropriate tone, for which I later apologised. I am concerned however that this editor's actions are contrary to policy of making Wikipedia accessible to all. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it a common/acceptable practice for admins to allow a U1 (user-requested) deletion of the user and/or user talk pages when the user is de facto banned from WP? I ask because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayme08&action=edit&redlink=1 this edit. User:Mayme08 was blocked by me in February for IP socking through a ban, and general trollfulness. What I get from this log is, because the user blanked the page, the admin in question, rather than restoring the info that was there and blocking talkpage access, baseically gave the troll what she wanted by blanking the page FOR her, under U1. Is this an okay thing? GJC 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any kind of rule about this, it probably just comes down to an admins personal preference. I personally believe it should have been kept, I always decline those requests when I come across them--Jac16888^Talk 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)re

The purpose of blocked/banned templates is to assist the project. For example, if the banned user is actively socking and causing trouble, it may be important for administrators and other editors who have to deal with the disruption to know the status of the various accounts. On the other hand, when a banned or long-term blocked user accepts that he or she must leave the project, it sometimes happens that his or her doing so is impaired or held up by arguments about what his or her userpage should say. This is unhelpful to everyone, and is particularly unjustifiable where the user has edited under, or is readily associated with, his or her real name. Again, the goal is to assist with administration of Wikipedia, not to perpetuate embarrassment of the banned user, and administrators faced with these requests should keep this in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above, it's worth reiterating that there was no request to delete the user talk page. Deletion of user talk pages are normally only done if the user understands the right to vanish. The page should have remained blank instead of deleted on this occasion, though that doesn't mean it should be restored. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• "As a blocked user...You are not allowed to remove block notices while the block is in effect. As you are blocked indefinitely, this means the messages must stay until someone unblocks you." - This isn't true, see WP:BLANKING. Since the user is simply blocked, not banned, I see nothing controversial about the deletion, in fact, had the proper block template been used it would've been put into CAT:TEMP to be deleted eventually anyway. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is complaining about my removal of his unsourced editorializing at a variety of places. He has responded by posting on the talk pages of editors I have had disagreements with and now posts on my talk page that I should "feel a deserved resounding slap on his face." Is this not a violation of WP:CIVIL? Mitsube (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube gets credit for tolerating a whole thread of complaint on his user talk. Any issues about incivility should go to WP:WQA, NazarK should stop posting a complaint about Mitsube to multiple user pages unless he is willing to open an WP:RFC/U, and let him follow WP:Dispute resolution if he has content issues. Those interested may continue the discussion on Mitsube's Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have acute content issues with Mitsube at this moment. His edits I observed were harsh, but justified to sufficient extent by Wikipedia rules. I'm concerned about his pattern of editing being a threat for preservation of valuable, though not perfectly referenced and formatted info, entered by not very experienced users. As well as his style of 'wiping out' what others care to put in. The way he does it is intentionally painful and humiliating for specific editors he targets, though he is seemingly dealing with article content only and does so based on the Wikipedia rules. It may be personally injuring for many, in my opinion. Thank you, EdJohnson, your comments were helpful and informative. I'll restart this discussion in a more proper place once I have enough evidence and better command of Wikipedia Policies and dispute tools. NazarK (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In these [53], [54], [55] edits, User:Myusedupname changed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War section from three different well-researched, reasonably NPOV versions into blatantly POV material. (Those are just the three I found in the first two pages of history.)

Given that this comprises about 90% of the user's activity on Wikipedia, and s/he has only registered in the last few months, what steps should be taken?

Vonschlesien (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the user's talk page is empty. A quick glance at Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War also turned up no discussion of the matter. Consider posting a message at either or both talk pages stating your concern. (Disclaimer: not an admin) KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Found this at the help desk ([56]). It is an old, ongoing one but it does give some information about some of their targets. The forum where this is taking place, and the thread, is here: [57] dougweller (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I need some help on redirects and policy. Neither WP:Redirect nor a search on this board could help me much yet. The best I came up with was this. Let's say someone is blanking lots of pages, putting redirects there, but neither is discussing those redirects nor is merging the content to the targets. The result is, that the majority of Wikipedia users (not editors!) will not find the content anymore, if they ever knew it's there. Is this just WP:Bold or is it WP:VAN? What if those redirects are controversial and regularly reverted by different other editors? What if this one editor does not change anything after he's been told to stop and also has been warned several times? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your inquiry with specific examples. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to know policy and not denounce.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting an article is generally thought of as a normal editorial action, albeit a fairly drastic one. The normal Bold, revert, discuss cycle applies: A good-faith user is welcome to redirect an article without discussion if they believe it would better serve the encyclopedia to do so. Equally, another user is welcome to revert that redirect if they disagree. At that point, however, a discussion needs to occur before any further redirecting gets done, otherwise it's simply an edit war. Obviously, the normal rules of common sense applies: someone who generally does nothing but redirect things with dubious reasons is likely to get called on that, and if they go against consensus then they're also potentially being disruptive. To be sure we would need to know the specific situation you're referring to, but in general it's best to consider redirecting as you would any other potentially-controversial edit: You may be bold and do it once, but discuss if there are any disagreements, and don't be a dick about it. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This still does not manage the fact that content is not merged to the target and so hidden for the majority of users. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So revert, and then discuss. If you already reverted, but have consistently found the reverts changed back to redirects without any attempt at discuss, let's have the details. I find it helpful to start the discussion yourself when you do the revert, not wait for the other party. It's not required, but it works better, to explain why, & on the talk p. not just the edit summary DGG (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there's nothing wrong with blanking pages then, I have to move on. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with blanking pages to create a good-faith redirect. There IS a problem with blanking pages against consensus, or as a pattern of disruptive edits. If neither of those is happening, then there is indeed no problem. If you suspect that one or both is in fact happening, I encourage you to bring it up here or at some form of dispute resolution - excessive redirecting of pages does not help the encyclopedia, but simply the act in itself doesn't have to be malicious. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But how does this improve the encyclopedia? It hides knowledge from those who don't know better, and is a good deal of work for those who know better. And sorry, it just works against {{sofixit}} - devil-may-care? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In many cases it hides unreferenced, unreliable information, pointing the reader instead to a more general article. In other cases it simply hides excessive, indiscriminate information about non-encyclopedic topics. Again, this is needlessly general because you won't point to specific examples of concern, but legitimately redirecting unnecessary and poorly-referenced articles does overall produce a more navigable and reliable encyclopedia. The question is when it gets excessive. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And if the editor thinks that they are just "not notable"? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you have a content dispute, no different from any other content dispute. There isn't any general rule that's independent of some particular page's contents, because the answer depends on the particular page's contents. If you wish to have Wikipedia's administrators endorse a particular action, sight unseen, then you may not get your wish. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As said before, I'm not here to denounce. Plus, it looks like I'm wrong anyway. Maybe I have to adjust my common sense a bit. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this Russian threat of suicide. Not sure who to tell, or where to contact. (move or rename thread as needed) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if that is true, that person is dead now. That is very fast acting insulin. However some one NEEDs to call the cops NOW. I have already informed the user who was mentioned in that of the edit (cause I had no clue if they were saying they were married to that user..or not). Geolocated the IP. Godspeed. Rgoodermote  19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed my notice to that user..seeing as I realized that is saying it is the user. Rgoodermote  19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Informed Russian Wiki..well..more like hit any one that I thought was an admin. Rgoodermote  20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moscow's big, probably much too big. Hope it only was a joke... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a troll which has been harassing ru:User:Ilya Voyager for a long time. Next time you see such threats, just revert them. Thanks — vvv (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I hope so too. But in case. I've got the Russian Wikipedia informed. I don't know Russian (surprise), so I have no clue if that has to do with the editor him/herself wanting to kill themselves or their ex-spouse. Can some one tell me if that editor mentioned is male or female? (do not bother with this then). Well good to hear it is a troll, but it's not something we would know here. However, I guess we know that the reaction time for such threats is going to be quick. Rgoodermote  20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made three sections here but no action has been taken. User:Jersay continues to remove cited content in spite of warnings edit warring, and 1. He has received 9 warnings in the past 7 days over editing contributions, and was recently rewarded temporary block but that didn't solve anything. I made my points clear in the history: history and urged Jersay to solve disputes in talk which he has yet to do. Am I at the wrong noticeboard? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure why nothing is being done. It's blatantly clear some action needs to be taken, as talking is getting you nowhere. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He just removed the cited information a 2nd time. 1. Should I stop reverting? I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring but this is blatant vandalism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Jersay 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article improvement drive is back up and running, and needs support. Participate, better then drama here. Secret ^account 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that the WP:CHECK checkuser tool be used to determine if user:Soidi and user:Defteri are sockpuppets of user:Gimmetrow. I would like to be able to treat each as a separate person but Soidi and Defteri emerged with instant Wikipedia knowledge to support Gimmetrow in a dispute that is now in mediation after months of discussion on the talk page of Roman Catholic Church. I understand that Wikipedia acknowledges some alternative accounts but does not allow sockpuppets to be used for voting or editwarring which is what is occurring in this case. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations is thataway. Algebraist 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's customary to notify editors of threads here concerning them by using the {{ANI-notice}} template. --Rodhullandemu 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 19:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(brought here at suggestion of Juliancolton after I reported this at WP:ANV)

User Einsteinbud (talk · contribs) has uploaded a slew of copyrighted images from airline websites and Airliners.net (upload log). Looking at his/her talk page right now ([59]), he/she has had one image deleted as no copyright status identified, 2 images deleted as NPD, 3 images deleted at FfD for similar reasons, and another 4 NPD that I nominated today. He/she has also been warned about blanking files listed at FfD. I would consider the notices dated 1 March and 5 March to be sufficient warning to stop uploading copyrighted images, but the uploading of copyrighted images continued until 12 March. Most of these images allege that the files are public domain when in fact they are not (some such as AirDC.jpg even contained "AIRLINERS.NET" and a copyright tag plastered on it).

A secondary issue has been this user's redirecting pages instead of using the "move" function (Example, Move log). Some of these moves have been against naming conventions. I just coached/warned the user about this today, so I don't expect action on this part immediately. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ; edited KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the image violations, I reapeatedly checked on swiss.com for copyright. As one user pointed out, at one point an admin explicitly pointed out to me that these images are protected. Till that point, I didn't realize. I believe that users should be given the benefit of doubt, since we are all humans, and mistakes can also happen out of good faith. Besides that, I still believe I was right to move the Brussels Airlines to brussels airlines. It is black on white that its official name is spelled in lower case. One needs to be really blind in order not to realize that. I deny having done anything wrong concerning the Brussels Airlines article. An article needs to have the real name, nothing else!

--Einsteinbud (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ATTACK before accusing anyone of being blind, this is borderline perhaps but discuss the content, not the contributor. See Wikipedia:official names for some clarification of the policy with regard to the move, it seems to be addressing exactly the point you are making. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to let an admin comment on the image copyright issue. As for the page move, I specifically identified it on this board as a secondary issue; as such, I'm going to pretend that the statement of "One needs to be really blind..." is not a personal attack. I have replied at Talk:Brussels Airlines, as I want the focus of this discussion to be the image copyright incidents. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but isn't this resolved? An admin has pointed out to the user that the images are copyrighted, and the user appears to accept that. I can't really add anything, except to point out that Wikipedia's servers are in the US, and that the US is a signatory to the Berne convention - "stuff" is copyrighted unless explicitly released from copyright. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He does not seem to have been notified of the GFDL issues of "cut & paste" moves. I've given him notice of this, which can also constitute a copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just received the warning template {{uw-longterm}} as the first and only edit of an anon. It is possible that I have so seriously annoyed an admin he forgot to log-in, in which case I would like an explanation of how. If not, this is vandalism; but somebody else should remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed as obvious vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely a sock of someone you've encountered, however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

due to a fairly involved dispute about the use of the word Myth in this lead of this article, I added a {{fact}} tag, here. this was the second time I've tried to add the tag over the last few days. since there is an ongoing dispute over the use of this word (a dispute, mind you, which involves the sourcing of the word) the 'fact' tag seems perfectly appropriate until the issue is resolved. however, it keeps getting reverted for no particularly good reason: once because it was interpreted as a POV addition - [60] - (I have no idea how a fact tag can have a POV), and once because it was claimed to be inherent in the definition of Myth - [61] - which is precisely the dispute in question.

there are a lot of bull-headed people on both sides of this discussion, myself included . I'd like an administrator to reinstate the fact tag with some notice that it should remain there until until the issue is resolved one way or another, as an appropriate temporary measure against misrepresentation. that strikes me as eminently reasonable. can someone please help me out with that? --Ludwigs2 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is thataway. Be aware that pages are generally protected in the wrong version; that is, a version different than the one you want to impose. But so far this content dispute doesn't seem to have escalated to the point of requiring protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth is one our magic words. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for page protection, because the page doesn't need it. I asked for an administrator to reinstate the fact tag, and maybe keep an eye on things so that people don't continue to remove it before the dispute is resolved. or are you suggesting that three or four editors can simply remove dispute tags anytime they feel like it, without justification, and there's no recourse for addressing that problem? --Ludwigs2 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See that magic words link above? That page tells you exactly how the word is supposed to be used, and that's how it is used in the article you are asking about. Asking an admin to make an edit that goes against what that page says is kind of silly. Quit beating a dead horse and accept the longstanding consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, asking an admin to take a side in an edit war is...not what the admin privilege is for. Anyone can replace a tag, keep an eye on things, and demand that the tag not be removed; admins have no special rights in this regard. Admin action isn't needed here: what's needed is either gaining consensus for your views through discussion on the article's talk page, or acceding to the consensus that the other editors seem to have established. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a WP:SPI report declined on the grounds that the sock passes the WP:Duck-test. Could I get someone to block my quacking friend User:Far To Low (as a sock of User:Nimbley6)?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This nitwit is threatening legal action on their own talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.225.211.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.222.100 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they're pointing out that what you wrote could be considered slander (or libel, as you point out). They're not saying that they consider it libellous, nor are they saying that they're going to take legal action. Thank them (done), move on (to do). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that IP 172 seems to be engaging in some baiting of IP 204 ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've just been reading through the history of Niagara Health System. It's seems there has been a determined effort by a series of 172. IPs to vandalise the article since July last year reducing it from this[62] to this[63]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I have semi-protected the article Niagara Health System as it seems that the IP 172.x.x.x has persistently vandalised the article over a long period of time. IP 172.x.x.x, appears to be conducting a vendetta against the NHS while IP 204.225.211.2, which resolves to the NHS, has been trying to rebuff them. The page was semi-protected for one month week in December but this hasn't deterred IP 172.x.x.x so I have protected for three months weeks. I've also semi-protected the talk page due to the derogatory comments and personal attacks made by IP 172.x.x.x there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be the first meta-WP:ANI report: I added an AN/I report at #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ as a new section, dealing with a new specific issue on a particular edit. After making a couple pointed questions/comments there, and before I could respond, User:Grsz11 moved this section from the bottom into an older previous section #Stevertigo/Obama topic ban. I believe Grsz' move was POV motivated, or at least improper handling for an ANI request. For one, the topic ban section is largely defunct: no consensus exists there for a topic ban, though Grsz himself commented in the new thread that such a topic ban (on me) "looks better as the time passes". That's right; he says that a defunct, unsupported topic ban "looks better" to him. Two, moving a new report to an older section has deprecating effects: instead of being found where new reports are, its included in an older report. That is, an older, dead request for a topic ban on me. So, what do I do here, and what can actually be done about Grsz unwarranted move? Can I get him blocked for an hour or two? -Stevertigo 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is rather moot, isn't it? Given that the discussion should take place on the Talk:Barack Obama page and not here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): are you talking about #Stevertigo/Obama topic ban (above), WP:AFD/Criticism of Barack Obama, WP:DR/Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama, or WP:DR/Uncle_Stevertigo.27s_argument_matrix? (Which User:Tarc apparently tried to delete altogether. Apparently he's also under the impression that he can treat other people's comments/logical breakdowns as vandalism. He must have taken something I said as being snarky). I agree that consolidated discussion threads would be useful, but that would mean people would actually get to discuss things. The partisans here don't seem to want that; hence the reason for the three deletion issue threads. something like WP:OBT might help though. -Stevertigo 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Grsz¹¹ 01:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be anything like a 'threat' would it be, Grsz? I fail to grok any substance in your comment here. BTW, please don't deprecate this particular thread too. That would be.. improper.-Stevertigo 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's... NOT "the first meta-WP:ANI report." That sort of thing is as tragically common as human suffering around here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't quite know what I think about that. -Stevertigo 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is there an actual issue here, or is it just more smoke and mirrors. Grsz¹¹ 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Cutting in): At issue, Grsz, is your misconception of talk and meta discussion comments by others as being mutable according to your will. Contrition on your part would indicate both your ability to reason and a further willingness to be reasonable. -Stevertigo 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I await a reasonable user's opinion, but don't hold your breath. Grsz¹¹ 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest that people take a break? Get off your computer and go and do something else for a while? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was previously warned by Elonka (who is on a wikibreak) and so he chose to stay away from chiropractic-related subjects for two weeks. That pause has run out, but he is back to his usual agenda, an openly declared one of protecting the reputation of chiropractic, IOW whitewashing the subject wherever it's mentioned. He is deleting well-documented and uncontroversial facts based on false arguments. Please take a look at his recent edits, most notably these:

• Applied Kinesiology (AK) -- Deletion of chiropractic mention in LEAD. (AK is a pseudoscience.)
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience -- Similar deletion of chiropractic mention in the AK section of the List

He is hiding the fact that Applied Kinesiology, a pseudoscientific method created by a chiropractor, widely used by chiropractors (and a very few other flakey professionals who are into alternative medicine), is indeed a popular chiropractic method. That's simply whitewashing and unwikipedian. There is a discussion thread here.

The only reason I bring this here is that this situation has occurred many times before over the last four years, sometimes with months-long disruption occupying a lot of editors' time on this matter. I hope we can avoid that. Please give him a warning to stop such whitewashing of very obvious and uncontroversial facts. The edits he deleted were very neutral. OTOH, a warning may be too soft, since his previous warning and pause didn't seem to work. Maybe a topic ban from the whole subject of chiropractic, no matter where it appears. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not assume without references how widely it is used by mainstream chiropractic. This is a content dispute that could use some sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. The documentation is provided in the AK article, and an actual diagram is provided here at the left. It is the tenth most used chiropractic technique, used by more than a third of chiropractors. -- Fyslee (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a content dispute. I don't see any evidence of behaviour problems. Please carry out the content dispute on the article talk pages, not here. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am doing so there. The behavioral problems are because this is yet another repetition of the same conflict on the same subject we have had with him many times before during the last four years. If we can settle this at the article level I'll be satisfied, and I see that other editors are already doing that. 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did the chiropractic advocate Levine2112 make this edit. Because he was intentionally trying to prevent AK from becoming a subsection of chiropractic. I made this edit to make it a subsection. It was obvious Levine2112 was trying to prevent improvements to the article. There was a new discussion started about moving AK to make it a subsection of chiropractic. But is became clear Levine2112 was against it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a chiropractic diagnostic method using manual muscle-strength testing for medical diagnosis and a subsequent determination of prescribed therapy. According to followers of the theory, it gives feedback on the functional status of the body. While it is primarily used by chiropractors, it is now also used by a number of other practitioners.

The above is the current lead of the AK article. Levine2112 made this edit because he was trying to prevent AK from being a subsection of chiropractic at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Levine2112's edit retained mention in the lead of who invented it (a chiropractor) and who uses it (chiropractors and others). I think it's quite reasonable to argue that it's not a "chiropractic technique" per se unless a good source unambiguously says so; other alt-med types do use it, but as Barrett says, "The prevalence among other types of practitioners is unknown." [64] Until that prevalence is known, Levine2112's version appears justified. Same logic applies for the other article, with substantially similar issues. Content dispute, conduct doesn't cross any lines in this instance. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note. According to the reference it is known that Most practitioners are chiropractors... QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please focus your attentions elsewhere, QuackGuru. An encyclopedia is a gathering place where people ("editors", in encyclopedic parlance) meet to feel welcomed. Matters of science or reality have utterly no place on an encyclopedia, and you should be ashamed at yourself for trying to cram fact into our happy gated community. Think of Levine2112's feelings here - for years he's labored here, keeping his watchful gaze on all articles related to chiropractic, chipping and chipping away at a wide swarth of articles through thick and thin, ignoring the mumbling unease of both AN/I and ArbCom alike, until each article stands tall and resolute in glowing, radiant praise to those benevolent gods of flimflam - a veritable forest of holistic Oneness. These tireless efforts render him not just an "editor", but a "contributor" as well - and contributors - and their gentle feelings - are an encyclopedia's most prized resource! Unapologetic tyrants of the scientific method who wish to sully these and other articles with their unwholesome and unnecessary point of view should, to put it bluntly, remove themselves from this encyclopedia before their rude mannerisms and disturbing tendacy to value factual content above all else drive valuable contributors such as Levine2112 from this meek and humble project. If they, those aforementioned tyrants of reality, wish to persist in their efforts to write from a "neutral", scientifically valid, academic perspective, they are free to do so on their own websites - but let's hope they don't have the unmigitated audacity to call those websites "encyclopedias". Badger Drink (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444 has resumed categorising people according to ethnicity without references and when their ethnicity is of little importance, in contravention of WP:OC#CATGRS. The user has been warned about this previously - see here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned this user. As they have already been warned for this in the past I think a block would be warranted if this continues. --John (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it happens again, I will request a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Wittenberg_University.E2.80.8E_copyvio_problem. The SPAs in question are:

• Windowsforgood (talk · contribs)
• USA987 (talk · contribs)
• Seanusa90 (talk · contribs)
• Johnathan87 (talk · contribs)
• Jejejeje568 (talk · contribs)
• Jejejeje567 (talk · contribs)

Can I get someone to take a look at Wittenberg University? It seems that it is being used as an advertising medium with constant insertions of copyvios and blatant POV. There have been a large number of WP:SPAs editing this article, coincidentally, not at the same time. Most of them have been completely non-communicable and the ones who do respond pretty much just tells that me that I am wrong and reverts. I have filed a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan87. The latest SPA told a telling statement here, "Wikipedia apparently is very reliable in student's decisions on going to college". I would be happy to just let the SPI run its course (which has not gone very fast), but at the moment, I can't even insert a tag without a new sock account being created and removing it. I find it hard to use any method of dispute resolution, since I'm dealing with a new account every time I edit a user talk page. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This post was removed a couple moments ago by User:Windowsforgood. Looks like they are trying to cover up their sockpuppetry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 05:53

Yep, every time I start to have any type of discussion or start to warn a single user enough to report, a new user gets created. For example, I requested that Seanusa90 reply to my post on the talk page here at 5:06 UTC, and then Windowsforgood was created at 5:09 and was the account who replied to me. After removing this post, I doubt we'll be seeing Windowsforgood again. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it right now. That might be enough given the pattern I've seen, but I note it's been fully protected not long ago. dougweller (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help for a little while at least, or at least make them stick to an autoconfirmed account. According to the protection log, the last protection was just semi, not full, though. The last full protection was January 13, 2007. Hopefully, they will try talking it out on the talk page instead of waiting it out, but, if not, I may be seeing you all again in a month :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have given the latest incarnation a shortish block for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. If he tries to evade that, we can begin just immediately indef-blocking any new account turning up in future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Hopefully they'll get the message. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Would anyone be kind enough to block the user AntiFetch based on this edit? It is clearly the The Hollabck Girl coming back again to likely continue the activities the primary account was blocked for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AntiFetch just got brought back to the drawer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

... and 2 of its friends. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Hollabck Girl. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Special:Contributions/70.238.175.193. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31h for WP:NPA violations. May be prudent to delete some revisions since they seem to contain edit summary vandalism and/or soapboxing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

... that would be just to name a few issues with them. I'm reading those edit summaries and still just blinking my eyes... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had written an "argument matrix" at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Argument matrix as part of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. My concept of an "argument matrix" was simply to list the various arguments in their condensed form, and treat them as a digest of point-by-point back-and-forth discussion. I had begun one a related WP:AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama, but that was improperly changed to "speedy delete" and discussion was closed before I could deal with it. User:Tarc removed it entirely calling it an "epic tirade of sarcasm". I restored it (though for a technical reason my full comment did not come through). User:Grsz came along and removed it as well, characterizing it as "soapboxing."

Even if the above criticisms were true, my comments, however organized, however sarcastic, however stylistically disagreeable to certain people, and regardless of any opinionated claim that such is "soapboxing", such are not vandalism - they are discussion comments. Editing them, moving them, interrupting them, deprecating them, and deleting them based on a simplistic POV opinion of what their value is is about as anti-Wikipedia as can be. The policy, rule, and convention has long been, unless its vandalism or a threatening message, do not in any unusual way alter people's comments on discussion pages.

Note that Grsz did a similiar thing here on this page, for which I filed an ANI at #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11, which details how he unilaterally deprecated my ANI report on a separate but related matter.

Both Tarc and Grsz are POV partisan editors in the ongoing discussions related to Talk:Barack Obama. Their removal of my comments was improper in any context, and in this context is all but certainly motivated by their POV in that dispute. I suggest blocking Tarc and Grsz for a short time, though others may think, contrary to our customs and policies, that what they did was proper. The fact remains, that it is not, while in fact their punishment will be. -Stevertigo 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: stop trolling. You're on very thin ice as it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I bet if we called for a list of people that Steve hasn't called to be blocked yet, it'd be a short one. IMO, there's simply no justification for this in a Deletion Review. It is somewhat of a Reductio ad absurdum, taking everyone's positions and sifting them down to an absurd abstract. It added nothing, and was merely a disruptive eyesore tucked within other user's comments. BTW, it is usually considered good form to notify one of an AN/I report in which they are mentioned. I only saw this in my watch list when Sceptre happened to be the most recent commentator on this section.Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Still trolling over Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama being deleted? seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block Steve and put him on probation? His actions are getting beyond a joke. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed my cut-in comment above, an encore:

I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap, you mean Obama isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread? — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by the rich history here, which includes an ArbCom desysopping for, in part, edit-warring, I would hope that it'd be more than a 48hr time-out. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Tarc) Well in my defense, that discussion was fairly heated, and that Arbcom decision was.. to put it mildly.. one of its most controversial and unpopular. Note also that that wheel war got people thinking; subsequent wheel wars were handled much better, punishments other than desysopping, and with more Wikilove to go around. I could have been contrite, and that would have kept me sysopped, but some things needed to be clarified at the RFAR level, and I was just the being to do it. -Stevertigo 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I must have missed something. Why are arguments on a page designed for arguments disallowed and removed multiple times by someone other than the author? In the diffs, he may be sarcastic, but he isn't personally attacking anyone. He's just arguing in a different style than perhaps you are used to. Shouldn't he be given the opportunity to present his agruments for or against the closure? How does removing them from a page designed specifically for those types of arguments help? Why remove them rather than reformat them if that is the issue? Someone fill me in. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I removed it because it was disruptive, trolling, and not at all conducive to DRV. It isn't Steve's own argument, or even just an argument in a different style/format; it is a pointy condensation of other user's input into that deletion review. What kind of precedent does this set? Can I go into any other AfD/DRV, look at everyone's detailed rationales for their opinions, boil them down into a bumper sticker form of my own interpretation, and tack it on into a new sub-section at the bottom of the discussion? Tarc (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, though. The comment *format* (which I called an "argument matrix", which means something like argument+matrix) was something you hadn't quite seen before; like a caveman who first lays his eyes on a Chinese restaurant; which naturally made you scared and as such you must have felt the need to destroy it.

I completely understand, as you can probably tell by my above agreement/explanation. Hence your concern is (somewhat) valid, and as such I will support you in dealing with such problematic phenomenon in a policy treatment. Wikipedia:Unconventional formatting might be a good place for it.

The "argument matrix" was in fact a brilliant (and understandably scary) new technology; one in which particular discrete points are broken down and laid plain, without confusing jargon, mis-references to policy that may or may not exist (unless the policy reference is the actual point), and compound arguments that mix an arguable argument with a POV characterization or some other useless thing. Plus it was editable, though I may not have made that quite clear at the outset.

So, in short, your crime was to delete someone else's talk discussion on a discussion page, under some pretense that probably does not have any relevancy at all to the sanctity of discussion comments. My crime was to use strange, scary, formatting; and within that formatting quoted the actual arguments made above. I'm certain there is a better motivation for wanting it destroyed other than that it made the opposition look irrational, illogical, pointless, and obtuse, but I have yet to see one written down. -Stevertigo 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a call for page protection, but the IMagic_OS page needs some attention. Any attempt at cleanup seems to be reverted by IP 69.206.224.176, who also made some rude comments in the talk page. The page is seriously lacking, giving mostly advertising information, but since it has received some attention as "the worst commercial Linux distrobution" it could be justified as notable. I added a Criticism section to reflect this, with references, but 69.206.224.176 reverted the page. I personally don't want to invest alot of time in a Wikipedia dispute, so I hope some Adminstrator could take a look at it. --Audunmb (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be six or seven editors who've worked on this article in the last 30 days. A single stubborn editor is going to be unable to maintain his preferred version against six others who disagree with him and who behave reasonably. But you don't seem to have universal backing yet. Why not work harder on the Talk page to explain and justify your criticism paragraph? See if you can persuade others to support you. There do not seem to be any grounds yet for admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should bring this up here or the spam page. I did a clean up of the external links on Subaru Alcyone SVX which contained a lot of fan sites and forums. However, there is now an anonymous user (or users) that are reverting my removal, adding all the links back in. I've tried warning the IPs, but the IP address keeps changing. Here are the relevant diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. What course of action should be taken? swaq 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edit from troublesome IP was about ten hours ago. If it starts up again, bring it up at WP:RFP and suggest a short semi-protect. HalfShadow 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is extremely persistent, then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. I'^mperator 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer20greg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Greg20eagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clearly the same person, making the same vandalism edits. [65] & [66]

(My appologies if this belongs on another board. I debated between AIV, SSP and here.)--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:AIV would probably have been the ticket, but both blocked anyway. Black Kite 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My request at WP:RFPP has not been dealt with yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Already done by Toddst1. I rangeblocked the edit-warrior's school for good measure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They were also using other accounts in the Ohio region. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A user nominates for deletion a huge series of "criticism" articles: [67]. This has been debated numerous times, and the articles were kept. Could someone intervene, please? It would be huge waste of time for many users to vote in all these unnecessary AfD nominations. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: Ism schism (talk · contribs) started the mass nomination, after the article Criticism of Barack Obama that he (re)created was deleted ( AFD, DRV). Irrespective of underlying merit, this seems to be a WP:POINT violation. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ism schism has agreed to "pause for some time on Afds"[68]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have these "Criticism of [...]" pages, and not one on Barack Obama? _{I volunteered and voted for Obama, but it is a legitimate question that I can't find one, solid answer for.} If someone can provide some DIFF's, that would be appreciated. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it time, there will be criticism aplenty, as there is with any President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it has something to do with the fact that most "criticism" of Obama thus far--at least the stuff that has received semi-widespread coverage--has been nothing but the sort of fringe-theory scandal-mongering that is already covered (in absurd depths that can only be justified by WP:NOTPAPER) in articles such as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Jeremiah Wright controversy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. That was the type of answer I was expecting Cosmic Latte (thank you), not some canned "look at the FAQ" B.S. There is a reason why so many keep asking, and why it keeps being repeated; you can't expect to just can out a generic answer for the removal of a page when there are similar pages regarding similar, notable figures. More detailed responses are needed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ones who want the page could list the top 5 things they would feature in the article??? Then we'd be in a better position to judge its worth as an article. I notice the Bush page was created 5 years into his Presidency. So in theory, the Obama spinoff page should not occur until 2014. I also notice that everything in the Bush article summary talks about stuff that occurred well into his time in office. It's too early to write anything substantial like that about Obama, who has been in office a grand total of 56 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse sending these article to AfD but I also recognize the futility of it. I've given up trying to have these articles deleted or even renamed to something more neutral (e.g. Opinions on Joe Bloggs or somesuch). How we can defend hit-jobs like these is beyond me; any article that focuses primarily on the positive about an individual gets very short shrift. Just try and create Praise for Barack Obama or Praise for Sylvia Browne. Neutral point of view does not mean journalistic point of view. For all the perpetual kerfuffle around the BLP policy, we don't come down half as hard on negative bias as we do promotional articles. CIreland (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the one-sided Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008? THF (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that article has expanded way beyond what it initially started out as. Based on the initial edits it was intended to be about "Obamacans" or "Obama Republicans", similar to Reagan Democrats, but seems to have mutated into a general "So and so, who happens to be Republican, said nice things about Obama". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And even more, going into present Republican opinions of Obama, which is kinda silly for an article with "...in 2008" as part of the title . I just removed some dithering about "eroding support" in the first 100 days. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Hear hear. While I hate these types of articles, this was pure disruption. Some process-wonk is bound to take the Dubya page to DRV because I !voted in it before realising it was a disruptive pattern. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in your defense, you must not have known what was up, or what you were doing. -Stevertigo 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just issued an indefinite full-protection to Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in order to stem what appears to be a very protracted edit war. The request that led to it was filed by 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs), and his request has been tampered with by El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs). The moment I issued the protection, I warned El Machete against editing others' RFPP requests, both at RFPP and at his talk page. Almost immediately afterwards, he came onto my talkpage screaming bloody murder at me and accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet. To be clear, when he first made the accusation, I examined the link and content he was edit-warring to keep in (example: [69]). The link's added inside a {{cite}} tag, and the added info's all unsourced.

Could I get some help calming El Machete down? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Jeremy is twisting the facts and providing false information. It was not IP 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs) it was in fact IP 74.248.71.136 (talk · contribs) and Jeremy is very well aware of this! He has chosen to ignore the fact that a blocked IP has gamed the system and played Jeremy a fool because he cannot swallow the fact I have highlighted he chose to assume bad faith on me and side with a currently blocked editor. He has even made disparing comments in his ANi comment "screaming bloody muder at me" towards me and does not seem to be a good admin.

Could I get some help getting this admin to accept the obvious facts. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• He has now removed any evidence of me highlighting his wrong doing from his page as he does not want anyone seeing it as he quite obviously knows what he has done and is ashamed and embaressed to have it on his talkpage LOOK LOOK LOOK. I know this to be fact as he keeps archives and keeps all other comments just for some odd reason not mine! Does not take a genius to know why either. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because you would not wait for a response from me after your last post. I was dealing with the thread directly below this one when you started accusing me of sticking my head in the sand. I am not your butler. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the comedian Jeremy, I cannot distinguish wether you are giving excuses or making jokes. I have been waiting and still am waiting buddy so don't twist the facts and you would not have bothered to come here and defend yourself if it what I said was not true. At least personally I wouldn't have because I would just pass it off as nonsense unless it was true. Checkmate buttler. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending myself; in fact I'm trying to keep away from you since you won't leave me be. If I had blocked the IP, I would have had to block *you* as well, EMG, and since you two were the only editors on the article I opted to full-protect it instead. Stop accusing me of malice before you end up blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If you blocked me you would have had to ban the editor as he played you and the system and I am quite positive if I gamed the system like this I would not get off so easy! I am not accusing you of malice, I am merely stating the facts. You take it as what ever your consious makes of it. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - You did not explain which IP had been blocked and when until after Jeremy started to respond. You also are making some very wild acusations about the IP editor, which the edit history does not support on looking at it.

If those are bad edits, you need to explain why.

At this point, several users (the shifting IP user, El Machete Guerrero) could be blocked for 24 hrs under our three reverts per 24 hrs policy or our policy against edit warring in general. You both failed to do much on the article talk page to explain your positions as far as I see. I don't want to do this, but if you continue swinging at Jeremy there's not much to save you from a short preventive block here.

Please stop the acusations, explain why the edits you were making were legitimate and the IP editors were not. This can be resolved in a calm and constructive manner if nobody continues to escalate it. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel I am making wild accusations at all, just valid observations. The shifting IP has already been blocked for 36 hours under one IP and I am aware I could also be blocked for breaking policy but the IP can be banned for gaming the system and undermining his block with another IP, which is not the first time he has done so and he has been warned plenty which he always removes off his page. As for swinging at Jeremy, if that is the metaphor you want to use then I will say I am only swinging in defense for myself. He was the one that posted this ANI not me and he is the one removing all trace evidence of my dealings with him on his talkpage and he is the one who assumed bad faith on my behalf. The IP was reverting legitimate sourced additions to the article and has been patrolling this page for longer than me removing anything that does not adhere to it's POV and vandalising in the process. George please at least you admit to the fact I am right and it is a sockpuppet gaming the system. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy has not acted wrongly in this matter. Removing the discussion from his talk page and opening the discussion here are normal and proper. Asking for an uninvolved administrator to cool down a tense situation is entirely appropriate and shows good judgement on his part. Please do not continue to acuse him of improper behavior over these actions.

Regarding the edit warring on Reggaeton - Again, please explain why the changes the IP was making were improper. All I have at this point is that you and the IP were editing it back and forth. Yes, the IP editor was blocked a little while ago on a related IP and is obviously the same person back. That does not mean that they were wrong on the underlying content dispute. I cannot tell if there's any reasonable justification for their editing OR your editing.

If I can't tell if one side was right, with clear violations of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, I should block all of you and protect the article for a while.

You have time and a chance to explain what it was in the IP editor's edits which were vandalism or incorrect, and why your edits were legitimate. Please take this opportunity to explain rather than continuing to fight over Jeremy's actions or other side issues.

Please focus. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am focused and I have been justified in my arguments. You conviently do not offer an opinion on the IP's gaming of the system a persist with me. You can block me but because he evaded his original block he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me, but either way there is no need now as the article has already been blocked so there will no longer be an edit war as we can't edit war. I already said in my reply down the bottom that I will look for the blind reverts and I will not proceed in doing so. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to poke this discussion - I just wanted to quickly address the phrase "he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me" - please remember that blocks are not punitive, they are preventative - punishment doesn't enter into it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - this is a last warning. Stop attacking Jeremy and explain why you have been edit warring with the IP address on the article, and why their changes are inaccurate or improper. If you attack anyone further I will block you for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I attack him? Explain how I have attacked him. Don't threaten me with blocks if you will not explain how I being disruptive. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18 reverts in less than 24 hours to one article, particularly of edits which seem to fix problems, is very bad; see here, where the IP changes a URL in a reference named "village voice" to refer to an article from the Village Voice on Reggaeton, instead of a redirect to a "latin music fansite" (though this isn't the only change, that it was reverted is clearly indicative of blind, automatic reversion without giving a moment's consideration to the content being reverted). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (addendum: However, of course, the full protection of the Reggaeton article obviates 3RR blocks for either at this time (since such a block would be in no way preventative) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edit was a blind revert on his half, as a while before our revert war, someone else changed that reference to "reggaeton2009" and I thought that was the correction. He was the one editing blindly as you will see from my reversions any new content I would include in my new conversion but he would not. I will try and find exactly when it was changed and show you he did not revert that with the intention of improving it and only reverted with the intention of reverting me. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like he or she were trying to fix some things. If you can show version diffs which show them actively inserting wrong content, please provide them. So far, it looks on examining a bunch of the back and forth that you were blindly reverting them trying to fix things, not the other way around.

Please provide the diffs of them causing a problem or inserting vandalism. Maybe I just missed it, but you need to show us. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will provide some diffs of blind reversions but you have to wait as this has been going on for ages. Give me some time. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few diffs; .191 showed up here, reverting to a version pushed by .213 (to be honest it does llook like the user just jumped IPs, but there's no cause to call it deliberate as the user doesn't seem to be engaging in block evasion etc). The current EW started here, and another probably unrelated IP added the oddball link here. .191 reverted both Machete and the new IP, and Machete reverted that revert, [re-adding the bad link. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes thankyou you found it. I thought I was improving the article by keeping that and I delibrately kept it as I thought someone changed a bad link. But now you have told me that the IP in fact added a fansite and did not fix the link at all and honestly I don't remember checking to see if he did in fact fix it which is my bad. But I am trying to improve the article not blindly revert it. I will try and look for more blind reversions by the IP. Give me a sec. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify - there are three things here which are unambigous from the edit history:

• The IP editor jumped IPs within the same /24 CIDR block, and in doing so evaded a block (on purpose or accidentally, I don't know, and isn't material here).
  • Obviously on purpose as he was blocked and was not able to edit on the other IP. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• The IP editor edit warred to the preferred version they like.
• El Machete Guerrero edit warred to the preferred version they like.

All that really matters is a good clarification of what the underlying validity is of statements about whether one side or the other was vandalizing with those edits. At this point - nothing in the IPs edits appear to be intentional vandalism. Nor do El Machete Guerrero's. The IP editors' edits appear to be more correct, removing questionable links and claims, but we haven't heard a detailed explanation by El Machete Guerrero as to why they feel the IP editor is wrong in fact and is therefore vandalizing. If we can't get a clarification to justify one side or the other's edits there should be a rangeblock for block evasion and 18RR for 48 to 72 hrs, a block on El Machete Guerrero for 48 to 72 hrs for 18RR (at least), and a protection on the page for a week or so. Someone, please explain to me why we don't need to block you for several days. What did the other side do wrong that constitutes obvious vandalism? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel he vandalised as he continuosly removed content which I had to re-add as did other editors Warrington and Largoplazo. Also why are you showing bias to me "at least" this does not seem very appropriate and I don't feel admins should take sides. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have also previously mentioned to you and other admins that they have every right in blocking me as I also did break policy like the IP, but unlike the policy I did not game the system and evade a block which the IP needs to be punished for if I am to be blocked and hes punishment should be harsher than mine as he did alot worst "at least". I'm sure if I gamed the system in such a way you would not treat me the same George or Jeremy and in fact maybe you should block me so I can just game the system on purpose and see if you deal with me fairly and the same as you do with the IP. Because that there will be my proof that you show bias towards me and aren't fair. P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that." is a poorly veiled threat. We are not children. You have been extended repeated opportunities to explain yourself - that is about to come to an end. Get to the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They did 19 things wrong - one block evade and 18 counts of edit warring. You did 18 things wrong. I am not biased for or against either of you.

You need to explain why you think the content they changed was factually wrong / vandalism. Just noting that you and they went back and forth contains no information as to why you think their changes were vandalism, and yours were not. I can see from the article history very clearly that you and they went back and forth. That's not at issue. The question is, whether either you or they (or both, in some bizarre head-on collision) felt that the other was clearly vandalizing, and can explain how the others' changes appeared to be vandalism.

Just pointing out that they repeatedly made those changes does not explain how or why their changes were vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am so tempted to go and change evry "they" to "him" as you very well know it was one person and I cannot believe you are persisting with "they". I don't need to show bias as you show it yourself George! And I just answered above I said it was vandal as he removed content which me and to other users had to re-add. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His Repeated Additions. If you can find a single mention of any of those text additions in any of the sources used in that wiki, feel free to permanently block me. The short answer? You won't find them, because the above contributor either doesn't cite sources or adds POV or otherwise unreferenced text that is not reflected in the sources cited. That's inarguable. The purpose of the revisions were made crystal clear, case closed. Long rants and conspiracy theories of "gaming the system" aside, feel free to block both of us for 3RR. 74.248.71.136 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, thankyou sock I have not have such a laugh in a long time! "Conspiracy theories"!!! My god, you still cannot admit to gaming the system and are playing dumb. COME ON. And yes you would say feel free to block both of us because you will just jump to another IP and the article is the way you want it at the moment. So why would you not make this genrous offer, I would be very surprised if you did not in fact! El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke the conversation with a stick right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18RR blocks issued to 74.248.71.1/24 and El Machete Guerrero. The block on the IP range includes a block evasion component. Both parties are reminded to use talk pages to discuss content disputes in the future and avoid edit warring on the live wiki article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero seems to have discovered some socks of Machete. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are operating in different article spaces for the most part. I asked for the CU because of Machete and another editor - it looked like they were good hand / bad hand cooperating on the article over time, but they're confirmed not to be the same so I don't think there's anything here we need to follow up on. Will review it all again later tonight, but I think this is a wash. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request subject ban for User:PieRRsquared on his own article. Michael Tobias is doing his utmost to white-wash his article. He's been the subject of some rather unpleasant media stories. His PR agent has gone so far as to contact me and demand that the related section - or the entire biography be removed. Tobias initially edited under the name User:Michaeltobias (when he created his bio article), but has since lost his password and so now edits under User:PieRRsquared. (Note: this does not constitute an abuse of multiple accounts.)

He has been advised of our COI policy. I've advised him to make use of the article's talk page. I've advised him of our BLP policies should he feel the article fails to maintain neutrality - but to no avail.

In brief, he is president of an organization established to provide a sanctuary for aging, and out of work farm animals. The basic problem with his editing is that he's keen to reword sources to make the accusations sound less significant - and to leave out the more damning portions from reliable sources (i.e. white-wash). He has also removed reliable sourced salary information. The section's topic involves claims of animal euthanasia, but he has even gone so far as to even remove the subject link to animal euthanasia from the article. White-washing aside, the article is itself is a mess and reads more like a personal promotional piece.

So I'm requesting we ban Michael Tobias from editing the Michael Tobias article. Some help re-writing the article so it conforms with our own standards would also be great. Rklawton (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost suggesting wiping the article out and starting over. It's a nightmare of unsourced statements and the entire Early studies section is completely unsourced. However, if he insists on whitewashing the article, then yeah, he might have to be limited to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed the usual biographical outline on the article's talk page, but I think it should wait until after we resolve this particular matter. I can't blame the guy for being irked by all the bad press he's gotten, but that's his tough luck. We've got to remain neutral on the matter and report what we find in V RS, etc. If we let folks white-wash their articles, they'd be only as useful as their own websites. Rklawton (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is a continuation of an issue previously brought up on AN/I here (and the reason I got involved in the first place). Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a sock of another community banned user [70]

I suspect TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a brand new user who seems highly familiar with editing wikipedia, is almost certainly a sock of someone. His first two edits about a secret "OS" he's building in userspace [71]. His fourth edit: "I am afraid that people will start claiming I am a sock and ban me? What should I do?"[72]. His sixth edit, a response to a querry on his secret project "Its a highly experimental project that I am working on that will create a article based interactive "OS" but right now I am designing the code for it privatly on a seperate wiki hosted on a wiki farm along with studing the coding of the site in order to make this reality." [73]. Maybe he'll have a good explanation for all this. Eyes on him, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment If it will make you feel better, the prototype I am working on will require the use of two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS (Wiki Operating System is a better term kinda like with DOS) continusuly but I will not make a beta for this site until I am sure the coding will not cause any major problems. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"...two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS" Oh, I wouldn't do that. Last time someone did that, the whole system achieved sentience, just like Skynet. 'Twas horrible, the developers were up to their arses elbows in Terminators. Took them ages to clean up. No, no, no, bad idea that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the account adds the "This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron" userbox to his userpage, then heads for deletion discussions ... and then comments "Speedy Delete" in two of the three he's edited (neither were speedies, either). The phrase "taking the piss" springs to mind ... Black Kite 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now fairly convinced it's this guy [74] though it's not an iron clad duck yet, and my suspicions are largely of a behavioral nature (convoluted/paranoid style) and the fact that two of his first five edits were in an AfD i've been involved with today, and a witiquette alert im involved with in which he made the comment "people will start claiming i'm a sock and ban me." But i guess that's insufficient/a waste of time for SPI.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He has now twice inserted an obvious copyvio of [75] as Elab, speedy-deleted twice by PMDrive1061. He has also revived a moribund project Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion Deleters, where the original eds. have been off-wiki for over a year now. Regardless of whom he may be a sock of, this does not seem like the beginning of a promising time here. DGG (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He also voted to "Strong keep per nom" at an AfD. I think he might be some sort of troll. ThemFromSpace 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And now a G12 speedy claim on an article that isn't a copyvio. Warned appropriately (stretching AGF, but meh). Black Kite 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now convinced it's another sock of Manhattan Samurai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) largely based on the particular brand of trolling.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've brought it up at SPI [76].Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong part of the continent for MS,  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Versageek 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a building backlog on AIV, if an admin or two could take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:45

Looks cleared out now.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

unblocked

I've botched a block tweak and inadvertantly unblocked the user (it was some time before I noticed, I am teh noob). In the meantime he had (presumably off-wiki) discussions with Jéské Couriano regarding a 5 month politics topic ban which he is willing to accept. I've left a message for Orangemike to make sure he's ok with Axmann proceeding. I'm leaving this message for transparency. FWIW, I do support this arrangement - politics related topics seem to be what take Axmann off-course. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While he was under the autoblock, he posted an unblock request indicating that he'd be willing to abide by a five-month topic ban on political articles, so it's self-suggested. I removed the autoblock after I got confirmation from him that he'd abide by it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

k, thanks for annotating the block log. Orangemike has signaled he is fine with this arrangement as well. –xeno (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Axmann

I just wanted to issue a public apology for all the times I actually violated Wikipedia policy. I want to take this time to let it be known that only ONE of the contributions to Wikipedia were done in bad faith. Every single edit, contribution, vote, etc. (except one) was an attempt by me to make Wikipedia a more neutral and better encyclopedia altogether. I am explicitly stating that none of my edits were done in bad faith so people will know. That said, I am sorry if I ever violated a Wikipedia policy (and if I did, it most certainly was not on purpose [again, except once]). To be honest, the only thing I did in bad faith was nominating that user's Obama userbox for deletion. That, I knew, was a violation of policy and an intentional disregard of WP:POINT. That said, there certainly were times where I know I was right and the administrators were wrong. I can recall several events such as these, actually. I do not apologize for those moments. I am currently under a 5-month politics topic ban, and I will abide by those constraints. In the mean time, I am going to work mostly on vandalism reversion. Thank you for your time.
-Axmann8 (Talk) 12:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just issued a single issue warning to this IP for an abusive comment made on Talk:Burnout Paradise (now reverted). But it seems a little strange that an IP user with no previous edits would be so concerned over another IP user using a talk page as a forum. I suspect this may be a sock who has logged out of his/her account to make an abusive edit. Just thought I should raise it here in case it warrants looking-at. Also, if using a single-issue notice was too much, please change it but I did this because (like I said) this was the user's first edit and it was a very inappropriate one. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Per whois that IP is registered to a University in New Zealand. Maybe a proxy with a large number of iPs behind it, maybe a dynamic IP. There's not much to be done unless we start getting a lot of vandalism form that address, I'd have thought, in which case a {{schoolblock}} might be appropriate - but not for a single edit. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RedRose333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After my last post (see [84]) mainly was ignored ten days ago, our friend got some more warnings because of removing content and missing edit summaries. What to do? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User hasn't edited since the final/last warnings s/he was given today. If they disrupt again, shout out. (Although personally, I won't block if it's just a missing edit summary.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In March alone they got warnings by five different editors. Maybe an admin can try to talk to them. There may be language problems or whatever. I can't check where they are from. I remember a similiar case with Zonly some time ago which got solved when they were contacted in their own language. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a persistent vandal attacking List of active autonomist and secessionist movements#Portugal, by creating a huge an changing list of fictional separatist movements. The IPs used so far, all from Portugal, are:

213.22.161.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.64.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.64.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.65.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.65.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.223.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.38.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.95.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can an admin deal with this (rangeblock examination and whatever necessary actions...)? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre is purportedly closing AfD debate for Criticism of George W. Bush with edit summary, "Fuck process, I'm closing this." The summary below calling nomination disruption seems to not assume good faith either. I personally believe that Sceptre is baiting a lot of people into an editor war, with abusive edit summaries (not only including this one), and specious actions. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with closing down an AFD that was purely disruptive? Non-admins can perform closures, but the hilarity of this is, Sceptre is dead-on. seicer | talk | contribs 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a valid closure to me too. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Speedy Keep requires no other delete vote and actual vandalism. However, it the abusive nature that some of you guys are proceeding on with this that is concerning. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(a whole buttload of ec's) I don't see a problem with it. The closures are within the spirit of WP:IAR – instead of letting disruptive AFDs go on distracting others from improving/maintaining Wikipedia, they should be closed to move on, admin or non-. MuZemike 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't need to be an admin to close an obvious Keep AFD. rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'll drop this. This policy is not entirely clear, though. Though the abusive language and rhetoric is not the basis of my inquiry, this is still a concern. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "fuck process" was meant to attack any editor or assume bad faith. It was an indication–with minimal tact in that–that the user was invoking IAR. MuZemike 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

However, how's this: "Sceptre, please don't use that language in edit summaries. Thank you"? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

G-rated edit summaries are the right way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "with minimal tact in that". I don't disagree. MuZemike 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Bwilkins' request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems almost hilarious the context of a few months ago: [85], [86], [87], [88], etc. Are you saying these articles are "ok" now? — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was a contentious AFD closure, but I have noted that I, an admin, concur with it. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The trolls at the DRV are making the people who are trying to enforce NPOV, like myself, look bad. I can't have that going on, even if it means closing an AfD of an article I want to be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the closure was correct, Sceptre, as a participant in the discussion, should not have closed it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "fuck process". Sure, on paper, what Sceptre did was 'wrong', but was it a positive? Obviously. Seems to be what IAR was made for. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually IAR was made to short circuit the process wonks and do the right thing. Strange thing here is that it seems Sceptre did the exact opposite. He went process wonk against what he believes is the right thing. Odd. Arkon (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

152.26.38.8 (talk · contribs) appears to be a vandal-only IP address. There are multiple warnings on the user talk page. The latest example is this. I don't think this is an emergency, since the user doesn't edit very often, but I do think that after four warnings (not counting what is deserved for today's), that a block is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a school IP, and the vandalism rate is not so bad for one of those. Anyway, the proper place to report simple vandalism is WP:AIV. Looie496 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That IP was blocked for 24 hours at about 5am (UTC) this morning. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a high tolerance for incivility, but this one is sickening, and has led to the withdrawal of my wikicolleague, HWV258 (temporarily, I hope); HWV is rather too mild-mannered to bring a complaint. The abuse was particularly distressing as it took aim at HWV's parents. I note the conciliatory tone and substance of HWV's entries to which this was a reply.

Kendrick's edit summaries earlier today at the same page appeared to be working up to the "retarded child" comment:

• "nonsense", and
• "Undid revision 278015892 by Tony1 (talk) nonsense".

I believe the offender needs to be informed of the limits; action may need to be taken to ensure that no harm comes to the project. I have left notes at the talk pages of both users. Thank you. Tony (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a strong warning. Such comments are totally unacceptable. Raven4x4x (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is precisely the sort of personal attacks that causes many editors to just throw up their hands and say that contributing to Wikipedia just isn’t worth the pain. No editor should be able to make deeply cutting insults on the intelligence of another as a tactic to beat them down. A strong warning is, IMO, insufficient. This behavior stepped well over the bright-line rule and an imposed cooling off period is in order. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and especially since this is apparently again triggered by that lamest of lame topics, date linking. I've said for a while that the top players in that game ought to be topic banned from it. I mean, I can certainly understand that some people sometimes forget themselves and blow some steam with personal attacks. But nobody who can get emotionally worked up about a topic as lame as date linking to this point should be let anywhere near it. Let this debate be solved by people who find it as utterly boring as it actually is, is the only solution here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're at all serious about such bans, I would wholeheartedly support. For what it's worth. //roux   18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I would as well. I am getting tired of seeing the same six names at AN/I over such a trivial issue. Every week there seems to be at least one thread over this issue. In fact, I'd love to see some sort of injunction preventing such editing from all involved until there is a definitive consensus one way or the other. Note to both sides: Three people opposing 90 does not equal a lack on consensus on an issue. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to see an end to this, and if it means topic bans or escalating blocks, I'm all for it. Horologium (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Block the offender. We do not need to tolerate this kind of behaviors. I will be very sorry if HWV258 (talk · contribs) (a very good and reasonable content builder) is really gone due to the insult and nothing is enforced to the user in question.--Caspian blue 18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h. Completely unacceptable. (Edit: I've just noticed the timestamp on the original posting, and am amazed that no-one had taken this action previously. This argument is WP:LAME as it is, with the biggest waste-of-space RFAR of all time, without such comments being let go of) Black Kite 19:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Regrettable. However, in fact, this is a contention of about six editors against another six, with opinions on wider RFC's also dividing fairly evenly, as here. I will admit that Tony's tolerance of obscene and vulgar abuse is high, especially when he himself produces it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked User:Simulation12 is trolling here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at this edit and give a warning to the IP involved. I have attempted to calm him down but I doubt a warning from me would serve any useful purpose. Another pair of eyes on the article would be helpful given the current circumstances. Thanks, regards, Woody (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He's had plenty warnings; time for RBI. 87.114.148.185 (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked now by Hersfold after making death threats. Eyes on the article would still be appreciated, thanks, Woody (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to block User:Mrc419 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mrc419 who has already been given a final warning. Nerfari (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Following up from this report a few days ago, User:Tiramisoo seems to have added sockpuppetry to his repertoire. According to User:Dougweller both at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Digital_Revolution and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sirians, User:Tiramisoo is also likely User:GodivaCake. GodivaCake decided to remove the AFD notice at Sirians which Tiramisoo created "issued resolved" and Tiramisoo decided to remove the AFD notice at Category:Digital Revolution here. Note that I've warned Tiramisoo about the AFD notice but I'm wondering about the multiple comments in the (not a vote I know) AFD and frankly there is still a large issue with editing without summaries or discussion, from both accounts as he changes. Since the Digital revolution category is up for deletion and he's not likely to win (I don't put much weight in the "there are interwiki links so it should stay" arguments and I hope the closing admin feels the same), he's now moving articles to his Category:Information Age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm otherwise removed from this situation, but I recently closed the CFD discussion in question as delete. I'm concerned about the sockpuppetry, but I can't find a formal SPI report for either account. User:Dougweller said CU was positive, but I'm not sure where that was formally demonstrated, or if he just asked someone informally to run a CU. In any case, he could follow up with this and block one or both accounts for votestacking. As for User:Tiramisoo, the user has a history of being very unresponsive to concerns voiced about his edits. I'm willing to take action on this if dougweller is unavailable, but I would like to hear from him too, if possible. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done a bit more legwork, and even putting the sockpuppetry issue aside I have seen enough—wow, he has done some really outrageous things, in my opinion. And these have been repetitive, and as I've said he's been very unresponsive to polite inquiries. I note he has made numerous edits after the notice to this discussion has been posted on his talk page, so he's had ample time to respond. A short initial block seems in order. Please keep me informed of the problems if I can help in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor edits in a similar way to User:OregonD00d. Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I ran the CU for Dougweller.  Confirmed Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) = GodivaCake (talk · contribs) = OregonD00d (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've imposed an initial temporary block on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and added ones of similar length to GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) so it will not be evaded, but the original one I imposed was only 31 hours, so after it expires we may need a reconsideration of the situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest indefinitely blocking GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) - the latter because it's been inactive for several months, the former because it is newer than Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), with an explanation on the latter's page. dougweller (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OregonForests (talk · contribs) was indef blocked last year (same person). There was another account, but I can't remember what it was right now. Something forest or Oregon related. Katr67 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SaveTheForests (talk · contribs) No longer editing, but it would be good to keep track of all of them. Katr67 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure; and thanks to everyone. I'll indefinitely block all that have been identified except Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and will provide the appropriate explanations. I suggest we all keep an eye on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) after the block expires, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For tracking, if you'd find it helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work. dougweller (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I direct the attention of other administrators to the activity at Australian Communications and Media Authority around adding a "forbidden" link, as detailed in the article "Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator". A bevy of warring IPs and actual editors over the specified link, with no particular consensus to add what I would consider a link that would not be added to the article if it were not "forbidden". What action, if any, should be taken here? - Nunh-huh 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding some context from the other side here. The quoted article is a non-reputable news source in australia. The big ones are ABC, fairfax and news ltd, who have all covered the issue of this page being blacklisted on their vairous news outlets. There has been quite a concensus already. I have counted 10 users, including two random admin users, who have put the content in. We have had a few users come in, such as Nunh-huh who have deleted it without engaging in discussion. I also note that nunh-huh breached the 3rv rule just then. Do look over the history around 2-3 days before making decisions. And do read the 6 references included around the sentence ( most being absolutely reliable news resources: fairfax, and news ltd ) to see this is actually very relevant to ACMA right now. Thanks! --Reasonwins (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested proection to the article but has not been protected yet. I don't believe it's relevant to add the website link in the article as it's clearly trying to bring Wikipedia into the issue which is something the community doesn't need. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also another reason why the link shouldn't be added as it's clear the activists are doing so to disrupt the site (See: Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator). Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has now been fully protected, it was protected by User:VirtualSteve. It was my impression that the goal of protection was simply to stop edit warring and not as an edorsement of any particular version of the article. Indeed the very notice that VirtualSteve added to the top of the page indicated this (the standard editprotected template). Yet right after protecting the page VirtualSteve edited it to remove the link, effectively protecting it at his preferred version, instead of the version that just happened to be up at the time. I beleive this is not an appropriate use of admin tools. If he intendeed to intervene as an univolved admin he should not have made an very controversial editorial choice right after protecting the page. 189.105.47.108 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Having already discussed this with VirtualSteve, I do agree with his actions, if not fully with everything he stated with them. It was initially ip/new_user blocked, which meant older users could still edit. However a couple of users kept engaging in a revert war so VS locked it in the same state. He has locked it so that people could discuss the validity of the change in question. I also note a couple of users have engaged in that discussion, but the ones that originally raised this issue remain silent. Perhaps they are just offline. But this wouldn't be the first time a seemingly random user came and removed that content without much reason, and never came back to discuss their edits. Anyway, engage in the discussion so the arguments can be evaluated, is my suggestion. --Reasonwins (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fret, lillen. Steve did the right thing and abided by policy. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A side issue is of concern after the page was protect User Scarian has used his mop to edit the page and reinstate the link[89], to me this this is an abuse of the tools. Gnangarra 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are required to protect the wrong version of the page. If that was neglected, it's up to other admins to see this happens. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

one Very funny essay, I was pointing out that the admin edited the page after it was protected to insert material that was under discussion as per WP:PROTECT When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version. Gnangarra 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is not a joke. This is wheel-warring. Hesperian 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This very much looks like a disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The link doesn't appear to serve an encyclopedic purpose and is simply being used to provoke a third party. SoWhy and VirtualSteve did the right thing here by protecting the page and removing the link. --Farix (Talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And now it is back, because an administrator chose to wheel-war over it. Hesperian 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reputable source for this story now^[1] cojoco (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that the ACMA page has been locked due to the presence of an anti-abortion website blocked by ACMA, yet the much bigger story, the leaking of the full blacklist, cannot be added to the article. cojoco (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed to unblock User:Kendrick7 after what I believe to be a genuine apology for his personal attacks. However, I am at work and for some reason Special:BlockIP is triggering our firewall. Could someone unblock him with the reason ("Apologised, agreed not to repeat behaviour"). Autoblock is #1359927. Thanks! Black Kite 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've unblocked them ... let me know if there are further problems. Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• YLHamdani (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a misleading username; Temporarily blocked account for disruptive editing, would like another administrator to take a look at the username issue - possible impersonation of Yasser Latif Hamdani. . -- I had reported this to WP:UAA but since I blocked one day for disruptive editing, the bot will keep removing it. Would appreciate another administrator looking into this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The issue is our usual brand of toponymical irredentism (in this particular case, Iranian).

I'm edit-warring instead of limiting myself to discussing calmly in the article's talk page because in this particular article the latter option has proven time and again to be utterly pointless (see the archives): these people simply refuse to follow our naming conventions, instead using Wikipedia as a venue to promote their preferred terminology.

My talk page attempts to explain our naming conventions are characterized as "unfounded, and contrived, arguments", and not even read anyway.

The relevant sections of the article's talk page are:

• Algiers Accord of 6 March 1975.
• It is Arvand Rood/Rud.

And I'm edit-warring at 1975 Algiers Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too.
The relevant talk page section is: Arvand.

Anyone bored enough to take a look at this depressing issue ? Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 16 March – 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it now. Do not continue edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aknowledged. And thank you for taking a little time for this. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This issue looks to be a bit of a doozy. I have protected the page for the time being on the most recent version. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version. It looks like this has been going on for several years, and at least one effort at mediation was closed before running its course. Given that there appear to be legitimate gripes AND nationalism driving this, I would strongly encourage opening a case at RfAr and trying to get some kind of closure on the matter. There is certainly a fair amount of room to address the actions of many editors involved, but I think this will just keep going around in circles without some definitive statement to fall back on. I'm open to other ideas, but given the number of years this has gone on, it looks like RfAr is overdue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how much an arbitration could help here, at least at present. Although the issue itself won't go away anytime soon, the Iranian editors demanding the use of the Farsi name instead of -or at least alongside- the standard English usage are always new people. Neither BF (he asked to be addressed so) nor User:Nepaheshgar became involved until 13 March 2009 (four days ago). So, I'm afraid the issue could be easily dismissed as premature, or even considered a content dispute.

Probably the best option involving the Arbitration Committee would be to make them aware of the situation and then wait for the current West Bank - Judea and Samaria case to run its course and see if the issue is handled there (if, because the cases are not exactly equivalent: for the averange anglophone Arvand Rud doesn't have the subjective connotations that Judea and Samaria do; it's just that it's not the common, standard name of the waterway).

But in essence it's a really simple issue: whether the article should be written using the most easily recognized name, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (along the spirit of our naming conventions policy), or whether it should take into account the grievances of Iranian nationalists who dislike/dismiss our current naming conventions (and common English usage itself).

I think we can handle this without arbitration, by simply blocking the editors for disruption (i.e. persistently violating our policies and guidelines; in this case, our naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names). Previous warning, of course. We shouldn't allow so much liberty of action for the introduction of nationalist grievances in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree blocks would be appropriate here. BF's brazen-faced display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [94], from the cover of his friends' tag-team revert warring, is far beyond the line of any legitimate content dispute. This is willful ignoring of policy, it is a behaviour issue, it is disruptive, and as such blockable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given BF a short warning block (24h), since he inexplicably resumed revert-warring on the 1975 Algiers Agreement article, after failing for several days to address the challenge (which was pointed out to him even by other editors who were generally on his side) that the text verbatim quoted on that very page doesn't support the claim he is making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the protection level to semi from full. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Fut.Perf. & Hiberniantears; I hope that this will put and end to the disruption. I could have issue the warnings & possible blocks myself, without posting here & taking time from other administrators; but I feared that ensuing complaints of "conflict of interest" & "involved administrator threatening/issuing blocks" would drain even more contributors' time than what your actions have required.

Just so that you know, having now taken the time to check the treaty's text (United Nations Treaty Collection: Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14903, pages 54 to 213 – see details) I found the following:

• The treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975) uses the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents), as do various of the accompanying documents.
• The accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in the Wikipedia article, mentions "river frontiers or boundaries", without actually naming the waterway.
• The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

These edits verge on outright vandalism. Details at Talk:1975 Algiers Agreement#Arvand. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfA is going to have no more effect than any other previous effort since we cannot here cure the hostility between Persian and Arab cultures. To see the Farsi name Arvand Rud not equally or preferentially displayed with respect to Shatt al-Arab is an insult to Persian nationalistic pride – notwithstanding the clear fact that, through accident of history, the latter has become the name universally used in the English-speaking world, and the former all but unknown. The naming issue has been shown multiple times to be moot with respect to WP policies and guidelines (for example, see Talk:Shatt al-Arab/Archive 2#Policies vs. polls), but since these don’t provide the “proper” result, I’m afraid there’s not going to be an end to this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there can be an end to it if we finally resolve to enforce our policies. Block them. Anybody who lets their "nationalistic pride" influence their editing shouldn't be here in the first place. Don't wait till they break 3RR. Don't wait till they make personal attacks. Block them for deliberate editing against policy and failure to work towards NPOV, which constitutes ipso facto blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, wholeheartedly. To simplify future incidents, I will draft a FAQ for that article. - Ev (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that no matter how rigorously the policies are enforced, this particular area of irritation won't go away, or even subside. The hatreds are too ingrained, and Wiki too accessable. I'm all for moving every article remotely associated with the topic to a seperate Wiki, and leaving them to their own devices. Not really feasible, but a guy can dream. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV declined action on this because the editor hasn't edited in over 4 hours:

• 72.183.76.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The sole contributions from this ip to Wikipedia are to add fanstory.com links to multiple articles, edit-war over the links, edit war over tags in Mike Martin (politician), and to add a promotional link (mothercopper.com). This editor has ignored multiple warnings by multiple editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see any circumstance under which a link to fanstory.com would be appropriate for wikipedia; it seems to be an online "writing community" with no more rigor than any old wiki. Even in the rare event that a given "story" is claimed to be written by a given Wikipedia article subject (as appears to be the claim in the case of Mike Martin), fanstory.com isn't a reliable source that the named person really wrote that story. I'd suggest we add fanstory.com/* to the link blacklist, and zap the places it's already mentioned. 87.114.148.185 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point on fanstory.com, though I some of the current links might be acceptable per WP:SELFPUB even though they were added against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The header of WP:WPSPAM says that persistent spammers may be reported at AIV. I just looked in WP:VANDAL and it *does* mention spam. It's possible the admin didn't think a spam block was justified unless the last edit was within four hours. (The admin who declined the block has been notified in case he cares to comment). EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that fanstory.com fails WP:SELFPUB's "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" clause, as there seems to be no effort made there to verify that a story that claims to be written by Joe Bloggs really is, and not by Joe Bloggs' arch enemy trying to make him look like a jerk. (I was 87.114.148.185 yesterday, apparently) 87.112.92.44 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I confess I did a simple two stage check here. The report was made to AIV at 22:38 and I declined two minutes later [95]. The IP's last edit was at 14:41 [96]. That gives an elapsed time of almost exactly 7 hours. Secondly a quick WHOIS indicated the IP was from an ISP selling to the general public, and likely to be dynamic. AIV expressly states that a vandal must be active now and 7 hours cannot even be vaguely considered "now". I think the issue here is contradictory information at AIV, SPAM and VANDAL which helps no-one. Ronz's report was accurate, but in my personal opinion the wrong venue. I would have thought WP:ANI would be better for these types of situations, with more eyes and editors with greater proficency at checking just how dynamic the IP may be able to weigh in. However without better clarification of when AIV should be used, and with the long standing consensus that it is only for active editors, it is likely these kinds of issues will continue to occur. Certainly I did not mean to imply that Ronz's report was a mistake as it was not. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• fanstory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Mainly here, a lot of IPs. I am feeding this to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for a week, for spamming, as he came back and reverted all the removals from earlier. If anyone wants to adjust the duration or type of block, feel free --Versageek 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody look into this? I'm not sure what went on here, but it seems to have something to do with the new abuse filter. The "explanation" is incomprehensible to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"abuse (BOT) 42qyz" Something needs to be fixed, and fast. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That block was from January and was the User:AntiAbuseBot, not AbuseFilter (abuse filter does not block users). And Maxim was just testing Twinkle block templates, and I was in conversation with him on IRC. No need to panic. :-) Thanks Orangemike. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to be getting out of control. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, the topic on this was archived by bot without any resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Edit_warring.2C_plus_suspected_sockpuppetry_on_both_sides. for the background to all of this over the past few days. I am far too real world busy today to keep up with this but it defintiely needs more eyes, I have been whack-a-moling sock IPs canvassing for AfD votes and removing disruptive comments for the past few days. Mfield (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• TheGoldenSubpageTester, given the rampant sockpuppetry that has surrounded this article, I am concerned that your edit history begins today and you're obviously an experienced user (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). Did you have a legitimate reason for creating a new account? --Boston (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Most admins are clever enough to sort out the socks and SPAs when evaluating a close to the AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it never stops Special:Contributions/86.163.154.2 Mfield (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) off wiki canvassing too[97] Mfield (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An ongoing AfD for this blog has been rather hotly contested. Ok, whatever, it happens. However, SPA's have begun to proliferate (and one just reverted his SPA tag) -- four tagged as such so far, 2 in the last 15 minutes. Just asking for eyes, really. I guess it's inevitable when fans of a subject are by definition on the web a lot. The direct link to the AfD is this one [98].Bali ultimate (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and the latest is now edit warring over his tag [99] [100].Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you not worry about the tags? From what I see, they're spouting "per nom" and arguments not tied to any mentions of policy or guideline. Since this isn't a vote, any respectable closer will disregard those and concentrate on the relevant arguments (which appears to be over trivial sources, but there's such bad faith attacks and such that it's a bit hard to read through). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While i appreciate your comment, far too many AfD's that i've been involved in are swayed by "voting" (for instance, a number of failed AfD's on articles that clearly violate policy magically succeed, for instance, when a socking user is uncovered). While I agree they shouldn't be, in a consensus oriented culture, when closers are supposed to be uninvolved, and reading through the AfD makes the head of someone who hasn't been following closely's head spin (sub threads, claims, counterclaims, socks, SPAs, etc...) it is very easy to take a count, see it's not obviously one thing or the other, not obviously a nasty BLP, and say "no consenus". And I don't blame admins or other editors for this. We're all volunteers, life is short, real life is there, time is limited, blah blah blah. But it is in fact a real problem, however much we might wish it isn't. It shouldn't be a vote. But sometimes it is (unfortunately). Bali ultimate (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sad thing is that it's just a repost, created out of process by Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original AFD closed as delete, the DRV was withdrawn, and the issues which caused it to be deleted were never resolved. The creator of the article removed the db-repost tag himself again and again and again. This is the second controversy in recent memory that has involved an article creator removing CSD tags from his own article, which I still believe should be treated as a bright-line offense: inexcusable under any circumstances. There's no reason to even have an AFD on this thing: delete it as a repost, and make sure that Ks64q2 understands that the next time he removes a speedy tag from an article he has created, he will be immediately blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather let it run its course, lest that cause a early closure DRV. Then I'm advocating closing the AfD for a nice long time period so that preferably multiple admins can talk about it and then deliver a decision, the better to not have this happen again. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact! I was reported twice at 3rr for restoring the db-repost tag after Ks64q2's deletions. I'm wondering now if removing db tags is in fact vandalism and restoring them is exempt from 3rr? Or is a creator allowed to delete these tags after all? Or was no consensus over the process ever established?--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Post for clarity on above events As reported to KWW; The "speedy deletion" was sources two days into the AfD discussion, and the user who posted it on top of the AfD notice was rebuked by an administrator. Furthermore, again, please assume good faith; you're not the only one who has suggested I acted in bad faith in restoring this article, but a simple review of the logs will show this not to be the case. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I posted the tag and I was not rebuked by an admin. You are (once again) making things up.--Sloane (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you're right; he wasn't an admin, my mistake. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Important Comment We have people making both affirmative and negative votes on the article now after it was dramatically changed from it's original version of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. The two users here, "Ultimate Bali" and "Sloane" were responsible for the edits. I find it confusing why they would drastically edit an article they had already voted to delete in the form you see there, especially as many of the predications in the AfD Discussion both ways were on the original version. This could lead to a flawed AfD on DRV, which I would like to avoid at all costs. Could I have an admin make a judgment call on this? I'd like the version there restored, and let people take a look at the article the way it was for most of the AfD discussion. Any problems could be brought to the talk page to be edited by the community after the AfD process is complete. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ks64q2 is once again making things up. I have made only two minor edits to the article. I fixed some refs and deleted a space here: [101] and I changed the title of a section and deleted an unsourced statement here: [102]. Other edits were not only made by User:Bali ultimate but also by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:SarekOfVulcan as well. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the claimed "affirmative and negative votes on the article". Not that it matters much, because there is nothing wrong with editing articles when they're up for deletion. In fact, it is a good thing, as it can lead to the article's rescue.--Sloane (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that again, sir, those edits dramatically changed the tone, format, and meaning of most of the article- hands down. If you would like to suggest the edits were made in good faith, I would again question why you adamantly vyed for the article's deletion... and then, and only then, chose to edit the article. The same with user "Bali Ultimate". Again, it strikes as odd behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the passive aggressive use of "sir." It's annoying when followed by pointy discussion of other's "odd behavior". This is not the place to discuss content, but since you continue to make uncivil accusations about other editors... the article, in my (and i suspect sloane's) opinion is that it had uncited extraordinary claims and weak (at best) citations for the rest. Often, people who argue for deletion, also try to apply policy to the article itself. That's it. Agree or not with my opinion about the article. But I will ask you for the 7th time (at least) today to stop attacking the motives of other editors, or provide iron clad diffs backing your attacks up when you do. If you chose to address my conduct again, without solid diffs or policy based arguments, i will go beyond the witiquette request filed about you today and seek remedial action (who knows if anyone will listen to me?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I apologize if pointing out concerns has become unsolicited attacks on you; you've yet to acknowledge that the situation I described could certainly be taken negatively, whether or not it represents what happened. This sort of ad hominem attacks on my character are only distracting, sir, and instill great worry in me that it will taint this whole process irrevocably. However, if you feel that my behavior has been inappropriate, I invite you to indeed bring it to an Administrator's attention. I must say, very honestly, the way you have doggedly pursued this article, as well as the other articles, userpages, etc that other users involved with this discussion have created/are involved with is absolutely terrifying- I feel like it borders on outright harassment. Actually, please; would you inform an administrator for review on this for me? I don't feel as if things can continue this manner. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring over the SPA tag for Louisprandtl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). He has 19 total edits at Wikipedia, 12 to this AFD, the rest to his userspace. He has removed the SPA tag 3x. I'm also at that limit. Now, Ks64q2, who continues to make uncivil attacks on other users (as per this witiquette review here [103]), has removed it again. How will a closing admin know that this definitional SPA is in fact such, when the tag is not there? As for his demands - has he provided a diff once or cited policy?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As I suggested in this edit summary, WP:AGF, a guideline, should be able to trump WP:SPA, an essay, in the highly unusual event that a user actually contests the SPA tag. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason not to assume that some SPA's have good faith. They're still SPA's, and labeling them as such has nothing to do with how good their faith may be. So I don't see any conflict between WP:AGF and WP:SPA that would allow one of them to trump the other. And while I can imagine good-faith reasons for thinking that it might calm things down to avoid pointing out someone's SPA status, I think that trying to hide relevant information from the closing admin is generally a bad idea, and remains a bad idea in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate had been tagging me unfairly as SPA even after being pointed out that my account has been since 2006 (granted I don't edit much) and then leaving rude comments on my talk page [[104]]. There is a point when this constitutes a personal attack.[[105]]. I've left his personal attack up on my talk page. --Louisprandtl (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be a borderline SPA or not, but you are at least the second editor of the blog who is voting on the AfD. You pointed your connection out yourself, which is good, but the AfD is now badly skewed by the keep opinions from people with a strong COI (editors of the blog), people who have been canvassed (a "neutral" message sent by the article creator, but only to selected members of the Article Rescue Squadron), IPs, and single purpose accounts (not LouisPrandtl, others). There are also some truly independent keep opinions, but it is hard to judge the AfD through all the smoke and noise. Good luck to the admin closing it :-) Fram (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'm a reader of the blog and posted there but not an editor of the blog. There are substantial differences between the two. Secondly this SPA is being used as a harassment tool now by Bali Ultimate and he is being abusive about it and personally attacking me as reflected by the statement he left on my talk page.--Louisprandtl (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Editor" as in one who edits there. You have account number 14, even below the account number for account Motley Moose (18), and registered one day after the first registrations started and in the month before (according to our MM article) the site was actually established. You are clearly one of the 25 people who created the site. Fram (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

An Editor of a blog is normally who retain editorial control, post frontpage diaries et al. I don't have any such role in MotleyMoose. I normally post comments and diaries there just like I do at MyDD (where I post mainly) or at DailyKos as a regular user. However you're right in pointing out that I do have one of the first user numbers at MM but I do not have any editorial powers nor am I the creator of the blog. I've been upfront about my participation at MM, however cannot take the credit at the level that you're suggesting. If you Google my username, you'll get over 17000 hits, mostly with postings or links to MyDD (Jerome Armstrong's blog).--Louisprandtl (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lemme point out, disregarding the whole SPA thing, making edits to an article is perfectly fine during AfD. Perhaps not if they were deliberately trying to sabotage it so it would fail, but that's a rather serious fail as the sources are being hashed out and whether or not they are in the article or not isn't much the point. Editors are encouraged to improve articles during AfD so that they unambiguously meet the GNG or a SNG and are verified. Does this make it harder for the closer to determine which comments were made where? Yes, but let the closers worry about it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As I pointed out in the AfD, It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Unfortunately this has only worsened and is certainly not helping the article improve with content being added then quickly deleted. If an admin would be willing to step in this might make sense. I'm disappointed at the personalizing of this and what seems like piles pf bad faith. If there are actual socks then address that appropriately. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Ks64q2‎ has now been blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will put a stop to his edit warring.[106]--Sloane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Other editors, including yourself, have part of the problem rather than the solution. If this were only about Ks64q2's actions this would have been resolved long ago. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am of opinion that the four editors have done the same things not only here but also on the AfD; bickering, edit warring, attacking, soapboxing.--Caspian blue 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Not to be a prude and all, but is it really necessary to swear in edit summaries? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to bring completely irrelevant stuff to this ANI discussion? A user fucked up, and notes this when he self-reverts. So? Fram (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, because it is totally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • "Teacher! Teacher! I wouldn't dream of getting one of my fellow pupils in trouble... but do you know what Billy said at recess?" Badger Drink (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

More Motley Moose

User:Ks64q2 continues to have some rather extreme ownership issues with this page. I've been in a heated dispute with him over this article he wrote (no sources is the problem) and so won't edit again til we get more eyes to avoid veering towards an edit war. I have made changes to the article in the past day or so, as have 3 other editors. [107]. I and the other 3 have all been reducing length by removing uncited claims. I and two of these editors are largely in agreement on the talk page about what's being done. The latest series of edits were by User:Ricky81682 largely citing BLP concerns involving uncited claims i.e. [108]. However, Ks6 has just mass-reverted all these changes for the third or so time since yesterday evening with the deceptive edit summary "editing page with suggestions kept from intermediate editors" [109] when in fact he reverted every last edit [110]. He's now making some minor tweaks to the article that are neither here nor there, but using false edit summaries (perhaps to convince editors problems have been addressed?) For instance "Editing for BLP conflict for Jerome Armstrong, per his page and MyDD" is the edit summary; actual edit? Changing "left to form Puma" to "left to form the organization Puma."[111] Obviously, things are already heated, there have been reports here, there, everywhere. But how can we work in good faith to remove unsourced claims and PUFF from the article when this is what's happening after all this scrutiny?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This will glady stand up to a detailed editor review, and I would be happy to have anyone compare versions. This was not a revert; this was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account, and an extreme polishing of the current account. I'm sorry, but I can no longer say that user "Bali ultimate" is editing this article in good faith. It was not until he loudly advocated for the site's deletion that he took an interest in editing it, and he made drastic changes that completely changed the article, adding comments like "the democrat party" and "the motley whatever it is", changing passages from "... in the Web 3.0 style pioneered by Drew Curtis" to "... will be moderated by Drew Curtis," etc. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly inappropriate behavior. If this stands, and the AfD passes, it will be a flawed judgment no matter the outcome. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" Here is the diff [112]. Others can judge for themselves. But your statement looks to me to be an.... untruth (unless in some wikilawyer way you're arguing you considered all our edits, but came to the conclusion that they were all worse than your prefered version).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not mince words. "This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" is a lie. There is no room on Wikipedia for editors who lie about what they're doing, period. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:AN#Possible harassment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... Also see, unfortunately: WP:WQA#User:Ks64q2. Any chance of drawing the madness to a close? onebravemonkey 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I vote for an indef block due to the dishonesty. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And also also: here. I'm assuming that the point is to scatter this liberally across WP? For the record, my view is at the aforementioned WP:WQA thread, so I won't repeat myself here, only say that possibly adoption and everybody taking a deep breath and counting to ten is in order. onebravemonkey 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it appears he has been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR. onebravemonkey 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure much will come of it but for the record, Ks64q2 does not account for all the edit-warring and other problems here. I think our policies on civility were breached early on by a few editors, many who likely are experienced enough to know better, and tap-dancing on the edge of policy doesn't help articles either. Consensus, in part, means working with not opposed to one another. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Jalen Cotton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Expired2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.114.57.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Brought here by User:Enviroboy

This is slightly too complicated for AIV. Earlier today through recent changes, I discovered the above IP vandalizing Jalen Cotton, turning the article into an attack page. I reverted, warned multiple times and eventually reported the IP to AIV. The article was only recently created but was empty so I tagged it with {{db-nocontext}} and informed the original author Expired2day. The original version of this page is not an attack page and may have been, as I assumed, a good-faith attempt at an article.

The strange thing is that the IP's vandalism included a picture that was uploaded to the Commons by Expired2day. Based on that, I have a strong hunch that Expired2day started the article with the hopes of getting it past the new page patrollers just so he/she could return to create the attack page later (editing from the IP).

Because I brought this here, I removed my report from AIV. I'm not asking for a CU - the IP needs to be blocked regardless. I just thought that this is a little more complicated than what I'm used to so I might as well bring it here. If I'm wrong about this, I sincerely apologize to Expired2day. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin and can't view the deleted page, I wonder if it was intended as a vanity page. Look at File:JalenCotton.jpg's licensing tag- own work by uploader. And it's a mirror picture. Therefore, it's pretty likely Expired is Cotton, and wrote the article about himself. I'm not sure what the attack page consisted of, but depending on what it was, it might be someone who knows Expired/Cotton and did so as a prank after being shown the article. That's something you see a lot with school vandalism (though the IP isn't a school IP); people in computer labs, etc. editing WP in groups and vandalising articles the others are reading. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not a vanity page; it was about a female Indian Governor (in India). Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, File:JalenCotton.jpg was uploaded but never used by Expired2day. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can probably add User:Redsred to that list (see their talk, not to mention the bizarre edit made here. //roux   04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody like Redsred who plays jokes at ANI is more likely to be another sock of RMHED. The work of the above IP (now blocked) appears more like nasty vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Redsred's 3rd edit was to remove the block notice from User:NiceHotShower. -- Donald Albury 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the page, and was a little unsure as to which was the real article. The name Jalen Cotton did not seem (to me) to be a typical Indian name, so I assumed it was the guy in the shades - but not 100% convinced. As Enviroboy knows, I was therefore reluctant to revert, so I just stuck the same csd template that was on the "Indian" page on that as well (then Enviroboy reverted again...). Having seen both pages and the Enviroboy suggestion, I concur and believe that it was indeed a well thought out piece of vandalism.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Nukes4Tots edits to clubbed thumb talk page and how he followed me to clubbed foot article to purposely revert me with the message that he doesn't like colons. He is just harassing me. He's at 4 reverts on clubbed thumb talkpafge just to include a personal attack on me and to make a joke about the disabled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger.iphone (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be a BLP issue associated with making unsourced claims that various US actresses have clubbed thumbs. That's an aspect of the underlying content dispute that might interest admins here. As for the remark "are you blind?" - I'm not sure it constitutes a personal attack requiring admin intervention; it seems more suitable for discussion at Wikiquette alerts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User Ginger.iphone is asking for a "Do-Over" here. He/she already went to an admin with this and did not get what he/she wanted. See Diff. That admin had the same opinion expressed here. The edit to "clubbed foot" was to correct grammar. See Diff. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Nice try. You selectively choose one revert to the article that hides your stalking disruption. Did you think the users here wouldn't check the article history to see your first two reverts and how they differ? LOL Ginger.iphone (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re

Reporting User:Nukes4Tots

Combining post from below --64.85.216.254 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) User:Nukes4Tots is now at 5 reverts on a talk page and claims the rules of an article don't apply to a talk page. What has he reverted 5 times? The phrase "are you blind?"because I won't allow him to look at a picture of an actress to ascertain and diagnose her as having a clubbed thumb for listing her name in the article. I said original research and he only keeps asking Me if I'm blind. I am not blind, but a loved one was, so I continuously remove the unnecessary attack and he has edit warred 5 times to include it. Then he stalks me to clubbed foot to revert war over a grammar correction I made with his message "I don't like it" get him to stop stalking me and stop revert warring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger.iphone (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clubbed thumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Asking, once, if someone is blind can be dismissed as a thoughtless remark. Reverting the removal to restore the question, several times, is more serious, and I would classify it as "bloody-minded" (Brit.: aggressively stubborn). Continuing to revert, after being told that the question is offensive, moves into the territory of personal attacks in my opinion (and User:William_M._Connolley seems to agree). However, neither editor should still be edit-warring after so many reverts.

As I see it, the underlying content dispute is resolved (the article should contain no questionable claims about living persons without reliable sources - a pretty safe interpretation of policy), and on that basis I would hope that the parties can find a way to de-escalate this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• WTF? I think this appeal to an admin gives some indication of the worldview of our oversensitive friend - yup, lets ban an editor for using a frequently used phrase (even if it isn't perhaps said in the most civil of terms). If this carries on there may be a new medical condition on which to create an article; Clubbed Dick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nukes4tots, please bear in mind civility in your transactions on here; "are you blind" isn't necessarily the best way to interact with people. For all you know they may actually be blind, and not appreciate your comment. Ginger.iphone, please calm down. It might be a good idea to drop the stick at this point. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, not quite what I meant - incivility is incivility, and should be avoided, but attempting to get another editor blocked/banned because some relative or friend (or friend of a colleagues relative's homehelps neighbour) is said to be effected by a disability that is referred to in a common figure of speech is simply dickery - for instance, please do not say "bear in mind" because one of my ancestors was eaten by a bear and his wife then lost her mind; You are an unfeeling brute, so please apologise or I shall demand that Jimbo sack you...! The horse that Ginger.iphone needs to step away from is a high one, indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Refer to Special:Contributions/LConway93. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe those have all been fixed now, and the user is indef blocked. A few admins are at work deleting the leftover redirects. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, him again. Sock of AngelaSchmidt (talk · contribs) and Nintendo nintendo nintendo (talk · contribs). Looks like we have another 'lifetime achievement' troll. Isn't that marvy... HalfShadow 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of reverting move vandalism, how often does a legitimate user need to make so many moves so quickly? The limit seems to be 16 moves per minute (counting talk pages as a separate move), which is faster than most users would ever need. I suppose it's a WP:PERENNIAL somewhere, but would it be worth considering restricting that ability somewhat by allowing fewer moves per minute? --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The smart way to do this is probably to use the new Abuse Filter. Algebraist 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure where to go with this if you read here:[113]  rdunnPLIB  13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. WP:RBI. I think this may be User:Manhattan Samurai, but Ryan probably knows. --Rodhullandemu 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Hamish Ross (yawn). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Noelle North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - previously deleted page - requesting an admin to delete it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted. WilliamH (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to WilliamH (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the quick work.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This brand new article, as the title might suggest, is a festival of racism and innuendo about the arabists who control whitehall, the "fanatical supporters of Arabism's wars and bigoted policies." Etc... It's been AfD nominated because the nom couldn't find a speedy criteria that fits. However, it's likeley a recreation of Racism and the panarabism ideology which was speedy deleted in february. [114]. I think it would be best if it's deep-sixed out of process as quickly as possible. Here's the AfD[115].

User:Ratel states here [116] that he contacted the Encyclopedia Britanica to have one of their articles changed. The article in question is being used as a source for disputed content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true, and this is a frivolous misuse of the noticeboard. The Britannica article was used as a source for Drudge Report, then one of the editors, (Collect), managed to insert an ill-advised change to the Britannica source, I contacted Britannica and directed them to the Talk page concerned at Talk:Drudge Report and they obvious had a rethink on the change they had allowed, and reversed it. User ChildofMidnight should be cautioned for mischievously misusing this Noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The personal attacks from Ratel do not belong here. The exchange where I indicated thet the EB accepted input from people (allowing proposed changes in an edit box) was clear, and I indicated that to show this I proposed a change which was accepted much as a "flagged revision" would be -- and the full interaction was made clear and transparent. Ratel, however, sent a post to the EB wherein he apparently made personal accusations about me which I regard as beyond the pale. My contact with EB was clear, and consisted solely of a minor wording change (from stating the "fact" that Drudge Report was conservative to saying it was "widely viewed as conservative." That Ratel immediately wrote to EB [117] [118] specifically accuses me of using an alias (Ja,es Canterbury works for EB), and accuses me of being unethical, [119] where he actually does the unethical -- this is AN/I after all ... "1 take into account that I have been maintaining this page for years ...I try to listen diligently to criticism of content when it makes sense, but just remember, I'll be here editing this page for many more years. If unsupportable edits are forced onto the page because of sheer numbers (thanks probably to some behind-the-scenes canvassing), they'll eventually be removed. 2) I have written to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subversion of their content and pointed their editorial staff to this Talk page. They'll soon see why that change was suggested by one of our members here, and I hope they will revert it, and lock it. Indeed, I have requested same. User:Ratel" Which not pnly accuses me of improper activity, it is an admission of grossly improper activity by Ratel, and an attempted "outing" by Ratel claiming I am "James Canterbury" which I am not -- Outing is bad enough, but a false outing is what? What we have is false OUTING, false accusations of subversion, false accusations of CANVASS, and a distinct claim that he will remove any edits he does not approve of. Recall, it is not as though "conservative" does not appear in the article - it is there mre than any other adjective by a large margin. Collect (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you read where they say above that this page is NOT for editing and content disputes? ► RATEL ◄ 13:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be about parties accusing each other of behavior that violates wikipedia rules, so this would seem to be a good place for it. P.S. Ever hear the expression "non-denial denial"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has! ► RATEL ◄ 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're alleging unethical behavior. That certainly seems like a matter for the ANI page. Unless you think no disciplinary action is needed for any of the participants in this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in "influencing a source". Two days ago I noticed an error in a source - a disagreement between what they said and what their source said. So I contacted the editor. They got back to me, said they had made an error, and a few hours later the error had been corrected. That's part of what makes a reliable source reliable - they cite their sources so that you can double-check them, and they correct errors as promptly as they can. On the other hand, if a source can be influenced one way and the next by what's said on Wikipedia...they probably aren't the most reliable source... Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Stephen Colbert postulate exactly this scenario? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a short range block against 201.209.0.0/16, or semi-protection on Katy Perry discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I Kissed a Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Hot N Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

First, we had 201.209.224.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who persistently added a bad chart to Hot N Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and vandalizing the Finnish chart positions. As you can see, his talk page is full of very explicit warnings about it. He was blocked for 31 hours. During that block, 201.209.234.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pops up, and adds the same bad chart to Hot N Cold, and vandalizes the Finnish chart position. That IP was blocked for 31 hours. That block expired this morning, and now we have 201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserting the exact same bad chart into another Katy Perry song. I scanned the last 100,000 anonymous edits, and the only anonymous edits from that range are this particular editor. That tells me that a one-week soft-block on the range will do less damage than semi-protecting all the Katy Perry articles.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• One week softblock on 201.209.224.0/20 enacted. Please update this info if the IP range spreads outside those boundaries. Black Kite 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to take comments like the one this idiot left on my talk page seriously. He's been blocked, banned and kicked off the site, but I feel it's necessary to follow up with a ormal request to his IP and possible reporting to local authorities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to provide the diff but I think you should have it oversighted and more on. But I would understand if you could ask for a CU and then inform authorities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nick1444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nick1444 continually uploads images with proper licensing and fair use rationales despite a final warning. DiverseMentality 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the right venue for this. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording on that complaint is slightly awkward. It sounds like there is a rule against uploading images with proper licensing and fair use rationales. Or have the rules changed? Can I now upload any image I want? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• DystopiaSticker (talk · contribs)

Obvious POV warrior who appeared on Wikipedia only to stoke the Coulter fire has now resorted to shameless personal attacks. Given zero constructive contributions and a slew of warnings in the past (see this version of his talk page, before he blanked it), I don't think this one is here to do anything but cause disruption. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like for someone who isn't attacking me purely because I don't like Olbermann to make a complaint about me, please. Afterall, Blaxthos has done nothing but defend Olbermann and attack Fox, using policies only when they support his agendas. I called him out on this and that's necessary for me to be complained about? I'm not allowed to ask why Blaxthos can deny arguments made by Coulter because of her politics but at the same time use people like Olbermann as sources in Fox News criticisms?--DystopiaSticker (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm not an admin, and don't give a flying fig who either Olbermann or Coulter are. Nevertheless, personal attacks such as the ones you made at Blaxthos' talkpage are not okay, and in fact are completely forbidden. Comment on content, not on the contributors. Your edit here, removing the other personal attack you made, is a step in the right direction. The next step is not making them in the first place. Moving on to other edits... this is hardly 'fringe'; the Globe and Mail is one of Canada's national newspapers, and probably the most respected. It's roughly akin to the New York Times. Directly misquoting the paper in order to promote oneself is poor form, and a reasonable target for criticism. Whether it meets the level of notoriety to be included in an encyclopedic article is, however, something to be debated--calmly--on the talkpage. Not reverted with a claim of 'fringe'.

Now, all that being said... Blaxthos, you're not exactly working in the most collegial manner on the talkpage either, and a lot of what you've said has come this close to personal attack territory.

If I may offer a suggestion, the two of you should go off and find an article that neither of you is at all emotionally invested in, and collaborate to get it to GA status. To pick something that's been on my watchlist lately, how about Viola? Pretty much all it needs is references and some cleanup of a bit too much verbiage in spots. //roux   05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, I didn't remove Globe and Mail criticism because of them as a source - in fact, the Globe and Mail wasn't even the source in the reference list. The 'source' of the Globe and Mail criticism was an episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann is notorious for attacking all things Fox and has been caught misquoting and misrepresenting facts numerous times himself. It's not enough to add criticism to a Fox article simply because Olbermann said the criticism. It's akin to Rush Limbaugh making the baseless claim that Ted Kennedy is a soulless sodomite who pillages settlements in Mongolia. It's a serious claim, yeah - but Rush Limbaugh isn't a good source. If a link to the review was found or a serious, unbiased source was found stating the same criticism, I'd be happy and wouldn't argue about its addition. Until that is so, why would it be allowed? Why allow the addition of Olbermann's criticism and force people to disprove Globe and Mail's review's true wording from there rather than prove the original wording of the Globe and Mail review in the first place? Should I add every Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh criticism of random politicians and keep them in biographies until editors can prove to me they're wrong? Or should, like usual, the criticism be ignored until a proper source is found? I've crossed the line, yes. But Blaxthos has made it impossible to try and edit Olbermann's article with anything but absolute praise of the man. He's dismissed any and all criticism of Olbermann and personally attacked those trying to add the criticism. For him to complain about me for the exact same things he's done numerous times is ridiculous. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. DystopiaSticker forgot to sign in and signed his comment upon logging in a moment later. A trip to that IP's talkpage is.. edifying, to say the least. As is a look through the contribs. Quite a lot of distinctly partisan vandalism. Talkpage edits seem to be signed afterwards, but no repetition of reverted vandalism edits to articles under his own name. Someone should look at this. //roux   06:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that DystopiaSticker, Dsticker and 64.53.227.39 are the same user. The evidence does not support that he is deliberately socking, but does show disruptive editing.

DystopiaSticker -- you need to stop editing in this manner. You probably need to stop editing this and similar topics full stop, unless you switch to good quality editing immediately. This is a final warning; if there is another disruptive edit on any topic in future, your editing access is very likely to be blocked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse that. No more warnings. dougweller (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)