Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive520

User:PMK1 restoring unsourced material

User:PMK1 is insisting on restoring unsourced material to Macedonian Australian in breach of WP:Verifiability. I have explained the policy on the article's talk page and warned the user on their talk page. PMK1 initially asked me not to remove the material because it was "true". When I pointed out that this is not the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, they said that they could find sources. Their attitude now seems to be that sources cannot be found for all of it, but the material should still be restored, as suggested by this edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations by User:Rjecina

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

User:Rjecina has a history of accusing other users of sock puppetry without evidence as his talk page shows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11...

Now, it seems it's time for me. First he informs one of his friends that a new vandal is starting an edit war and that his earlier name was User:Toroko [1]. Then, he removes my talk page comment, stating that I am a banned user.[2] [3]. His statement is based on the fact that I used a source that only banned users use.[4] and that I am from the same city as a banned user [5] - although I don't know how he knows which city I'm from. He is then stunned when other users question his assertion that I am an old user's new SPA [6]. Then he calls me disruptive and provocative[7] and files two ANI threads against me on two different boards at the same time. He calls me again disruptive and SPA in his threads[8] and kindly asks for a ban on me.[9]. When two other users comment on his thread, one of whom he previously identified as my SPA in his report, he claims that both of them are my sock puppets.[10]. Finally, he adds that there's enough data for checkuser but he doesn't have time[11].

I asked him several times to stop his accusations, but he continued anyway.--Bizso (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like quite an edit war you got into there at Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rjecina was removing talk page comments in spite of having been warned for that two times already.[12][13]--Bizso (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rule #1 on sock accusations: Put up or shut up. (i.e. file your WP:SSP or STFU)

Rule #1 on edit warring: except for clear vandalism, no excuses. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's a socket puppet? Is that using a wrench as a puppet or something? MuZemike 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I am picturing the unholy bastard child of this after having sex with this...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I could just see it lurching around Wikipedia groaning 'Kill meeee...' HalfShadow 04:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:D Ok, in other words SPA, or sock puppet account--Bizso (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• spew* Jeez, Jayron, I wish you'd warned me to set down my tea first. Sorry about the stains on the 'pedia now. I'll wipe that up in a minute.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is funny that I have not edited wiki around 60 hours and I am again under attack because new things which are only now discovered :)

Because must important thing about this accusation are my actions on talk page of Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary ....

If somebody has been reading all discussion between me and user:Patton123 he will notice that when I speak about removing comments of banned user:NovaNova [14] and not about user Bizso. Then I can speak about my checkuser demands against other user, but if anybody will look users which I have "attacked" he will see that 90 % are forever blocked.

We are still having few questions about user which is rewriting history of Hungary without knowledge of Hungarian language [15] , which is weird and which is together with few IP users knowing every my edit ? This is weird or stalking, because I do not understand how this 3 users have discovered my demand on two ANI threads on two different boards at the same time ? This is mystery :)

For the end if I do not make mistake policy of wikipedia is that banned users after banning are not having right to edit and edits of this users (after banning) are not reliable and because of that are deleted (blanked). I am wrong about this policy or ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of users of whom puppets you have had banned, according to your trophy list as of April 2008, was two and another two users failed your checkuser request. I wouldn't say that's 90% of those who you have accused before and since then. In addition, with regard to the comments you were deleting let me quote from an earlier thread about you:

"On the point about Rjecina deleting banned-user contributions, I was not on this occasion complaining about that, though I have said elsewhere that he sometimes "throws out the baby with the bathwater" in his obsessive pursuit of sockpuppets while contributing very little in the way of sourced material etc" Kirker (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Insults again

--Bizso (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso, I would drop right now and be more concerned with the proposed solution the admins are discussing below. Unless you want to be to in violation of said proposal at this moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to second some of that. His Hungarian account also "changed" a good spelling to a bad one. Squash Racket (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of this. We are not going to debate what may or may not have been done on his Hungarian account. I think one more statement from Rjecina about how someone is a banned user without a shred of evidence and I'm blocking indefinitely. This has gone on long enough. Either continue to believe that everyone who disagrees is the same banned user or this stops this right now. Not one single talk page goes anywhere sensibly because everyone is "a banned user who should be ignored." I warned Rjecina in September here and nothing has changed. Every single article that Rjecina is just an idiotic war. Can anyone explain to me how the edit-warring at Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary has anything at all with the completely unsourced article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that User:Rjecina has removed this comment from the discussion. --Bizso (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and removed it as a personal attack, which is what people should do. //roux   17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't write the personal attacks in the first place. Removing it helps, but doesn't excuse the original behavior.

Proposed solution

I think we're all sick of seeing this. So here's what I suggest:

1. Rjecina is categorically prohibited for a period of one year from accusing other users of sockpuppetry in discussion. If s/he really thinks someone is a sock, s/he may visit WP:SPI as every other user does. Each instance of unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation to be met with escalating blocks per the usual pattern. Same goes for abusive use of WP:SPI.
2. Bizso and Rjecina are held to a strict 1RR for a period of six months when it comes to editing any Europe-related articles, broadly construed, and when it comes to reverting each others' edits. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the six-month period.
3. Rjecina and Bizso are specifically forbidden from bringing each other to any admin noticeboard (AN, WP:AN/I, etc) without gaining approval from a neutral and uninvolved admin first, for a period of six months. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the six-month period.
4. Bizso and Rjecina are to be held to a strict civility probation for a period of three months, especially in regards to each other. Infractions to be handled by escalating blocks as per usual, which will reset the three-month period.

Thoughts? //roux   17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose' Here you go again, Roux. You're not "we" or a delegate of Wikipedia. I'm not tired of the issue brought up so would others be. I see your typical habit of using the bare and unconstructive expression like "sick of" and proposing a drastic suggestion not actually solving the core problem. You're quite good at inflating the issue into a drama as always. Besides, this issue is more fit to RFC first before such making the drastic decision. I don't want to see another victims by your more harsh private probation than any ArBCom probation. Since you've heard a lot "do not act like an admin" (not in a good aspect), so don't.--Caspian blue 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing distracting and irrelevant bickering. Take it elsewhere guys Oren0 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Grow up. //roux   18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Don't be childish--Caspian blue 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Comment on the content of the proposal, and not your antipathy towards me. I expect you to remove your personal comments as they are entirely inappropriate. //roux   18:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Given your "so mature" response like "Grow up" to the criticism, I see your mention of the "antipathy towards me" is quite contradictory as always. Bear the valid criticism on your uncivil attitude since you heavily criticize the two users. Do not give a stress to any users who seek an "administrative" help from the board. Here is a place for helping and resolving problems, not making a more drama. I clearly said I oppose your proposal because that drastic method does not help the problem. Read it again as not projecting "your antipathy towards me". And refrain from exaggerating your "own feeling" as "we".--Caspian blue 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Comment on the content of the proposal, and not your antipathy towards me. I expect you to remove your personal comments as they are entirely inappropriate.//roux   18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this a fairly reasonable proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not a two-sided issue. There is Rjecina on one side, and several other users on the other (now me). I have not informed other users about this thread who are also being accused by Rjecina of sock puppetry and for other reasons.--Bizso (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support this proposal. These users seem to be stirring up lots of Wikidrama. Oren0 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal but would add that going on calling anonymous users "Washington IP" or whatever other term is used (see User talk:138.88.15.10) [the banned user in question I believe edited from an IP address in the Washington area] should be discouraged. It's irrelevant and has an obvious purpose. Separate question: I've been somewhat involved in the sphere (and definitely with Rjecina and helping Bizso here). Outside views wanted but would people be ok if I considered myself neutral and uninvolved? I'll ask Bizso and Rjecina to respond here as well. If they disagree, then I'll ask others to block if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the way you "helped" me was that you briefly explained to me what the required format for an ANI thread is.--Bizso (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this unduly harsh on users with almost clean block logs, especially point 2, the part with Europe-related articles, which would effectively put them both on almost constant 1RR. Although I know that 1RR is good practice for every wiki editor and I adhere to it, it's too much to ask from someone as new as Bizso and Rjecina is probably not even aware of this thread. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that both commented just above at the section that started this, I'd find it hard to believe they aren't at least aware of this thread. However, in another sense, is this really outside the scope of the WP:ARBMAC decision? In my view, it's entirely possible for an outside admin to justify discretionary sanctions based on their conduct already. This is being much nicer because they clearly have been disruptive for a while now. We should at least indicate anything proposed here there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh definitely, this is all ARBMAC stuff. Whatever we come up with as the best form of intervention can be enacted in that framework without the need for further bureaucracy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that this is subjective to ARBMAC (what a badgering way to deal with Balkan people, but too late to comment anyway), but isn't this a sort of killing a fly with hand grenades? There is definitely a consensus that something should be done here, but 1RR for 6 months is over the top IMO, especially on all Europe-related articles. So far, the dispute is apparently related only to articles about the Croatian medieval history and I don't see the point of disallowing Rjecina to revert vandalism on Croatian cuisine or disallowing Bizso to curb unhelpful edits at Budapest, as these are obviously not points of the dispute. If a separate dispute evolves there, it should be treated separately, as focusing on the user instead of the dispute can't solve the problem of the dispute, but solve the problem of the user, i.e. chase him away. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I am tired of your bad faith attacks on my edits. You are saying that I have called user Bizsco puppets of banned user. This is false like many similar your attacks (do you need examples on noticeboard ?).

Banned users are not allowed to edit and edits made by banned users are not reliable. I have blanked from talk page all edits made by puppets of banned users. user:NovaNova is puppet of banned user and I am removing his comments from talk page (this is banned user which comments are I removing). Bizso has discovered and restored this comments and again I have removed comments. This has been puppet which I am reverting. Maybe we can start new discussion about this wikipedia policy ?

Articles about Croatian history are having around 20 confirmed puppets of user:Velebit + many, many blocked users from Washington. About this problem 2 administrators in 2007 have created policy WP:RBI because "he's on a dynamic IP range and strikes from a different one every time".

When we speak about puppets can our administrators expert tell me if this is puppetry + harrasment ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Norton cannot be considered neutral in this case as he is a strong supporter of Croatian line editors, therefore I would like to request he not take part in the decision process any longer. Thank you. "This is false" Rjecina stop right now and scroll up to the beginning of this thread--Bizso (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My involvement in this dispute stops at a short conversation I had on Bizso's talk page and I don't think my opinion is so much swayed that I can't participate in this discussion. However, I don't plan on running around dealing blocks to people no matter how this proposal turns out as I'm generally against it and I don't consider myself neutral enough. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, Admiral. That's a reasonable position, and I'll respect you for it. However, Rjecina has been on this board more than a few times for months and Bizso has been here quite a bit recently. Others of us are tired of this whole space being a mess which has resulted in more blocks and bans than I can remember. Rjecina, for Indexheavy000, I don't see anything; I assume something was oversighted. As for the IP address, still, your point? Yes, that user should be blocked and the edits removed but you haven't done that. You didn't request a block, you didn't request oversight, you didn't even remove that edit. Instead I removed it from the talk page a few days ago, and am requesting oversight. The fact that someone is screwing around don't give you carte blanche to ignore everyone else, be completely uncivil and not assume good faith. If you cannot assume that other people legitimately are disagreeing with you, then I don't know what to say. You keep claiming all these people are Velebit and yet you file idiotic reports like Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Don Luca Brazzi and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc, based on nothing more than a few people all disagreed with you. New users, IP addresses, two-year-old users, admins, everyone who disagreed with you was suddenly a sock and no matter how many people tell you this, Checkuser is not a fishing expedition. You were warned about the checkuser requests, so you went into edit summaries like It seems you are incapable of assuming good faith and I wonder if the project needs that anymore. Frankly, your user page alone makes it seems like you have no real interest with working with others; I would ask that you tone it down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood that. So let's see. The user was blocked indefinitely, the IP was not, the edit remained until I removed it, and I've requested oversight (which I'm not sure if likely). If you instead had immediately requested oversight, it would have been removed and then nobody would know. If there's real vandalism and harassment, report it. I've blocked people like that for you and I know others will too. However, if you accuse everyone of harassing you, it's very, very hard to spend the time and energy trying to figure out what's really going on. -- 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IP can't be blocked because it is using dynamic IP range and minimal 2 providers. I do not know if you remember that 1 Thatcher check has shown 2 different places in Washington are. 1 of places has been library or something similar (Thatcher words). You are having different internet providers but they are always proxy from Washington metropolitan area. All data about this are having Thatcher and Lar.

During edit warring on talk page of Croatia in personal union with Hungary I (and others) are removing comments of NovaNova (banned user) against Bizso and IP [16] which have been restoring comments. Similar thing has happened during another noticeboard discussions [17] when Bizso have been again and again supported by IP. It is interesting that this are 3 very different IP, but all our from Washington which it is possible to see on this site. It is possible to show other examples and this is little weird ?

To tell you truth I do not know how or where to ask oversight !? I will ask you (Ricky) about this on your talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Rjecina the point of this thread is just as valid now as when it was started. Your attitude has changed nothing. I can only remind you to the first rule of WP:SSP (posted above), which you seem to overlook. It would appear that it's easier for you to discredit people by calling them SPA straight away. I would also be glad if you didn't refer to me as it. I would like to know how long I am supposed to put up with Rjecina's accusations. --Bizso (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some reverting work to be done.

Resolved

• Bendawson43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not especially funny page-move vandalism. THF (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they've all been reverted --Chris 10:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Slip-up on the University of California, Los Angeles front methinks. Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the second one of these we had last night. AngelaSchmidt (talk · contribs · block log) was doing the same thing about four hours earlier. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

24.57.75.186

Resolved

I'm not exactly clear on what the appropriate venue is in terms of reporting this problem, AIV rejects it because the user is already on a 7 day block for persistent vandalism (obscenities, blanking etc.) so I thought I'd give this a shot; just to try and 'cool out' a pending edit war and the current abusive practise that's going on. User:24.57.75.186 is an ongoing problem on a number of articles and as I mentioned is presently blocked, but is subsequently still continuing to attempt to antagonize other editors by posting obscene comments regarding them on their talk page. Sadly they appear to be succeeding in trolling offended editors, personally I think it should be ignored, others apparently see otherwise. Is there in fact anything that can be done in cases like this where the party is already blocked? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this stuff I moved it from 1 to 2 weeks and disabled their ability to edit their talk. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ParaGreen13

Resolved

 – User has been blocked for 72 hours. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has been making bad faith edits based on the race or ethnicity of the article's subject. Please see the following edits:

• [edit to Roger E. Mosley]
• [edit to Breakfast at Tiffany's]
• [edit to Chitterlings]

Also, please see the edit summary left by the user for [this edit] to John Ireland (actor):

“ Removing slander. This has to be homosexual originated rubbish. This guy was absolutely known for womanizing and had three wives and children. He also liked younger women. He was not a queer. ”

This user has been warned in the past for similar edits, on October 10, 2008 and October 17, 2008. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the John Ireland edit is probably fine; I don't see any sources in the article supporting the assertion. That being said, the edit summary is problematic, and the diffs you linked to above are likewise so. That being said, one of the edits is three days old, one is four days old, and the other is almost a month old. Is there a current problem? //roux   19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit itself to John Ireland is not the issue – the user's use of "queer" in the edit summary is the problem. Terms such as "queer" and "negro" are highly offensive. Edits made within three-four days is current. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By 'current' I meant 'is still going on'. Nobody's going to do anything about edits a few days old that haven't been repeated since being warned. //roux   20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor seems to have gone steeply downhill over the past month. He has been replacing "African-American" with "black" or "negro" in articles for over a year now, but in the past month about half of his contribs are problematic, including things like this as well as numerous offensive edits and edit summaries. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont see anything in the myocardial one except a weak argument, however it looks like he has been warned repeatedly about the 'negro' thing and should be blocked, at least for a short time, to impress upon him the seriousness of his actions. untwirl(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the user's [recent edit] to his own talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak argument? He inserted a bunch of talk page material (i.e., personal opinion) into the article about heart attacks. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, sorry, my bad, i thought that was a talk page. double underline my opinion to block, then! untwirl(talk) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time? I see no problem here except a witch hunt in the making. Caden S (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How is asking for something to be done about someone posting offensive terms on the Wikipedia a waste of time? Try replacing the discussion from the word 'negro' to 'nigger' and you'll get the idea, except the former potentially has a lot more room for offense. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as stated on your user page that you are a strong supporter of free speech and anti-political correctness, do you not think you may be a little biased? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←I'll also link you to this from 2008 where I warned the same user for the same abuse. It is clear that this user is here to cause offense to people of African-American decent, or at least has a lack of common sense (not a personal attack, just true) regarding the offensive this term can cause. I'd support action being taken. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with something called a dictionary? I suggest you take a look at one. Furthermore, do you have proof the editor is here to cause offence? I believe your biased take is the real problem here. Censorship is very evil. Caden S (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about let's stop sniping at each other and discuss the issue here. //roux   22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not an editor who I respect. I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda. You are wasting your time. I see right through you. Caden S (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cease the antagonising. I don't want to take sides but that is out of order, Caden.  GARDEN  22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'll give you the chance to remove those comments. You may wish to re-read point #3 here for why. As for 'politically-motivated', you'd be hard pressed to find a single edit out of ~15K that is even remotely politically motivated. So now we have that out of the way, why not get back to the actual discussion?

viz. User:ParaGreen13 seems to have two editing issues:

1. Removing 'African-American' in favour of 'Negro' and/or inserting 'Negro' when ethnicity is not actually being discussed or indeed relevant;
2. An inappropriate edit summary.

In terms of #1, the accepted and preferred nomenclature among people of African descent (at least in the USA) is 'African-American'. There is simply no good reason why a word which is widely perceived to be offensive should be used. In terms of #2, it was offensive on its face. //roux   22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not being uncivil and I am not attacking you so please spare me the threats. I'm being honest with you but you can't handle that. I will remove no such comments. Caden S (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that "I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda" is self evidently uncivil and an attack. And "I am a victim of the monster known as, 'Political Correctness'. I believe in the Freedom of thoughts" is political motivation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• [OD] Please calm down CadenS else I will block you for incivility off this thread alone.--VS ^talk 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'm very much familiar with a dictionary. Let's have a look at the definiton of 'negro' (link). Do you see the bit which says 'sometimes offensive'? Please make yourself familiar with a dictionary before accusing me of being unfamiliar of one.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone, not helping. Please strike the non-content parts of your comment.//roux   23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, but I do feel that this user should learn the importance of not accusing until ensuring they are correct. Struck, per request, anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, and thanks. This sort of subject is always a minefield, so best to stay as on topic as possible, I think. //roux   23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to inform a fellow editor that an ANI report has been made against them. The editor who filed this ANI failed to inform User:ParaGreen13. I have just notified him of this report. Caden S (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Caden. Glad someone around here makes some sense. As for the use of "queer", granted that might be a little offensive. Not really the intention though. However, even here they refer to themselves as that quite often, so how much of a problem is it really, unless there's a political correctness convention in force? It's actually not as bad as some things you could say about homosexuals. And I refrained from saying them. I think the point was made about the actor, John Ireland. I thought it seemed like one of those "outing" type lies, considering his record. Like with Tom Selleck a few years back. That's bad form. As for the negro issue, I've already explained that before; Not offensive and not meant to be. It's a foolish assumtion to assume the reverse. 13:55 PT, 3-5-09, ParaGreen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not take this as a personal attack, it isn't, but I need to clarify my opinion here. Firstly, pardon me for refactoring your comment but I think you should say "not offensive in my opinion". You cannot say that it is not offensive, because it clearly is to many people. If you just took a few moments to search the internet and read some dictionaries, you'd note that consensus says it is offensive. If you took a few moments to research into African-American history, you'd also note the widespread offense it has and does cause. You have to appreciate other people's opinions because not every removal of an offensive word is due to censorship, it's down to common sense and decency. If you further more change articles unnecessarily from 'African-American' to 'Negro', I will have no problem with reporting you straight to ANI again because in my honest opinion, it's downright unacceptable and verging on racism. The same applies to your remarks on homosexuals. Feel free to disagree, but this is my position on the matter, any issues feel free to bring them up here or on my talk page. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not 1950 ... the word "negro" is always considered offensive. In fact, it was likely offensive in 1950, but it was legally "accepted". In 2009, "negro" is not accepted by anyone, anywhere (unless you're a skinhead or wear white sheets to meetings). It is, and has been, a racist and degrading term. If you want some references, I'll find you references quite quickly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclonenim is saying on user pages that the use of 'Negro' is somehow 'against the law' and 'could get Wikipedia sued'. That is patently false and misleading. Wikipedia is not censored for content, there is nothing "illegal" about the term "Negro", and no such suit would stand up in court. I need go no further than to mention the existence of articles like "Negro league baseball", which is what it was called and there's no getting around it. Having said that, the casual use of "Negro" is now considered offensive, and should be avoided in wikipedia except in context (as with Negro League baseball). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly wrong about that, and withdraw that statement, but it was a minor point in my argument. Somehow CadenS seems to think I'm personally attacking him, calling him racist, which simply isn't true. What I have said is that ParaGreen13's actions of removing, as you put it Baseball Bugs "out of context", the word 'African-American' and substituting it with 'Negro', could be considered racist. I have no issue with pages in context, try and quote me saying I'm against that, but when random pages about African-Americans are essentially being damaged with an out of context offensive term, that needs to be dealt with. See User talk:CadenS and User talk:Cyclonenim for more background. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing "African American" as a descriptive with "Negro" is Stephen Colbert style vandalism and should be reverted on sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I should now point out he is insulting those who warn him, such as his severe lack of civility here in his response to Sottolacqua (talk · contribs). I'm starting to feel a block may be necessary. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's trying to get you riled, and it's working. Try ignoring his stupid insults, and just focus on article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see he is now on a 72-hour block for incivility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've put a resolved tag on this, because I guess that is that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-fest at User:Jimbo Wales

Resolved

 – Guess who. — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here becuase of a problem at Jimmy's user page. Someone with a ton of socks hs been vandalizing Jimbo's user page for 13 hours. I think this might require admin attention. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for a period of 1 day. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's User:RMHED, who has moved on to doing this (he was previously creating malicious pages with this same theme). Anyone think maybe that 30 day block ought to be extended? Whoops, it's already been done. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Any CUs around to clear out the drawer? KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's vandalizing Jimbo's talk page. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Should RMHED's Right to Vanish be revoked, and his Talk page be restored? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was restored a few days ago after the latest spat of edits, and is blanked only as a courtesy. Everything else is viewable. seicer | talk | contribs 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RTV is only for people who have left in good standing. It's a privilege, not a right, to vanish. bibliomaniac15 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this username be allowed to continue?

Resolved

 – User unblocked and changed name to GraveGuy. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor using the name User:[email protected] made a change to an article and his username immediately caught my attention. When I looked at his talk page, I saw that he had been blocked at one point for spam in December 2005. The account posted a request to be unblocked in October 2007 in order to change his username to one that doesn't include a website email address. The unblock was granted here. However, the editor did not appear to file a request for username change [18]. While he did not make other edits after that until today, the point seems to be that the reason he was gave to be unblocked was not honored plus the edit made today was to a Find-a-Grave template. I don't know if the account should be blocked based on this or not, but at the least I'm not certain the username itself is allowable, since it does use the website name within it. I'll leave that to adminstrators to determine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reblocked the user. They were clearly told that the last unblock was for the express purpose of changing name. Mfield (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dig this! He wants to change his name to "GraveGuy". [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he needs something more light hearted and a little less grave? (groan). Seriously though, is GraveGuy too close for comfort? Mfield (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He's really in deep on this one. P.S. His request was decline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Looks like he might get resurrected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked him on the proviso that he get a username change pronto and someone to mentor him. If he doesn't get the username change request posted within 24 hours, feel free to reblock him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a new user ID of "GraveGuy", he wouldn't be hard to keep track of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS and incivility concerns

Resolved

 – User and I apologised. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, after disputes about ParaGreen13's conduct earlier on in this board, CadenS (talk · contribs) has become increasing involved in discussion and appears to be almost soapboxing, encouraging the placement of the term 'negro' into articles as a replacement for 'African-American'. I can only assume this is due to his hatred of political correctness and censorship, as stated on his user page. I brought this issue here as he is topic banned, and one of the terms of that ban is to be civil.

Admittedly, I could have acted less harshly in my words towards him on his talk page, but I really felt that I needed to get a message through. He has acted incivil in both the ParaGreen thread (already dealt with, I believe) but now also insults me by calling me a bad Christian etc. on his talk page. Furthermore, any attempt to discuss has resulted in me being accused of personal attacks back, despite them not actually being attacks but rather misinterpretations of communication or downright twisting of words. I have since stepped away from the discussion as I feel it will only get more heated, but I am looking for opinions from other users and administrators on this matter. My apologies if I should have posted this as WQA. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Substituting "Negro" for "African American" is clearly a violation of various rules and should be reverted on sight, and if it continues, a block for disruption should be requested. However, just so we won't have to go on a fishing expedition, could you cite 3 recent diff's for each of these guys, showing that change and/or advocacy of it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Not all of these are simple advocation, they are diffs which I find issues with civility-wise: [20] [21] [22] [23] (interesting, although removal of comments is permitted, I find it severely immature to remove evidence) [24] (this I find as advocation, feel free to look into his claims of me throwing personal attacks because I really do not think I've thrown one at him once) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For more background, check his and my talk pages. There's significant conversation going on and I feel there's either a massive misunderstanding on my choice of words, or he's falsely accusing me of personal attacks which are actually just comments based on actions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all the posts, but I think I should clarify that his advocation appears to only be implied, not explicit. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If using "Negro" instead of "African American" is forbidden as Bugs claims, what should we do about the United Negro College Fund, let alone the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Should we ban everyone who has edited these articles without removing the forbidden words? Edison (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant replacement when 'African-American' would do fine anyway. — neuro^(talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Forbidden terms" or "clearly a violation" when they have long been in the titles of article, and are the self-selected descriptors? How patronizing, to determine what terms certain groups are allowed to use to describe themselves. Edison (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are legacy items that are not going to change. The example I had used before was Negro League baseball. It is what it is. And "Negro" is not "forbidden", it's merely not appropriate. It's an archaic and mostly-offensive term, only acceptable in historical context. Just like we don't refer to American Indians as "Redskins" in the articles. "Redskins" is strictly the name of an NFL football team. And we don't say "Obama is the first American Negro President." Let's try not to make wikipedia look stupid and ignorant, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have nigger. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I am sadly archaic. I was raised in an era where the term was considered preferable to many of the other terms of the day. I realize that the "politically correct" landscape changes rapidly - and I'm glad I've seen this thread now (it could possibly help me avoid a poor choice of words in the future.) It just goes to show that education comes not only through the articles, but through the conversations that editors have about them. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Negro" has been considered offensive since about 1960-65, and the names that use it date from before that time. The choice between "black" and "African American" is a lot trickier -- the preference nowadays is for the latter, but it still isn't absolute. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

←I guess through the years, as I quit paying attention to any particular characteristics of people (well, ok - you'll have to allow me the female parts of gender - age ain't gonna change my paying attention to that!), I kinda quit paying attention to various terminology used to describe someone. Hopefully, if I do "screw up" (always a possibility with me), that person would be kind enough to point out their preferred terminology - and - Hopefully someday it won't be an issue to anyone ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 05:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel this is going a bit off track, because when I posted this my concern wasn't for his advocation (since he hasn't actually changed any article and different beliefs are fine) but rather his increasing lack of civility in the diffs above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS has a long history of being about as cuddly as a porcupine, and is already being closely watched due to being on probation. Don't worry about his remarks, just focus on article content and POV-pushing by him and his new buddy Paragrine or whatever it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood? CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist. Clearly the preferred and appropriate term is African-American, except in a few specified cases. Terms like Negro, Colored and Nigger have loaded meanings and should be eschewed, the NAACP notwithstanding. Seicer might think he's being a witty advocate for the Horned One but he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden. Get it together people. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule in wikipedia against being a racist, a misogynist, a Yankees fan, or whatever. Content is what matters, and collaboration. So there are no rules against being a racist pig, only against being a disruptive pig. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye Bugsy, that's true enuff. My experience is that racism is inherently disruptive. May fuss ensue! X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor with a truly racist, sexist, agist, Yankeeist, or just plain stupidist agenda will typically become disruptive and either get topic-banned or total-banned. But it's behavior that has to be dealt with, not mind-set as such. We can only treat the symptom, not effect the cure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let us watch his space. Whatever he does, it'll be entertaining. X MarX the Spot (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "enuff rope and all that"... yes, their kind usually plays out enough rope to, ironically enough, lynch themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Now I'm fucking pissed! You folks call me incivil? What about X MarX and Bugs? Huh? Those dudes are calling me a racist? I AM NOT A RACIST! I have black teammates who are buddies! And X MarX calls me an advocate for Satan? What the hell? Is he fucking crazy? Why are admins allowing these guys to make personal attacks against me that are not true? Why is there a double standard here? Huh? Why are these guys not being blocked for incivility? When I defend myself against this type of garbage, I always get accused of being incivil, accused of making personal attacks or threatened by admins to be blocked. I'm sick of this double standard bullshit. I never once advocated for the word negro to be used on wiki! All I said was that the word was in the dictionary and that I support free speech but now that's being twisted and blown out of proportion. I'm NOT RACIST! I'm sick of being treated as the bad guy when I haven't done anything wrong. I'm sick of being attacked and lied about. I never said I was an angel and sure I have a temper and sometimes I've been rude, but that's because some editors love to piss me off. Still, I don't deserve to be called a racist, an advocate for Satan or "a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood" as X Mar X points out through his attacks (with Bugs supporting). Screw them, it's all bullshit! The hell with this double standard bullshit on here! I'm so fucking pissed off. Screw this ANI report! I'm done. Caden S (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you tied yourself a nice knot. PhGustaf (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not call CadenS a racist. And the citations posted by Cyclone have strictly to do with CadenS taking verbal shots at other editors, although one of the cites includes him deleting my comments on his talk page after I reminded him that there was no rule against it, i.e. I invited him to. CadenS' specific mistake here was probably in sort-of egging Peregine on, while Peregrine sits back and watches CadenS blow his stack here. Or maybe is on break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See, CadenS, that no one has actually called you a racist directly, see below. What you have done is advocated the use of the term negro, because by supporting ParaGreen13 in his free speech using that term, you are implying you see nothing wrong with it and wish for it to be used. Blowing a fuse like you have just done has the opposite effect to being a good defense. You say we twist words when we actually haven't, then you do it yourself. Then we point this out and you say we've been twisting words again. Do you see where this is going? Calm down, because getting worked up will only end up fueling your anger and getting you blocked. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think anyone called CadenS a "racist" directly. The use of the word "Negro" to refer to someone with black heritage is considered inappropriate in 2009 - this isn't simple "Political correctness", it's plain ol' wrong. Historcially, there are organizations with the name "Negro" in it - such as the Negro Baseball League - the use in this term is significantly different. In "everyday" use, the only people who tend to use the word "Negro" tend to be racists/Aryans/Skinheads/KKK members, etc. Pretending otherwise is just naive.

So, CadenS was not called "racist" directly, the concept was that the use of the term is generally the act of a racist, in order to point out how wrong it was. CadenS tirade about how "pissed" he is actually has the opposite effect - makes him actually look like a racist, which I'm sure is not the intent.

However, anyone who uses, or advocates the use of "Negro" would be advocating the use of a racist term, and should be dealt with accordingly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not taking any side, XmarX was the one who called Caden racist: "CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist." That seems pretty direct. Kcowolf (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign, sorry)

and this was pretty direct as well, " he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden." that seems a little extreme untwirl(talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tough and subtle difference "So and so is a racist" and "So and so is acting like a racist" are slightly different. Indeed, my own comments concluded that the were effectively an act of racism, but never said CadenS was a racist. However, if you read it that XmarX was in fact calling CadenS racist, then that might just violate WP:NPA in its own right. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

while i don't agree with labeling people 'negro', xmarx was certainly out of line, with a little encouragement from others that wasn't helpful either. they should probably strike their remarks, not to imply that they don't believe him to be a racist, but in the spirit of wiki's policy against personal attacks. untwirl(talk) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Xmarx's comments were over the line - jumping to conclusions that the evidence does not necessarily support. And as I said to him, if someone is pushing an agenda for racist terms, or is otherwise being disruptive, that's what needs to be dealt with - not trying to ban somebody just because somebody thinks they're racist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And as I just told Cyclone in a different section, these guys are trying to get him riled, and it's working. He should try ignoring their stupid insults, and just focus on article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

←CadenS has apologised to me personally on my talk page, and I am willing to accept that apology for his incivility. It is upto the rest of you to decide whether or not it deserves any action, but I'm willing to let this go. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned. I can't help but feel that I've been judged by too many to the point that my voice doesn't matter here. Regardless of what I say in my defense, it's always taken the wrong way and used against me it seems. I end up being accused of being incivil, accused of personal attacks and threatened with blocks. The message I get is that I have no rights on wiki to defend myself. Here I'm being personally attacked on ANI and it's perfectly fine with all admins. Why? XmarX called me a racist: "CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist." Why is this okay for admins or the community? XmarX said:"What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood?" Why is that okay? XmarX further said:"he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden." Why is this okay? Please tell me. I don't understand why he's allowed to attack me but I'm not allowed to defend myself. How can only two editors (Kcowolf and untwirl) see the damage he has caused on this ANI report? And why, despite what Bugs claims, why is Bugs allowed to egg XmarX on? I find it disturbing that the rest of you appear blind to the fact that XmarX directly called me a racist. I'm sorry if this offends people but how else do you expect me to feel? Caden S (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't okay for people to flat out you were racist, and it isn't just Kcowolf and untwirl who have shown disapproval. I show disapproval of that, seeing as there is no evidence of anything more than you supporting freedom of speech. Bugs hasn't been egging him on as such, just supporting what he's said. Bwilkins, although agreeing, believes it may have been a breach of WP:NPA against you too. However, XmarX has little history of making attacks, and we don't try to punish on every first account. It tends to take repeated attacks before action is taken, which is why you eventually ended up here. I don't like the system much, but that's how it is. Hope this clarifies things a bit. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• All of this appears to be over Caden's "advocating" the term "Negro". The only diffs provided show him saying that other editors should AGF about someone who used the term. There's a wide gulf between the accusation and what he actually did.
• Openly calling him a racist, inferring that he's a member of the KKK ("Grand Exalted Caden"), making "lynching" jokes, etc was completely uncalled-for, and arguably a lot more uncivil. The atmosphere quickly turned into a pile-on, including from editors I normally hold in high esteem.
• Suggestion, moving on: Wikipedia isn't a court, thank goodness. But we could do with more "innocent until proven guilty". If someone gets accused of something indefensible, that doesn't automatically mean they are indefensible. (Whether they're likable or not.) arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we got onto the topic of racism for CadenS anyway, I reinforced many terms earlier that that is not the reason I brought him here. I brought him here for incivility, for which he has apologized, and I see that as the end of the matter. I'll add a resolved tag to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.87.45.232

The Ip 24.87.45.232 has been doing edits mostly on Chinese related military articles for the past few months. I'm sure that his edits are done in good faith, but the problem is that they are badly or poorly sourced and sometimes wildly inaccurate. Most of the edits have been reverted across many articles and numerous messages have been left on his talk page and edit summary explaining why the edits are wrong. Now the main issue is that the Ip is not talking. He's not answering on his talk page or any of the articles' talk pages. He's not providing any edit summary (ever). He's just re-adding the same things over and over again. This has been going for months now and it's starting to get pretty annoying. Is it possible to block the user for at least a few days so hopefully he will get the message that he's wasting everybody's time. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and have to say that I don't believe it is being done in bad faith - and thus a block for "disruption" needs to be just enough to get their attention. I might suggest a 15 minute tariff, with block notice and such, might suffice to get them talking, and if that doesn't then we may have to consider longer periods. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm sure it's all done in good faith although since some of his edits have been reverted like a dozen times, he's certainly on the stubborn side. I'm completely Ok with a short block or anything else that might get his attention and realize that he's wasting everyone's time (including his). The reason I mentioned that the block should be for a few days is because he's not editing every day and I didn't him to "miss" the block. --McSly (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Continous re-insertation of non-reliably sourced material Airi & Meiri by User:Dekkappai

Recently an article was started on the non-notable "Japanese gravure idols and AV idols" called "Airi & Meiri". I tried speedy, as it was completely unsourced. It was removed. Then PROD, but also removed. No changes in the article where done. So I started an AfD. Then a major series of edits where performed, all of them including unreliable sources such as blogs, catalogs, and self-published marketing materials. I proceed to remove all of this materials, with explanation on the edit summaries. This is blatant WP:LARDing, and the reverts are bad faith, with misleading edit summaries [25], on the part of User:Dekkappai and bad faith accusations of "conspiracy" by another editor [26] in the user's talk page, which sounds much more like meatpuppetry to disrupt the AfD.

In order to not get into 3RR over this, I am raising this thread.--Cerejota (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an AfD in progress. The nominator (above) has been blanking the article while I and others have been working on it. His/her assertion that the content added is not up to Wikipedia standards should be settled by the AfD. Instead, the nominator refuses to allow editing to continue. This is against policy, as I understand it. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not refuse to allow editing, I refuse to allow bad editing. The difference is clear.--Cerejota (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out also, the nominator's bizarre assertion of "meatpuppetry" when neither of us has yet !voted at the AfD. I notified the other user for help improving the article, and ths nominator's actions appear to have the purpose of preventing that. Dekkappai (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IP user:213.22.185.170

Resolved

 – Blocked.

213.22.185.170 has been engaged in an edit war on Atlas Shrugged for three days now, despite multiple notices posted on his/her Talk page which the user has blanked on one occasion. The user claims every edit to be a revert of vandalism, has made no attempt at consensus discussion, and has consistently changed the lead's description of the story from "a general strike by leading industrialists and businessmen, led by the protagonist John Galt" to "a general strike by elements of the robber baron class, led by the protagonist John Galt." Looking through my history I realize I've hit four reverts combating this, so I don't want to take further action, but this vandalism has to stop. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 199.17.55.131

Hey, I need help. On the Potential superpower, this IP [27] keeps on this posting this report [28]. However, this doesn't mention anything of how India economic growth works helps it's superpower status, or how India can be considered a potential superpower. When me and another user told him that the information he was adding is OR, he responded with "Just because I have cited an external link does not mean that I have not done research on this topic. This is what I have been doing for 10 years", and "You have to draw an inference through research. This report mentions that India's GDP will exceed that of the United States' GDP in 2043; this automatically means India will be a superpower." However, the report doesn't say anything about how if India's GDP will exceed the US's GDP, that means India is a superpower. Another user and I have told him this, and if he continues doing this tommorow, what should I do? Deavenger (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threats at User talk:Shayan.mashatian

Very strange indeed. Please see this permalink since the user blanks their talk page regularly. Sock puppet report also being made. Very similar edit pattern to similarly named user Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the message you left on the talk page, the user may make a legal threat if they so wish. However, if they do so, they will be blocked until the matter is resolved. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement is valid. Feel at liberty to modify it. However it may also be read as a prediction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they removed the threat, I don't think that will be necessary. I'm more concerned with the sockpuppet report. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a huge difference on their talk page. But such things are for uninvolved parties to judge. The sock puppet report seems to stand and be at least quasi-confirmed by the user. Again for others to judge. I can report it, but by doing so I do not judge it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Account deactivation

Resolved

 – Did this yesterday at AN, no need to do it again. //roux   00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to know how I can deactivate my account. What do I do?Cobenobo (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deactivated, as such, as all edits need to have a name associated with them. The best option is to simply leave your account and not come back onto it, leaving a message on you talk and user page saying that you have left. This should suffice for most purposes, but an administrator may be able to help you further if the reason is more specific. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The answer is the same as yesterday: Don't log in no more. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ps: see WP:AN#Comments to be erased and account deleted --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unresolving. This editor, via an ip, is removing swathes of content from various pages - this is making the talkpages incoherent. They have been advised that they should not delete past contributions, that the record of the comments remains in the page edit history, yet continue regardless (much like trying again to get a response that is different from the last). I will have a quick look at the ip I just reverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh bloody hell. :/ //roux   01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is the edit that caught my attention - note who was previously reverted (and who made the same edit/deletion). I made a mistake in saying it is current, as the ip is removing stuff from the archives, but it still indicates that someone is not listening to the answers to questions they posed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral category move

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

George Al-Shami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replacing every example of Category:Syrian Arab nationalists with Syrian nationalists. Perhaps this is correct, but it would seem to me that if one wants to rename a category, one does so through normal procedures: in this case, the two categories would describe entirely different categories, so the unilateral move appears inappropriate. I am reverting all of these changes; let me know if there is disagreement. THF (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is definitely some disagreement THF, reverting my edits is a unilateral move itself, isn't it? The former category was contradictory; as Syrian natioalists and Arab nationalists are two different things.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, please bring it up on the category talk page. As far as I can see it, George Al-Shami was being WP:BOLD, THF reverted, and now discussion can occur. No incident requiring admin attention. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin7557 continuing warring

Firstly see Kevin7557 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive

Then today a large number of IPs performing identical edit warring on these articles

Characters in Resident Evil 4

Conflict: Desert Storm II

My Name Is Bruce

Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow

Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror the first three of which are now semi protected

I have blocked the following IPs so far today

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

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

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

86.132.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Advice on the best way to proceed with this? Mfield (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But knowing something about the situation, I think the best thing to do would be to semi-protect Characters in Resident Evil 4 for several months and hope this person gives up. This person will just keep using new IPs and his/her/its main focus is on that article, adding the info about the Merchant. Also note that this article is not one which requires a lot of new edits, is not controversial. It would hardly be missed by those IPs who wish to edit constructively. Belasted (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be over-zealous but I think semi-protection on all five articles will be necessary. The user does not give up easily (see this IP's history of edits), is not dissuaded by communication, warnings or blocks, and merely resumes editing after semi-protection has expired. Geoff B (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User apparently changed name, but I can't find a log entry

User talk:James Janderson recently came up for speedy deletion on the grounds that there was no such user. Although I can't find such a user, the large number of posts to the page indicates that other editors were trying to communicate with someone there. Further research suggests that User:James Janderson is the former username of the user now known as User:Dr. Blofeld. There is no problem if the user properly changed his name, but shouldn't there be a log entry reflecting that, and shouldn't his user talk page have been moved to his new name? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was the reason. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that maybe he didn't want his real name to be associated with his current account? EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm sorry, but in fairness it didn't take a lot of research to figure out the connection between the two accounts, nor did it require the use of any admin tools. Furthermore, I don't think we allow the right to vanish to users who just want to change their names rather than leaving entirely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(After EC): ::I've created the account and undeleted the user page, which was deleted by an automated script (see this archived AN thread). If Dr. Blofeld wants the user page re-deleted, then he is of course free to do that himself. We're generally more strict about deleting talk pages though. I don't know how to get to the username change logs without knowing the name of the bureaucrat, but the change is logged at this CHU archive and these logs for Nicholp. Back in 2006, when a user was renamed, their user and user talk pages were not automatically moved. Also, deleted contributions were not moved, so any edit that was deleted at the time of the username change then later undeleted would be attributed to the old username. This is why there is one undeleted edit now. I was in a similar situation with my old username, Pianoman87. Graham87 06:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified Dr,. Blofeld about this thread. Graham87 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was an old account when I first arrived. Please delete it thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I thought you were an admin so you could do it yourself. I obviously didn't read your userpage well enough. :-) Graham87 10:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Karl "gary" 19

Resolved

 – indef blocked by Cas

I just reverted obvious trolling on User talk:Luna Santin. Got a button? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bringing it here? Give him a warning and wait for his next move. §hawnpoo 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, warned. Keep an eye on this and see the harassing diff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget that - that sort of editing is not on. They were the only contribs anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

86.135.1.202

Another case that doesn't quite qualify for AIV: 86.135.1.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I noticed adding unsourced information to Sneakernight today. Reviewing his talkpage and contributions, this editor has made no useful contributions to Wikipedia (everything is unsourced and speculative at best, and it has all been reverted), and has been previously blocked for sockpuppetry. Given the nature of the edits, it's apparent that this is at least a semi-static IP, belong to the same editor since February 9th. Perhaps a nice month-long block will help. Given the history of sockpuppeting, a hardblock seems in order.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Who's the sockmaster? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nvm. read the talk page. Checking the contributions again. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You've thrown a TLA at me that I don't understand. "NVM"?—Kww(talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess it's "nevermind", based on the strike-thru' Might have been better as an XTLA e.g. "nvrm". On the other hand, maybe not ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. :) It's 'nevermind', and the second sentence should have read "I read the talk page." Protonk (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what a "semi-static" IP is. The block this IP is in is a dynamic block of some 52,500 addresses provided by BT. If this is an IP that hasn't changed for a while that's just because the current user hasn't asked for a new one. All the blocked IP needs to do to avoid a month-long block is reboot their router; half a minute later they have a new address. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of networks will reassign the same IP to the same MAC over and over if it's available, so that rebooting doesn't tend to reassign. That means an address relationship tends to persist, even though it isn't guaranteed to. That's what I call at "semi-static" IP. Looking at the contributions, it's apparent that this relationship is pretty long lived in this case, although it does bounce occasionally, from the appearance of the sock-puppet report. I'm open to hearing a suggestion as to what to do with this editor if you don't believe a block would be effective.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BT doesn't appear to cache IPs, in my experience (I was in that netblock for quite a while and used to curse the fact that a reboot of my router would need a DDNS update just because I'd changed a LAN setting, meaning a router reboot would change my WAN IP). Leaving aside considerations like this, how about a staged {{uw-error1}} through {{uw-error4}} followed by a block if they continue; there seems little else to do without rangeblocking 52-thousand-odd IPs. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

They are already at final vandalism warning level.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale maybe? Hasn't editing since the last warning. If this comes up again, leave me a note on my talk page. I agree that this IP address appears to be mainly connected to this user (or the other leases don't edit wikipedia anonymously). So if it continues we can be pretty sure that it is the same human who received the warnings. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:98.180.196.203 reverting redirects and ignoring consensus.

Resolved

 – IP blocked a week by User:Mfield HalfShadow 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

According to his alk page, he apparently has a history of this and, when asked to stop, claimed he would " revert them back. Then you'll end up looking like a prick engaging in edit waring(sic)."

Could someone have a talk with him, please? HalfShadow 04:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He now appears to be removing templates more or less at random, as well as reverting redirects. HalfShadow 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit among their many others is very disruptive. In my opinion, a block should be made to prevent any more of this. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 04:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked this IP on the back of an AIV report. Reporting user gave this page of theirs as a list of previous activity by this problem editor. Mfield (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better. While I can keep that up indefinitely, I'd rather not... HalfShadow 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He is at it again, using EEMlV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which is an attempt to appear to be EEMIV (talk · contribs) (upper case l instead of lower case L). Mfield (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And as 98.180.208.214 (talk · contribs). I've reported this address to A:IV, but since his last edits at this address were last night, it may get deleted as stale. HalfShadow 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible fake or unapproved bot

Folks might want to have a look at Special:Contributions/Joeyaa. I don't know if this is an unauthorized bot or a person impersonating a bot, but either way he/she/it has been tagging legitimate articles for deletion and strikes me as suspicious. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a flagged bot. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page and referred him to this discussion. Edit summaries look similar to those left by pywikipedia framework. —Nn123645 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you detect a person impersonating a bot through some sort of reverse Turing Test?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Revenge tagging and edit warring by user:Alex Rio Brazil

Alex Rio Brazil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been edit warring through socks and by himself over the past few days over my tagging of the Aristotle Onassis article. Now he is mass tagging articles on my user page as revenge. Initially he posted his threat here: Please help. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he started reverting and tagging the same articles though a sock 201.19.133.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Dr.K. logos 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Two more socks: 201.19.242.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ‎ 201.29.135.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Dr.K. logos 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ARB blocked for 24h for gross edit warring (e.g [29]). On the face of it, Dr. K. deserves the same - still looking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

William hi. Please check my reverts. Alex Rio Brazil put notability tags on Georgakis, Moustaklis and in the film article L'Insoumis he tagged it as a school. Clearly bad faith drive-by tagging vandalism. He also used sockpuppets to pursue this agenda. My work improving the Aristotle Onassis article was seriously disrupted by the mass tagging counter-attack. Putting me in the same category as a sockpuppeteer who attacks editors trying to improve his bad editing on Aristotle Onassis sends exactly the wrong message to bona-fide users who try to improve the project. Dr.K. logos 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohmigod. Well, Tasos, you were certainly in the right in principle here, but it wasn't a very good decision to let yourself be drawn into that reverting contest. Once the disruptive intent of the other guy had become clear, it would have been better to just alert the admins and wait till he got blocked. Come to think of it, there's little actual damage in having an unjustified tag sit on a little-watched page for a few hours more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you were, in this case, essentially reverting vandalism. But the absurd levels of reversion at e.e. [30] are very close to getting you a block. Don't do this again; report, then await some admin intervention William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Future, William, I accept your verdict. William: Thank you very much again for your consummate wisdom and understanding. I apologise for any disruption I may unwittingly have caused the project during this very unfortunate incident. I find edit warring distasteful and this was right out of a Wikipedian nightmare. I still intend to improve the Aristotle Onassis article and I will try to avert any counter-attacks of this kind in the future, without, I promise, any hint of disruption on my part. Take care gentlemen and thank you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Serial IP vandalism

A vandal using a series of related IP addresses has been making frequent abusive, and homophobic, comments on George Galloway; the vandal has also made homophobic comments on Ireland-related articles Ian Paisley and Irish Rebellion of 1798. IPs so far use include 83.71.33.9, 83.71.77.161, 83.71.47.184, 83.70.75.38 --all registered to Eircom in Ireland. RolandR (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help with article patrollers

Resolved

 – tea and sympathy for Wikidemon

Hi - I'm in process of creating an article about an independent rock band, Them Terribles. I've attached an {{inuse}} tag to signal that I am actively working on the article. Because I'm working remotely with a weak connection I prefer to save regularly rather than saving all at once. I've done this before many times, and it seems that the "inuse" tag normally keeps things stable until I've had a chance to finish a proper stub or start class article with references. This time though a couple editors on new article patrol are tag teaming me by repeatedly nominating the page for speedy deletion. I've removed the tag under WP:IAR because following the policy makes no sense at all - it's just pointless procedure. I've assured them I am an experienced editor not writing a speediable article, and asked them to not keep adding the tag. They don't seem to be interested in honoring my request - one just WP:DTTR-ed me with a supposed "last warning" threatening a block if I remove the tag again, and went ahead and nominated it yet again. Could I please have an administrator take a look, and if warranted ask these people to back off? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user created the article, and has twice removed the speedy-tag. As it happens, another user (not me) replaced it both times. But Wikidemon's arguments that I am being disruptive by re-adding the tag is inappropriate. The tag clearly states that it is not to be removed by the article's creator, and he deliberately ignored the process.

Since he indignantly expostulated that he was "not a novice", I simply gave him a final warning without going through the intermediate stages, since he claims to understand the deletion process and to know better. I think I've acted appropriately!

Note that the appropriateness of the tagging is by-the-by, and certainly the article seems to have a greater claim to notability now than when originally tagged, but the creator removing it is still disallowed. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you include information on the band's notability from the get-go it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. You can also create it in your userspace and move it into the mainspace when there's enough information about it to ensure that it passes speedy deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I tagged it at this revision, when it was very much at the bare-bones. Also, Dmol and I are not tag-teaming, we have never (still never!) communicated before. I only tagged once, my only further involvement was the warning. Please check these facts out, Wd. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you tagged it within 5 minutes of the article being created. New page patrollers are generally advised to start patrolling from the back of the log. §hawnpoo 09:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A page is expected to meet notability guidelines, and that didn't. Five minutes is neither here nor there - userspace can be used to get it ready, show-preview can be used to get it ready. If my actions were judged to be overly hasty by an admin removing the tag, that's fine. I object to Wikidemon removing the tag and then getting snotty about it. Right or wrong, the tag must not be removed by Wikidemon, as I understand it. That said, the article is now closer to being notable than it was, so I would just encourage Wd to calm down a little in his accusations of tendentious editing, and to create articles in his userspace. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new: Only three minutes, everything there. This has to stop. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

< Hexa, everything is not there. That article does not assert the band's notability, as is required. There are no reliable, third-party sources. Only the band's own pages - which are explicitly not enough. "This has to stop" - then propose a policy of no-tagging for 2 hours after article creation except in cases of obvious vandalism (my dog is called paul and hes gay)... I'd be happy to consider any such ideas.

But your article you just linked didn't meet the current policy, I'm afraid. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is why it is recommended that NewPage Patrollers (like myself) patrol from the back of the log as opposed to the front of the log. MuZemike 09:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's no CSD-A7! And not after three minutes. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have said it was. It doesn't assert its notability, and that's precisely what the tag is for. You can continue talking about "three minutes" all you like, but the article is expected to list third-party sources. You could always take up my constructive suggestion of a policy proposal if you feel strongly about the timing issue, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need no policy for everything, sometimes we could just use our brain. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, a failure to list third-party sources toward notability does not entail A7; an assertion of notability, even unsourced, is sufficient to overcome speedy deletion (I take no position on whether A7 was otherwise applicable here; I mean only to note that if you've been tagging for speedy articles that assert notability [or facts that imply notability] but fail to provide sources for that assertion, you've been acting contrary to established policy [except perhaps where the assertions are so plainly false as to represent blatant vandalism, to which, notwithstanding that hoaxes are generally not speediable, many would apply G3], one, notably, expressed in bold at WP:CSD). 69.212.64.246 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecX7, unindent) I've got reliable sources in my other browser windwos, and if we weren't in a pointless wiki-battle with a "last warning" on my page I would have put them in by now. Now TreasuryTag is accusing me of stuff. You bet I'm annoyed. TreasuryTag, please take some responsibility for your edits where they involve other editors. Sloppy wikignoming is one thing, harassing experienced editors over it to the point of wasting everyon's time on AN/I is disruptive. I did not accuse you of WP:MEAT, and please stop trying to turn this into a debate on who is following wiki rules. You two have alternated these warnings, nominations, templating, etc. It's nice that you're helping out by protecting the encyclopedia against non-notable articles but please recognize when you've made a mistake, and move on. Dealing with this is extra work on a slow connection at this point. Themfromspace, are you saying that articles should be first created in user space then moved to article space when done, rather than created via a series of initial edits? I've never done that before but if it's a policy I wasn't aware of, sorry. As far as what is allowed or not, Wikipedia isn't supposed to involve procedure just for the sake of procedure. Why are we wasting everyone's time on this? May I please go back to editing the article? The tag is inconvenient, and it's not going to be speediable when done. If, when I'm done, someone thinks it is not suitably sourced, they can go ahead and file an AfD nomination or, better yet, discuss politely on the talk page and if there are better sources take some time to help fix it.Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikidemon, but I would like to be clear on some points:

1. I am not "accusing" you of anything except deleting a speedy tag from the article you created, which is disallowed, as I'm sure you know. I have provided two diffs to prove this.
2. I never suggested you accused me of WP:MEAT, I said you accused me of tag-teaming. You used the word "tag-teaming".
3. I alternated nothing. I added the CSD, and didn't re-add it once you removed it, because I could see the article coming along. Dmol re-added it. While I could see the article coming along (for which you deserve credit), however, your deletion of the tag was still not allowed, so I warned you for this.
4. I don't really think that the tag is inconvenient (it's just {{db-g7}}, doesn't take up much space), but if anyone wants to remove it, I won't contest that, just like I didn't plan to re-add it when you deleted it originally.

Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe we are now getting off topic. An admin declined the speedy so let the article be for a few days and if you decide to take it to Afd after then so be it. §hawnpoo 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the other person adding the tag. I am not tag-teaming with the other user who i have never communicated with before. The original article was only a basic line for a band with absolutly no evidence of notability and was tagged by TreasuryTag user. Despite claiming to be an experience user, the original contributor took out the delete tag, and when i replaced it my edit explained this clearly. Despite this, it was removed again. I do not consider the inuse tag should allow the article to procede, any more than flippant "please don't delete" pleas that are sometimes added by authors. I expect this article to show notability within the next 24 hours, or it goes to AFD. The number of bands that appear here without evidence of notability is annoying, time consumming, and counter productive.--Dmol (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no original article to judge. There was a multi-step edit in process with an inuse tag. I took the speedy tag off knowing full well there is a rule against it, because the tag is just wrong. I often revert clumsy edits rather than following pointless procedures - IAR is one of the five pillars. Now two editors are harranguing me with rather rude comments like "flippant", "despite claiming", "snotty", "tendentious", "indignantly", "check the facts out", etc. The behavior fits the category I consider tag-teaming. Nothing especially wrong with that, and again I do not accuse them of meatpuppeting. It's just particularly vexing to be harassed officiously by two misguided editors at the same time. Experienced, productive editors do get annoyed when people waste their time and accuse them of incompetence or bad faith. They're wrong and they deserve some reproach for wasting time like this. Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am reluctantly forced to say, "Check your facts." I never called you tendentious, and as far as I know, neither did Dmol. You (indirectly?) called me tendentious [31], I merely suggested that you should calm down and not toss around the word [32] [33]. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to the rules, Wikidemon should not have removed the tag. Also according to the rules, the speedy deletion tag was legitimately placed. However, when an article has been tagged with {{inuse}}, and has just been created, it's common sense (and just courteous) that we should wait just a little longer than 5 minutes before tagging it for speedy deletion. It would have hurt absolutely nothing if a possibly non-notable band article were allowed to exist for half an hour or so before tagging for deletion. -kotra (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One user above says, "If you include information on the band's notability from the get-go it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. You can also create it in your userspace and move it into the mainspace when there's enough information about it to ensure that it passes speedy deletion." That's a reasonable argument. I would now like to see what rule requires that that suggested approach be followed, so that everything already will be in place when the article has begun. NO, what you have here is the typical behavior of the ravenous wolves called "deletionists", whose mission in life here is to destroy rather than to create. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're an experienced editor and will be creating a notable article, always use WP:IAR and remove the speedy tag. It's common sense. We don't need to follow process when following process would hurt the encyclopedia. The person who tagged it? Assume good faith of the editor and expect that the article will be notable. Seraphim♥ 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps taggers might keep in mind the lead of WP:CSD, which says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." If an article is tagged "inuse", you can assume that the article is being created over several edits. Tagging it for speedy deletion in that case is a waste of time for everyone—particularly the creator, who has to stop building the article to write a "hangon" rationale (unless IARing), and the admin who will find it in the queue. If you're concerned that the contributor will not meet notability, perhaps consider dropping a note at his or her talk page saying, "Hi, saw the new article you're actively building. Just wanted to remind you to verify notability. Thanks." Only takes a minute, and it's much more collegial. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a good sign when a new page patroller thinks A7 is about notability. A7 was carefully worded to avoid that mistake. Second, if new page patrollers would take the time to do this the old school way by doing a Google search first and look at who created the article (unless it's blatant bollocks) then these things wouldn't happen. Why do we need rules to explain common sense? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the deletionists' insatiable desire to delete things overrides everything else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"First of all, it's not a good sign when a new page patroller thinks A7 is about notability." This needs to be repeated as much as possible. --NE2 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created a few new articles that are still stubs, and have never had any tagged or deleted. If there is something in the article to establish notability, why should there be a problem? I think Themfromspace's suggestion to work the article up enough before creating it on WP, is a good approach. Otherwise, how are patrollers to know that this particular article is not just spam promoting some highschool kid's own band? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the short answer to that is to take the time to look at the initial author's user and talk pages, look at the author's contribs. It doesn't take that long to look at someone who has created a new article. What is the difference between five minutes of existence, versus an hour of research? Even more so if the author feels it necessary to include the {{inuse}} tag, which usually indicates a level of clue. Personally, I see this as a failing of the spirit of wikipedia and a rather strict adherence to the rules. And secondary to that, anyone running new page patrol should be able to quickly determine "spam" or "junk" based on the initial state of the article; any doubts should lead to pause. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Deletion of pages under construction is a good guide for when to tag/delete pages with an {{underconstruction}} template, or with an {{inuse}} template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to go with the tagging editor. Having a Wikipedia article is starting to be a big deal for a band, and bands on the edge of notability (as well as those beyond the pale) are having articles written. The burden is really on the article writer to establish notability. I see no reason why the first edit cannot contain the info needed to satisfy WP:MUSIC, or why once the creating editor became aware there was concern, he did not remedy the situation then and there. It takes a minimal number of facts to satisfy WP:MUSIC, and if they were placed on the article page, no admin will delete. While there's every sympathy for the article writer, this is an area of WP where adherence to the rules is needed, and he didn't do so. There is no way he should have taken that speedy tag down, let alone twice. It may be worth putting in the rules for Speedy that if the tag is taken down by the article creator, it may be replaced by anyone, and that does not count towards 3RR or as edit warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to encourage edit warring? Yes way, I can and do and will remove inappropriate tags if they are a waste of time and removing them improves the encyclopedia. I could easily have said "xxx is an American rock band that has charted songs and won major awards" or gone through some other perfunctory recitation of notability criteria, and it would be unspeediable. Or I could have added the "hangon" tag and wasted more of people's time. But why stand on strict adherence to the rules? I actually did follow the rules. The reason I started the article the way I did is that it's often best to write the lead first, and the lead for a rock band article generally does not assert notability. I left notes, used the talk page, etc., and the body of pages about speedy deletion seems to contemplate and allow for constructing articles in multiple steps. Rules are supposed to serve the interests of the encyclopedia, not the other way around. If I want to signal that the article will be fine I can add the "inuse" tag rather than have to wikigame. Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring an "in use" tag and slapping with speedy because of what all the other newb fanboys do is nothing other than bad faith. It's not right to do so to an established wiki writer/creator like Wikidemon. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just throwing this in for anyone reading who doesn't know or has forgotten this. A good alternative to applying an inuse or underconstruction tag and hoping the article doesn't get deleted is to start working on the article as a subpage of your user page, and only move it into article space when you think it will pass muster. This will give you much more time to iron the kinks out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that the article creator is not in the best position to know if the removal of the speedy tag is appropriate thus the rule. I think that is the point at which you should have sought intervention if discussion say on the tagger's talk page failed. No admin would have deleted with a hangon tag saying "We're talking about it! See discussion here." Instead the matter deterioriated in a less than productive manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, policy already suggests waiting if the article "appears incomplete", and there's no reason to increase the burden of C:CSD by tagging articles that are likely to be expanded such that the tag is no longer applicable, unless there are core issues like BLP or copyvio. I think a personal note such as I mentioned above would have served just as well, as would have a {{Notability|Music}}, without causing tension. Again, it's a more collegial approach. (But, Wikidemon, the lead section of every article should establish notability, per Wikipedia:Lead section.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• To wrap it up: Instead of removing the tag Wikidemon could have placed the "hang on" template and asked the (two) editors to remove the tag by themselves and give him/her a little bit more than five minutes to show notability of the subject and the "tagging" editors could've give him/her a slack and the courtesy not to "draw" the "taging-gun" that fast. Both parties where right and wrong at the same time in my point of view and if some slight (in part understandable) "temper" would've kept out of it, it wouldn't have been such a waste of time. I'd say, let's call it resolved. Best regards to all good faith parties, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The CSD / tagging regimen is clearly not intended for good faith editors who know what they are doing. If we want to make it a requirement to create new articles in user space before moving them over to article space, fine. But that is less efficient than creating them in the right place for a number of reasons including now having surplus redirects that need to be deleted, and in many cases getting the wikilinks set up. In process of creating articles one often finds and adds wikilinks back from farflung articles to the new article. These will all be redlinks (and thus deleted by watchful editors) if the article is in user space. This particular case is resolved, but the matter of assuming that new article creators are nincompoops or spammers continues. Perhaps we do want to bite newbies and chase them away until they are experienced enough to pass through the gauntlet. But I'll bet for every editor like me who knows where the ropes are, there are others who get discouraged and don't stick around to figure it out. People who tag articles for deletion really ought to make sure the article really is speediable, and assume the article creator is acting in good faith if they assure them it is not. Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"The CSD / tagging regimen is clearly not intended for good faith editors who know what they are doing." They probably just didn't know you.

"If we want to make it a requirement to create new articles in user space...". No, we shouldn't because besides that the edit history from the start would be missing (and I prefer to "see the birth" of a new article) it takes away the chance for other editors to kick in and help.

"that is less efficient than creating them in the right place...". I agree and is part of my point just made.

About new editors (creating articles): We ought to help them as far as their articles creations have good potential.

"People who tag articles for deletion really ought to take some responsibility to make sure the article really is speediable, and assume the article creator is acting in good faith if they assure them it is not." Indeed and I guess it's usually done this way but nobody is perfect so what happened today will happen occasionally. If more new editors would bother to read their welcome message (if they receive one) and bother to read the links explaining how WP works there would be a big difference already. But hey, at the end we only can interfere in a one by one basis.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggest someone mark this "resolved" and let's move on to the next one. Bailiff, bring in the next group.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out as someone who deletes quite a lot of speedies, that articles about hopelessly non-notable bands are so common, and spurious protest against their deletion also so common, that this above other areas is a field where we may tend to do things quickly--not that this excuses deleting too fast, but it does provide an explanation of why it happens. DGG (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is marked as "resolved", but I would assert that removing speedy tag from articles you have created should be treated as a bright-line rule: strictly forbidden under all circumstances, good faith or no. The only exception I can think of is changing your mind about a "db-author" tag.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the point above. And... having skimmed through the huge wave of repetitive and scalding-hot anger that has been thrust at me (and thanks for those of you who were less insulting and even suggested that I might not be being intentionally disruptive, and that I may actually be a good-faith user!), can I then suggest that a new {{inuse}}-type template is created, or a new parameter added, which will say something like, "Please give this article at least 40 minutes before tagging for deletion. 40 minutes from the time of this template will be: 6.30pm March 9th"... this would mean that only clued-up users would know how to use the syntax, and it would be a helpful aid to those patrolling. How about it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: The deletion-happy patrollers should be strictly forbidden from zapping an article five minutes after it appears, unless it is obviously spam or other junk, which does not appear to be the case here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unwritten law on German WP is 15 minutes after the last change. That seems reasonable. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"deletion-happy patrollers"? This is what got tagged [34]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was another incident yesterday with a complete article tagged after only three minutes, since the article is no more, I can't show you the diff. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, prsumably, the tagger acted reasonably because the tag was upheld?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It was taken to AfD and deleted there within hours - which might have been the rigt thing. But it's not a very constructive way to delete articles that may lack some references via SD only three or five minutes after creation. At least for me a vio of AGF.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It may well be, but the responsibility on a speedy still falls (as has been pointed out) with the admin who deletes or does not delete. In this matter, the speedy was not granted by the reviewing admin. No harm, no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See the diff of the undeleted article here. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An article needs to rise above speedy-deletion criteria the moment it is created. A7 is particularly easy: you don't even need to have a source, you don't have to satisfy any notability rules, just include some statement that can be treated as an indication of importance. Wikidemon has been around long enough to understand what a statement of importance looks like, and, if a patroller is misapplying the tag, the admin processing the speedy serves as a double-check. If you believe that articles that actually contain a statement indicating the importance of the topic are getting deleted under A7, the responsibility for that belongs with the deleting admin. This was eligible under A7, and there is no excuse for creating an article like that in the first place. Sandboxes work, and, if you are on a slow connection that makes you want to add things slowly, you need to start with an assertion of importance. As the article stands at this moment, I still don't see a clear assertion of importance. It's not at all clear that this articles passes WP:BAND, but that's an AFD issue, not a CSD issue. —Kww(talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kww. As it stood, the article was clearly eligible for CSD. It was the article creator's job to put in the information to assert notability, and he did not do so then. He violated policy by twice removing the speedy tag. Perhaps if he had put the "under construction" tag rather than the "major edit" tag, he might have done better. And i must say, I'm not wild about the victim act he's putting up (the waves of scalding hot anger eminating from those who don't agree with him, and his comment that his supporters are "less insulting", which presumably means that those who do not agree with him are more insulting) to say nothing of the insinuations of meatpuppetry above. This is AN/I. Please watch your tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; whether this article asserted notability or even can, the philosophy that "an article needs to rise above speedy-deletion criteria the moment it is created" seems contrary to the policy, which not only encourages waiting when an article is obviously incomplete but also says, "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." Our deletion policy also says that "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page" and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." When an article is improvable, it should still be improved rather than flatly deleted, even if it does not clear the CSD bar when first created. When every indication is that an editor intends to improve it, it's a good idea to let him try to do so. I do not believe there was any bad faith in the tag, but I think that it would have been better in this situation to watch and wait before presuming that the article was not improvable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assert that removing speedy tag from articles you have created should be treated as a bright-line rule: strictly forbidden under all circumstances, good faith or no. Honestly, I would consider something like this to be a clear example where IAR applies. "Don't remove speedy tags from your own articles" is a general rule, but one that you should ignore freely in a case where the only reason the article was tagged was that someone tagged an article prematurely. Obviously, you should always assert notability in the first save. But tagging a brand new article, by an established used, with an inuse tag, is clearly inappropriate tagging. And if someone tags an article inappropriately, you shouldn't feel bound by bureaucratic rules.

The main problem here though seems to be the tagging. If people would apply a modicum of common sense when they tag articles, this problem would be avoided. Instead we bite newbies and burn people who know what they're doing. I'd say this is a real problem and it's clearly unacceptable...but people have been complaining about this sort of nonsense for years. Saying it one more time isn't going to suddenly infuse common sense into people... Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the article, not the tagging: I still don't see a clear assertion of importance, and it's been more than a few minutes.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree again with Kww. In addition, Guettarda's proposal would hand carte blanche to the creating editor. "Premature" could run on for days. Better, if an article creator thinks he's been wronged, to ask a third party to look at the situation, hopefully someone with experience at CSD.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of CSD is that second-looks are builtin. The person that tags the article should never be the same person as the one that presses the "delete" button.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the tagging, not the article. It's laziness on the part of the taggers. Unless it's obvious junk, give it some time. "Premature could run on for days???" So what??? Where's the rule that says an article has to be "finished" before it's started? That's never been the premise here. This is just lazy deletionists wanting to impose their own ad hoc rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Premature could run on for days???" "Premature... (you know what I mean)" doesn't "run for days" and is nothing to be ashamed of. It happens...  ;) (couldn't hold myself back to post it.... you see???*lol*). Sorry.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh huh huh, she said penal. No doubt it is a moot point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of CSD in this case is that it interrupts the editor and keeps Wikipedia from being improved. If this is the direction you want it to go, well, ok then... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think for purposes of AN/I, this matter is resolved. Suggest that any discussions that people wish to continue move to the appropriate talk page. No administrator intervention is called for in this matter. Policy discussion should take place where policy discussions take place. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Putting it to rest by taking the middle road doesn't seem to be an option for some. There are some clear rules about removing deletion-templates but there are also rules and guidelines that "promote" other like using common sense and (the best known) "forget all rules...". Now, if you guys and girls want to talk about rules and guidelines (and maybe change them) you might want to propose this at the appropriate talk page. The issue here is specific to one single template-dispute and closed so please (at least) just try to leave it alone. Talking about it here won't affect any policy/guideline and so does not blaming one or another. I rest my "case".

And to some comments above: Feel free to add an AFD-template to the article if you still feel that way. No one is holding you up from doing so. Not even the initial author.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So this now makes at least Wikidemon, Jbmurray and Durova that I'e seen getting new articles tagged for CSD. Pretty impressive list of crap-spammers, that. Two pretty reasonable suggestions I saw above are to work from the back of the NP log, and to allow at least 15 minutes since the last edit before tagging. Either or both of those would likely have avoided the need for this whole thread. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but talking about it here won't change anything. Please consider taking it up on the appropriate talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! Franamax (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if someone can answer me one question, which I've asked several times now: Where is the rule that requires that an article be "finished" the moment it's posted? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than certain that there is no rule saying so. You can do some wiki-lawyering search and (always) find what suits you but that's it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...but I don't think I have to tell you that the latter is not the way to go ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nay. No wiki-lawyering, no suits, nor any other legal threads. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there. I meant "wiki-laws" like policies and guidelines by that.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not just Wikidemon, Jbmurray, and Durova who have been hit up by over-eager new page patrollers; Twistee Treat (created by WMF Employee User:Bastique) and Jim Naugle (created by User:Legionarius, who has 5 FL's and an FA) were tagged for deletion within a minute of their creation. Deleting non-notable junk is one thing, but tagging as speedy-worthy articles about an individual who has been elected six times as the mayor of a major city (which was noted in the very first revision of the article) indicates that there are some new page patrollers who are out of control. And I say this as someone who tends towards deletionism... Horologium (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NNBot II has been approved for trials; it automatically warns creators of articles who remove speedy tags. The {{hasty}} tag, which says roughly "I agree with the tagger's rationale, but give the creator 1 hour" is one of the approved tags at WP:WARN. Moonriddengirl's and DGG's points are also persuasive to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Resolved

 – many pixels permanently ruined

Now, just as the mess is resolved Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominates this article for deletion (here). The nomination is a stretch because the article passes multiple formal criteria for WP:N and WP:BAND - non-trivial mentions, placing in a major competition, rotation on a nationwide netowork, etc. Given that Kww is an article deletion hawk scolding me here for dealing swiftly with article patrolling mistakes (I have "no excuse" for my actions[35]), then files an AFD eleven minutes later[36] without addressing me directly on the article talk page or mine, this looks a lot like retaliatory process vexation. I'll ask Kww to withdraw the nomination. Failing that could someone please speedy close this as a bad nomination.Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this gives you an appropriate forum to discuss it in. Make a left out of the door, go right at the first stoplight, and it will be waiting for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want your insatiable deletionism to be challenged. Well, here's an idea. Someone suggested posting "under construction" to fend off the deletionists for awhile. How about if new article creation, instead of simply posting a blank slate, would post that banner automatically. Then the user could have a little time to finish without the wolves immediately pouncing on it. If a reasonable time passes and the banner is still there, or if the article does not pass muster once the banner is removed, then the deletionists could have their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for this record, my insatiable deletionism directed me to argue for the article to be kept, at the AfD. That wasn't me in a publicity stunt, that was an honest comment that the page now meets our standards. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh. My insatiable deletionism just wants Doritos. HalfShadow 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I delete a few expired prods now and then, but that's it. I don't think I've ever deleted a speedy. Check the deletion log.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been complained to on my talk page about being too vocal on this point. Where were you all, a year ago, when a spammer was promoting his own privately issued CD on Superman music, and when I voiced complaints about that blatant self-promotion, I was shouted down for it on the ANI page itself? Where are you deletionists when we need you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the other case from yesterday, just got userfied: [37] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that one but I think it's unsaveable - that band does not appear notable. Although the creator should be dealt with courteously, the result is correct. Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Saveable or not is not the question in this case, though you're probably right. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but IAR cuts both ways. One shouldn't force people to follow procedures to the letter if the result does not help the encyclopedia. Similarly, there's not much point complaining about someone's inflexible insistence on procedure, if that procedure generated the right result in the matter at hand.Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tucson, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At deletion parties. I can't tell you where, though: once they occur, they never happened. HalfShadow 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be Area 51, then. That explains a great deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You heard nothing. Hermione1980 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can we re-close this thread now or does anyone think there is more to say here? I will wait for Wikidemon's last word regarding this since s/he started this one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• One last word - I've created a new template, {{increation}} to cover this circumstance. I have a good mind to create a new article about a mid-20th century ceramic artist who I believe to be notable. The lead sentence about artists tends not to assert notability because talk of how "influential", "great", "popular", "famous", "renowned", etc., they are tends to be peacockery. I won't intentionally provoke the issue, but if my first save happens not to claim importance, I trust nobody is going to be speedying again. Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not for at least 4 minutes, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thread closed. End of story. At least until Wikidemon comes back with his brickmaker or whatever. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat alert

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — neuro^(talk) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We have blanking and now a legal threat: [38]. Enjoy!  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and POV pushing. Treat as common vandal. Nothing here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threats. Chillum 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret Page

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, the place for this is DRV Chillum 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin by the name User:MZMcBride has deleted my secret page with the text:

o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less. Vinson 21:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:DRV. but first give What Wikipedia is not a read. Chillum 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a secret page? I want one. Belasted (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If we told you, it wouldn't be a secret, would it? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We could tell you, but then we'd have to speedy delete you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't building an encyclopedia that is for sure. Chillum 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Its perfectly ok cuz other users have it but there not deleted... Vinson 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists explains our response to that argument well. Chillum 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:User and you find that a secret page is in fact part of your userspace. Vinson 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the word "secret" on that page. Anyways, you want WP:DRV if you want to dispute a deletion. This is not the place. Chillum 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The latest discussion on this (there have been others) took place about two weeks ago on the Administrator's noticeboard. MZMcBride's conduct of the deletion of secret pages is now the subject of a request for arbitration. Due to the amount of discussion I'm not sure exactly what the consensus was on Secret Pages, but I will say it is very controversial. As noted above WP:DRV is the appropriate place to contenst deletion. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Josh Dean Roy

Resolved

 – requester received advice from editors here

Editor Josh Dean Roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been involved in an edit war at Creativity Movement, specifically on a section about a trial involving one Mr Lloyd. Editor had claimed to have court documents to back his claims, but would not provide sources, instead had become very argumentative and abusive to other editors. I had fully protected the page until the dispute was resolved and was watching. Yesterday editor started making legal threats seemingly on behalf of Mr Lloyd. So I blocked him and an IP he had also been using indefinitely. He continues today on his talk page so I reblocked with talk page disabled. Is it appropriate to blank his talk page and threats from article talk so as to avoid exacerbation of the situation? Mfield (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe start by explaining that his threat to report the "blackmail" to "the authorities" was the legal threat, as he doesn't seem to understand that. You might want to unblock his talk page so he can respond. If he responds abusively, well, then, I guess you reblock. How do you think the situation might escalate?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually his first threat was on article talk[39], the blackmail one on his talk is what prompted me to protect that as well. Mfield (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Still suggest the above course of action with your post covering both threats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked his talk editing and asked him to clarify his involvement, intentions and what exactly he meant by the accusations, and why he would be repeating them apparently on behalf of a third party. Mfield (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. If he responds abusively, throw away the key. If he engages, play it as it goes. That's my opinion, for what it is worth (market: Buy $.019944 Sell $.020556 symb:WEHOP)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the Pittsburgh Times? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked him to clarify that, since Google can't. Mfield (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he failed to clarify that (apparently it is a proper Pittsburgh newspaper that has no website), has made no effort to understand WP:RS and continues to mock Wikipedia and the community in general so I left him blocked. Mfield (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Double redirect screw-up

Resolved

 – Ffiixxeedd.

User:Nintendo nintendo nintendo went on a redirect spree; I fixed most of them, unforunately xenon54 (talk · contribs) made a mistake with his redirect, and now Super Mario Bros. redirects to...well... HalfShadow 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Socks? Someone was doing exactly that yesterday (redirect "something with a letter 'o' in it to something with 'oo' in it") but I can't remember who it was or any article titles. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it. AngelaSchmidt (talk · contribs). I'm going to keep going through the redirect log to see if I can find anything else. The od thing is, Nintendo nintendo nintendo has been here since December; Angela is fresh. We may have sleepers. HalfShadow 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Post an SPI request. if you think there's more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Quickstar7

Hi - could somebody have a chat to User:Quickstar7? He/she seems to very interested in pushing their soapbox a bit and vandalising Talk:Bill Britt with some strange discussion topics while deleting (accidently??) some sections. Diffs [40], [41], [42]. Ta Shot info (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that the part of the username "Quickstar" = Quixtar = Amway = Britt World Wide. Likely some COI stuff going on. MuZemike 03:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern with Administrator bias and abuse of trust...

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

FYI - Below is the text of an email I'm passing along:

---

Below is just one example I've learned of over the past year or so. It's pretty obvious to me that some Wikipedia "Administrators" have an agenda on many issues.

Maybe if their bias is revealed they will be forced to become more objective - - so consider passing this along if you feel it has merit.

If nothing else, at least realize you are potentially getting a very filtered view when using Wikipedia.

---

Wikipedia scrubs Obama bio - - Properly cited and documented submissions of past associations and citizenship questions have been repeatedly deleted in minutes and the "offending" users banned.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.158.106 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 99.135.158.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WorldNetDaily: Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting. For some certain reason, why am I not surprised? MuZemike 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an entire article just for them. --Versageek 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can WND even be used as a WP:RS? --Kralizec! (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thankfully. seicer | talk | contribs 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Worldnetdaily accuses someone of a liberal bias. Please excuse me while I die of shock. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Watchmen (film)

Resolved

 – Article protected, move protected indefinite.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Help. Move vandalism. BuddingJournalist 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Move over redirects

Could someone move Cheasapeake Colonies to Chesapeake Colonies over the blank page? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done it. WP:RM is a better venue for this type of issue though. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. I will try to remember the wp:rm page in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolbox links

In the toolbox area on the left of the Wikipedia page on the "Special pages" page, several links don't work. How do I delete them? There is nothing on the "Unused files" page. There is nothing on the "wanted pages" page. There is nothing on the "unused templates page".

Maybe I'm supposed to report this somewhere else, but with all the patting each other on the back that no controversial bits are allowed in the Barack Obama page, I concluded people here needed something useful to do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would just visit WP:Database reports instead. I'm not sure how to remove pages from that "Special pages" page without adjusting the settings in the installation of mediawiki. Protonk (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on that talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copying Question from Help Desk

This question was recently posted to the help desk and I think this would be a better venue for it. Question is as follows.

Hi

I don't have a Wikipedia account but wanted to add an external link to an existing page.

As the page [Java APIs] already contains external links I assumed that it would be ok.

After adding the external link it was immediately removed by a moderator who goes by the name "KS3 Maffs"

On trying to communicate with this person he/she replied:

"This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blatant advertising. Stop it, or I wil call the police. KS3 Maffs (talk) 7:43 am, Today (UTC−4)

Your link was unacceptable, please do not reinsert spam/commerical links into articles. Do you really want me to get in touch with your ISP?? KS3 Maffs (talk) 8:17 am, Today (UTC−4)"

I tried communicating with this person but they appeared to delete my text.

Should a user who attempts to add an external link to a page that already contains commercial and non-commercial external links be threatened with police action?

Should a user who attempts to add an external link to a page that already contains commercial and non-commercial external links be threatened with having their ISP contacted?

Does this moderator think they are god?

Who moderators the offensive moderators?

Graham

The relevant talk page is here. TNXMan 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, there's some block reviewing taking place too. This all sounds very familiar. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the link, but KS3 Maffs is definitely worth looking at. Registered in December 2007, but their edits don't start until today. First edit creates a user page that indicates they are an administrator (copy of User:Ricky81682). The reversions seem mostly appropriate, but the warnings are clearly overly aggressive. --Onorem♠Dil 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have deleted his userpage as vandalism, tempted to block since this is probably the same as User talk:Incidentally and User:IT BURNS. Thoughts?--Jac16888^Talk 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Further text added in my defense so that police action is not taken against me: **

Hi I just looked through Wikipedia's "Vandalism" page and see that it does include the addition of external websites. As I tried to explain previously I do not have an account with Wikipedia and am new and was unaware of such policy. Seeing other external links I assumed that the addition of external links was ok. If Wikipedia classifies the additional of all external links as Vandalism then can I suggest that all links to commercial organsaitions such as Google, Sun, java, etc are removed. I suspect they will not be, but when I added a similar external link I was threatened with police action! Cheers Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok so perhaps I've not been particularly welcoming here, but have I done anything wrong? I have been reverting several users who were vandalising and inserting links and felt it was appropriate to deal with them harshly. After all, these are the kind of edits that give wikipedia a bad name. KS3 Maffs (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you done anything wrong? Yes. You're impersonating an administrator and threatening police action. I'd say those are 2 things that are blatantly wrong. --Onorem♠Dil 13:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reversion is one thing, threatening to call the police is another. Inserting external links is definitely not a police matter. If the user is vandalizing, then report them to WP:AIV. TNXMan 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not to put too fine a point on it but this is the reason WP:BITE was written. "Call the police"? "Contact your ISP"? and you honestly wonder if you've done anything wrong? Let me unequivocate: Yes. Threatening to call the police on people that put external links in a WP article is a bit overboard. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the apparent fact that you don't see how over the edge that response is. Padillah (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the erroneous unblock declines, and warned KS3 for the behaviour. //roux   13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated previously I do not have an account with Wikipedia and as a result you will not have my contact details in which to pass onto the police. However, if Wikipedia wishes to pursue police/legal action then can you indicate such on this this page and provide an email address to which I can pass on my address details so that the police can arrest me. Clearly, for reasons of security I don't want to publish my address details here. Thanks, I look forward to see whether Wikipedia will be taking legal action against me and directing the police to my home. Graham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Graham, whilst your link was probably not in line with external links policy, it is absolutely not a big deal. The idea that we would call the police over it is preposterous. People here are entirely concerned with what to do with the editor that gave you the ridiculous warning. CIreland (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

KS9 is clearly a troll account and should be blocked immediately, no new account move straight to issuing warnings like that - also issuing legal threats in the name of the encyclopaedia is a complete no-no and should be grounds for block alone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this, [43] which is the work done by User talk:62.189.161.120 in requesting an unblock, I've had enough and blocked KS3--Jac16888^Talk 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And the user has promptly requested an unblock. TNXMan 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I go decline it? ;) //roux   14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm considering unblocking User talk:62.189.161.120 though, if only so that they can make that edit, I'd feel bad letting someone else do it--Jac16888^Talk 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

'twas a joke, not being an admin and all... //roux   14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not? oops, my bad, just assumed you were since you're always about--Jac16888^Talk 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He and Bugs are the worst for this. I know they are not admins and I still go to them every once in a while. Padillah (talk)

You'll have to add me to that "worst" list then too, Padillah :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I know these guys and I still forget. Arrgh! Padillah (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi OK CIreland.

I will consider the matter resolved and in your hands and apologise for attempting to add an external link.

Maybe if I had opened an account I would have been better informed of Wikipedia's Vandalism policy.

Thanks

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Graham, you should ALSO know that by NOT having an account, it is far easier for you to be tracked: any nimrod in the world can see your IP address, contact the ISP based on it, make a complaint (frivilous or not) which could indeed bring your ISP to action. Your entire set of footprints across the internet can be linked to 212.20.240.70 ... there is no privacy whatsoever. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the tip.

Can I suggest then that to protect your users that you prevent non-account users from editing articles.

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The reasons for getting an account are clearly stated. By the way, even non-registered editors such as yourself MUST sign all Talkpage posts with 4 tilde's like this: ~~~~. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • User:KS3 Maffs is, of course, banned User:Hamish Ross. He seems to have used up his Nov. 2007 accounts and has moved on to Dec. 2007. Again, any account pretending to be an admin (denying unblocks, giving improperly harsh warnings) and created in this timeframe should be blocked on sight without warnings. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD descending into mud throwing contest.

Resolved

 – caution issued to party

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This AfD was started three days after the first AfD (which resulted in WP:SNOW keep). It's currently grown into a monster of an AfD and the same arguments and reasons keep being reiterated to no effect. I don't believe anymore discussion is going to contribute to it. The nominator is now descending into personal attacks against the editors of that page. I request an admin to review it as soon as possible so we can put this past us. It's occupying to much time on both sides, and we would like to get back to editing pages. Please consider my request, thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I read every word, but I at least skimmed the discussion. I don't see obvious personal attacks or other mud throwing, can you point me at some? While the first AFD did close as snow keep, it looks like this is much more divided. How is administrator intervention called for?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be the most recent one, and this is an older insult. I'm requesting an admin to close it with a decision as soon as possible because I think this discussion has run it's course, nothing new is being contributed that isn't a reiteration of something that's already been said. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw at least four deletes and a small fistful of merges. Why can't the discussion run its course? I will leave a note on Psychlim's talk page about the second one. The first is unfortunately par for the course around here, saying that someone doesn't grasp a policy is in my view impolite but not abusive.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can run longer, I'd just rather it not degrade any further into personal attacks. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to report any personal attacks. Also, it is polite to notify anyone about whom you have concerns that a discussion is taking place here about their actions. I have done so in this case. I did cautioun Psychlim62 about his comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Created new section, didn't realise this was marked as closed This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nina333/ Battlestar Galactica vandalism

Nina333 is continuously resorting to vandalism by deleting huge portions of the article Battlestar Galactica, as well other ridiculous and disruptive edits. Despite warnings, the user persists in vandalizing the article. magnius (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Suicide Threat?

Resolved

 – Exactly what I thought.

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

---

Call it as you please I'm only here to see what you guys think of this edit. Rgoodermote  13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a jerk, but look like simple vandalism, WP:RBI would apply here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but, I figured I'd see what others think before just ignoring. Rgoodermote  13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Armenian nationalist flare-up at Mitanni

This article has just been semi-protected as a result of an IP editor warring to insert a claim that the Mitanni were ancestors of the Armenians, based on what other editors see as inadequate sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has now taken up the cudgels, reverting back to the IP's preferred version with an uncivil edit summary, and making hand-waving claims that many academic sources support the relationship but failing to specify any in spite of repeated requests. In the disputed material, the only "source" that directly supports a Mitanni-Armenian relationship comes from a blog site. I have reviewed the issues to give context here, but this is not a content dispute, it is a question of disruptive, uncivil, and tendentious editing that calls for admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has been notified of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention that the Armenians are descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these sources on the Mitanni article, get called a troll and threatened with blocking. Are all the cited authors who wrote about this, trolls as well? Or is there some foul play here that is trying to exclude relevant information exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that modern-day groups claim descent from them, and probably wouldn;t want this view suppressed by editors who think they "know better" than these sources and therefore they must not even be mentioned. I have already stated twice, and am now stating again, that the correct place to bring this up would have been WP:RS/N where regular editors are quite familiar with our standards of verifiability for reliable sources if there is any question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If anybody finds this response cogent, please say so and I'll answer it. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly how we get vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. If you think there are no "reliable sources" saying this, the reliable sources noticeboard will clear up your confusion. And the discussion was fairly civil until today when a certain admin suddenly shows up namecalling editors "trolls" just for citing these sources (are the sources written by "trolls" too?) That admin is known for regularly using his admin tools, or threatening their use, as personal tools to make sure his own POV take on a subject prevails over what the sources say, but I'm not afraid. This type of behaviour is a serious black mark on wikipedia, and it needs to be exposed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this requires an answer either. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unable to come up with any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just stumbled on this when taking my daily dosage of AN/I. After having read the discussion at Talk:Mitanni#Removed Armenians, it does certainly looks strange that Til Eulenspiegel repeatedly claims that sources are easy to find, and even continues those claims in this discussion by stating that it would only take "about a second to find a source", yet still has to actually come up with any, even if this whole discussion could easily be closed by the provision of such adequate sources. Though that is still just a content dispute, and not exactly AN/I matter (unless 3RR have been transgressed). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a content dispute, but more of the beginnings of an edit war and a gross misinterpretation of reliable sources. By repeatedly attempting to insert original research and uncited materials and then claim that "sources are easy to find," then you are edit warring. The burden to find the sources falls not on other editors but on the individual who makes the claim -- in this case, Til Eulenspiegel. I take it that this issue will not reoccur again, because a block over something this pathetic really does no one good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over the reliability of the sources, and thus the correct place to settle it is WP:RS/N as I have said all along, so I have now begun a discussion there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Til Eulenspiegel have just continued the same line of reasoning by stating that sources are easy to find and then fail to provide any examples of such easy to find sources at WP:RS/N (what is the point of discussing it at that forum then when there are no sources to discuss). I can only concur with seicers view on this matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but there are sources to discuss, and that is exactly where we should be discussing them, and where I will be discussing them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So..."discussion" is going on over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Systematic_Bias_over_RSS_at_Talk:Mitanni, and I have to say that if this is typical of User:Til Eulenspiegel's contributions to Wikipedia I'm not impressed. I think I might disagree with seicer's comment above just a little bit...a block over something this pathetic might well do some good. If Til Eulenspiegel usually acts like this, we have a good example of tendentious editing on our hands. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy has a history of adding unreliable sources to cite cranky information. For instance I remember he added this ref [44] to Hungarian prehistory. It's to a self-published novel by a Christian fundamentalist (IIRC). Not the sort of thing most people would regard as encyclopaedic. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree that a block would be warranted, but it would be for the lamest of avoidable reasons. seicer | talk | contribs 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually request a block at this point, just a clear notice that any further behavior of the same sort will lead to a block, and I think that message has come through unanimously. Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegal is a reincarnation of user:Codex Sinaiticus. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Smanu

This user is continuously resorting to vandalism by deleting huge portions of the article The Fame Ball Tour under the pretext that this is a WP:NOTDIR. While NOTDIR doesnot state tour dates under it, this user is using this excuse to revert changes to the above article. Continuous explanations and warnings by myself and user:Sparks Fly have not resulted in any good. Please help. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just left this note on Legolas's talk page and will leave a similar one on Smanu's soon. I also made this dummy edit warning everyone that any further reverting will lead to protection and/or blocks. If anyone feels blocks et al. are already in order, feel free to do so. The only reason I didn't is because it doesn't seem they've been properly warned. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editing career of User:Abbarocks

Resolved

 – User has announced his resignation.

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

---

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

Abbarocks's very first edit was in August 2008 to AN ([45]) and then the account was dormant until January 2009. Perhaps this is a newbie who magically already knows about AN and how to leave savvily misleading edit summaries to confuse third parties and knows how to walk right up to the 3RR line without crossing it rather than an experienced editor pretending to be a novice; but the disruptive effect on the project is the same if Abbarocks somehow still doesn't understand the OR and EW rules as he claims.

Every single edit of this editor has been either (1) edit-warring against consensus to include OR or other text not supported by the claimed cited sources, often with fake edit summaries;[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] (2) edit-warring to delete well-sourced information with edit-summaries falsely calling it OR;[53][54] (3) tendentious argument on the talk-page to include conspiracy theories of John Buchanan (American politician) about Prescott Bush in articles, or (4) edit-warring to sanitize Buchanan's biography.[55][56][57][[58]

The absolute last straw is that he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor, complete with a fake edit summary "well sourced" (compare [59]). This is the sure sign of someone trolling and not here to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Far too much productive editor time is being wasted arguing with this user, who has made the grand total of half of a constructive edit in his Wikipedia career, and lots of time is being wasted trying to explain OR and EW rules to him.

At some point it needs to be said that it's not worth the candle. I'd like a community ban or, at a minimum, very strict probation. THF (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC), diff added 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is obviously not a newbie, and that should be looked into. Meanwhile, I'm reminded of something - my mother has an excellent-tasting fruitcake recipe. Maybe I should post that on my user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Newbie": I have been reading Wikipedia as a resource for years and have observed the various notice boards and editing process in the context of how articles are developed. I am newbie in terms of making edits myself cause now I have more free time than I used to, but I am really slow in typing and still not "up" on the policies, which means it takes me forever to respond to criticisms. I readily admit to having read a lot of books about Skull and Bones but that's about the only so-called conspiracy theory stuff I have much knowledge about.

• THF's complaint about me (directly above in this ANI ) making 1 edit at Richard Rossi is beyond hypocritial and hostile.

• Re: Hostile:His reference to me directly above: "he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor" is a perfect example of the hostility and false accusations coming from him toward me; e.g., I don't even know who the "banned editor" is that he accuses me of working for.

• Re: Hypocritical: Here is where THF threw himself wholeheartedly into an article( this is just the first of many edits he made on that article related exclusively to content I was working on) I had put a lot of work into and which he had never edited before.[60].

Here are some diffs which might be useful to look at. [61]. Here THF referred to me as a "meatpuppet" [62]. I'd like to improve the editing atmosphere between THF,Collect and myself. That's my hope and objective. Abbarocks (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just with me: THF has a generally AGF-NOT approach throughout his editing.Here it can be seen that his edits show clearly his habitual use of personal accusations and assumptions about someone's NEGATIVE intent: "He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous,.....As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation..." It's amazing to me that such behavior is tolerated here, because, most importantly, it slants the content of lesser edited articles in the direction the attacking editor wants them to go. Nobody like me is going to want to edit very much when I have to put up with being called derogatory and totally false names and have to defend myself against those slurs. Abbarocks (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I should advise everyone of this WQA filing that is wholeheartedly related (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Abbarocks's latest edit is to claim Prescott Bush stole Pancho Villa's skull for his Yale secret society--even though his cited source is a conspiracy theory from the antisemitic fringe source Voz de Aztlan and Pancho Villa was alive when Bush was at Yale. He has been repeatedly warned about the OR policy. How much more of this trolling and disruption are we going to take? THF (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And now edit-warring to include it in two different articles after he was told both by myself and by User:Will Beback that Voz de Aztlan is a fringe source. Admin intervention needed. THF (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF is making a mistake by not clicking on the reference[63] . The RS is NOT the one THF seems to think it is.The RS is the Yale Herald which is quoting this person (who happens to work for a newspaper that THF is slandering above: which,btw, I have no opinion on and have never heard of at all) and THF has already accepted the Yale Herald as a RS. This is just another example of his shoot from the hip aggressiveness. Abbarocks (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Yale Herald quoted the ramblings of a clearly unreliable source, does not suddenly make it a reliable one. If that was the case, every time a newspaper regarded as a reliable source printed yet another "Elvis alive - seen working in Starbucks by Elmer O'Reilly (aged 85)", we'd have to add it to Elvis Presley ... Black Kite 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yale Herald is quoting the person,not the newspaper. Abbarocks (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; just as in my example above, newspaper X is quotihg a guy who thinks Elvis works in Starbucks. Neither is worth inserting in a serious article. Black Kite 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but has this person being quoted been determined to be an unreliable source and if so, by whom? Abbarocks (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether Abbarocks is trolling poor Black Kite or whether he is as oblivious as he claims to be, but I suggest that the ultimate disruptive effect on the encyclopedia is indistinguishable. THF (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A ten minute review of Abbarocks' history indicates a single-minded effort to add urban legend, OR, and Synth to Bush & S&B related articles in an effort to push his own POV. Efforts to explain RS, OR, V, Synth, NPOV, and so on have produced no effective result. That he pushes his edits in spite of the fact that he's the only one who supports his POV has now crossed the line into the area of disruption. I recommend a topic ban for Abbarocks if not an outright community ban. This sounds extreme, so I urge those interested to review Abbarocks' edits and come to their own conclusion. He really is that obvious. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also would urge those interested to review all of my edits and lmk what you think. If I'm not welcome here I'll certainly leave voluntarily. As of now I'd say there are 2 frequent Editors (3 counting Collect) who want me gone. Abbarocks (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like us to take a vote? If so, under what terms would you leave? Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Belief in a flat earth is still a fringe viewpoint even if the New York Times interviews a flat earther. We don't need to include finge viewpoints in every article on which there is a view.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Update

Here are 2 recent edits between THF and me: I really can't figure out why I am the one being put on the defensive here.

Note that Villa died in 1923 while Prescott died in 1972 yet THF accused n=me of inserting false information because he thought Prescott Bush was not in Skull and Bones when Villa died. THF was very much wrong in his facts and yet no apology at all. Abbarocks (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge all interested parties to also look at these edits from THF for balance. [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] notice the weasel words he uses and how he disparages those with opposing viewpoints, calling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, urban legends, etc. I think worst of all is this attack on a valiant public servant. Others have brought up issues of incivility with THF before [71] and THF has pointed out that he works for a think tank. The question is does wikipedia want a person working for a POV pushing think-tank pushing POV on wikipedia, or should wikipedia strive for neutrality and stop all these nasty personal attacks THF is using? If people think that type of editing is okay behavior to tolerate on wikepdia, is it really okay to edit your employers entry with some dubious category tags? MehTsag (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: Which of the fringe conspiracy theorists that I called a fringe conspiracy theorist do you believe it is beyond the WP:CIVIL pale to call a fringe conspiracy theorist? Because I'll be happy to show you admins (or, at a minimum, reliable sources) who agree with me for any of them. You realize that we have a whole WP:FRINGE policy that necessarily requires us to discuss whether anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Voz de Aztlan are mainstream or not, right? The fact that you have to reach back to August and point out a defensible neutral edit that no one in a highly-trafficked article has objected to in six months to make a COI claim against me speaks for itself. And NB that the "before" in the "Others have brought up issues of incivility before" is 2007. THF (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided on a brief highlight of the vile material you posted. But if you want me to trim it down even more, then I will point to a former Major General and a former Attorney General. With respect to editing your employers entry people probably assumed good faith since you did not point out that you worked for the organization in the edit summary. For clarification did THF start this Incident report before the Wikiquette alert or is it vice-versa? Whoever started the second should apologize for splitting up the discussion. MehTsag (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not the place to ask for a community ban of a disruptive editor; the fact that Abbarocks preemptively opened a WQA report complaining that I threatened to ask for a community ban is just further evidence of his disruption rather than something that prevents me from asking for a community ban. Each of the two edits you complain about are accurate and well-sourced--indeed, one of them is undoing one of the disruptive edits of Abbarocks that every other editor who has looked at has recognized was problematic under our policies. You still haven't identified anything wrong with the noncontroversial housekeeping AEI edit, which was completely within the province of WP:COI, which permits noncontroversial housekeeping edits. THF (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand I am pointing to or you are trying to dodge the facts. I provided the links now I will provide the quotes. You added in the vile claim " The lurid allegations were scoffed at and dismissed and hurt his post-military standing." to an article that has a referenced statement "... the McCormack-Dickstein Committee (precursor to the House Un-American Activities Committee) corroborated most of the specifics of his testimony, no further action was taken." Those two ideas don't jive with each other. Corroborated does not imply scoffed at and does not imply lurid. And yet you have added those non-sourced weasel word statement. In the other link you say "NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." (emphasis mine). The things you have added are neither well sourced nor accurate. MehTsag (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The uncontroversial cumulative edits I have made to Smedley Butler have improved both the citing and accuracy of that article. You still haven't explained how one is supposed to address the credibility of a source under WP:WEIGHT without discussing the credibility of the source. I stand by my comments on Clark, and they're supported by the D.C. Circuit, among others. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It seems excessive to ban Abbarocks at this stage. He's asking questions and has shown he can accept consensus.[72] THF pushes a viewpoint, so his conduct needs looking at. His attitude is summed up by this comment he made: "My material wasn't unsourced: it was sourced to me." It's in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Skull_and_Bones. Ty 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's now the third time you've taken that quote out of context to misrepresent my argument after you've been corrected. Not clear that you have a good-faith reason for continuing to make that misrepresentation to make it falsely seem like I was trying to violate WP:NOR, when in fact I was talking about your frivolous claim that WP:BLP required you to delete talk-page commentary about whether a source was fringe. THF (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If abbarocks could accept consensus, then I wouldn't have suggested a ban. If you would review the S&B article's edit history, for example, you would see repeated attempts to add material against consensus. Rklawton (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I will quit immediately if the post on Wikiquette says what I think it does

Am I reading this [73][74] correctly? Does THF work for the American Enterprise Institute? If so I'm going to quit Wikipedia right now. I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way, and he's already told me "there will be heck to pay" if I don't revert an edit. I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner, especially since it appears the info may have been on and deleted from his User page. I will immediately resign permanently from Wikipedia and revert every edit THF told me to and never be heard from again. Is it true? Abbarocks (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF has pointed out that he works for that think tank, I think you are over-reacting Abba. For Sam It is important to understand WP:OUTING where it says, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. MehTsag (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I resign. No hard feelings with anyone, from my end. Wikipedia is just not for me. I don't fit in. Sorry to waste people's time. Abbarocks (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read that diff was even more benign: "was able to sell it as a free-lance piece to The American (magazine)" seems to suggest to me that he does not work for them, but submitted a piece as a free-lancer. He was correct to worry about a COI, but to describe him as an employee seems to be a stretch based on the diffs above. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article, and scroll to the bottom. Anyways Abba is gone now. MehTsag (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you signing with a nonexistant User name? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed user names, but that is out of the scope of this discussion. Are you the same as This flag once was red? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, got it. Oops, apologies for the noise. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this in relation to the article and employer, or are you Who then was a gentleman? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The former, and no! They do, however, have the username I wish I'd thought of. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was confused for a minute because it was within a few minute of each other and Who then was a gentleman had popped up out of the blue. Cheers. TharsHammar (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

THF and Collect sockpuppetry

The evidence points to abusive sockpuppetry by THF (talk · contribs) and Collect (talk · contribs). See User:Tyrenius/THF and User:Tyrenius/THF 1. Other sockpuppets may have been generated, so checkuser would be advisable, though the edits are not necessarily generated from the same computer. Ty 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run the chart for 7 February, and then come back and apologize? THF (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that these guys are pretty abusive in how they work together and claim consensus where none exists. But I don't see how your stats show more than that they keep the same schedule. I'm pretty sure both are in Washington DC, and probably don't have any regular events on their social calendars except their morning alarm clocks and their Wednesday lunch together. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say "they work together and claim consensus". Rather a lot of unfortunate coincidences then. Have a more careful look. Ty 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They work together and claim consensus? Sure, that's easy to do when going after cranks and POV pushers. It's very easy for two (or more) people to spot the obvious and appear to work together to undo the damage. Indeed, that sort of thing shouldn't be suspicious at all. It's when two or more accounts suddenly start editing together with the same freaky, deranged point of view that we should start getting suspicious of socks - after all, what are the odds? Rklawton (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice rhetoric, but doesn't address the evidence. Are you saying that everyone who has disagreed with THF/Collect is a crank and a POV pusher damaging the project?Ty 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When their edits appear to overlap, its against cranks. Cranks make it easy for them (and me) to agree and take very similar actions. I think you're on a witch hunt. Rklawton (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we have major disagreements with one another, our edit times intersect (um -- how do sockpuppets get edit conflicts?) and we are about a thousand miles apart, this accusation is a gross abuse of WP process. By the way, I am nowhere near Washington, DC at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no basis for this ludicrous, uncivil, and disruptive allegation (see, for example, Christine Gregoire and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)--not to mention all of our edit conflicts), but feel free to go to WP:SPI and ask for a checkuser if you aren't immediately laughed out. (Our editing styles are also completely different.) If Collect and I end up on a number of the same articles, it's because we both read WP:NPOV/N. I wonder if Ty thinks that Will Beback, Rklawton, Paul.h, and Jaren466, all of whom have agreed with me and Collect in a variety of different disputes, are also socks. There hasn't been a single content dispute where I've agreed with Collect and we've been by ourselves on the issue. THF (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want, look at the "Evidence" which is primarily based on "dots matching in size," and the fact that we edited different articles at precisely the same time <g> which, last I checked, was not likely for sockpuppets. While at CompuServe, I found a lot of "alternate personas" and the way to show it (other than having the same IP addresses) is to show vocabulary usage, especially where 'misspelings" are used. As for agreements -- Ikip and I have a huge number of agreements on MfD -- yet I scarcely would expect you to accuse us two of being sockpuppets, eh? Collect (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is not a case of sockpuppetry, then obviously I apologise to you both for any embarrassment and awkwardness caused. I realise that coincidences occur and what appears to be convincing evidence can have another explanation. However, you do not give me any reassurance by applying mockery as a rebuttal, or by strawman arguments that I have not advanced, such as the fact that you have edited the same articles. There are a number of strong points which would in the normal course of things be taken as substantiation:

1. An odd edit pattern over a three year period with low activity, inactivity and a sudden amount of large activity
2. The pattern of edits by hour and day or "dots matching in size". The circles show the times of day you both edited and the size of them indicates how much you edited at those times of day. You have a significantly higher incidence of exactly the same amount of activity at the same times of day than four other comparison users also editing during those times of day, 60% higher in fact.
3. The edit histories 12 December 2008 - 7 January 2009, when Collect was editing heavily and THF was editing much less, show a number of "smoking gun" juxtapositions.

It is these factors taken as a whole that leads to my concern. I note that none of them has been addressed. Ty 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a a fairly impressive set of coincidences. I would say it falls short of hard proof. I recommend that such statistical analysis be used to find people to watch very closely until more concrete evidence comes about. I am not convinced of the allegations, but I do find it very suspect and I will certainly be keeping a close eye on the accounts. Ty, have you considered doing an analysis of the types of spelling errors the users make? Chillum 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Per my post below, I don't intend to pursue this any further myself. Maybe someone else will find more material one way or the other relevant to the apparent anomalies. Ty 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can we end this nonsense? On 16 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at the University of Chicago Law School, the podcast of which is available on line. On 23 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at Stetson University College of Law. On 2 March, Collect is editing Wikipedia at the same time I am appearing in the audience of a live webcast asking a question to Michael Greve about the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Sherman Act. On 3 March, I am editing at the same that Collect is blocked. And, again, compare our edits on 7 February. THF (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, which I am relieved to hear, and accept is the case. I trust you will also grant that I had cause for making this enquiry and did so in good faith. My apologies for taking up any unnecessary time and any inconvenience caused. Ty 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not grant that. An honest look at our edit histories would have definitively shown that we are not the same editor. This was needlessly disruptive. THF (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that these two are not sockpuppets, they edit at the same exact time. It is reasonable how someone could think they are though. The two have a very similar style - they are both abusive, uncivil, love edit warring and personal attacks but that does not make them sockpuppets. They both resort to similar argument styles - invoking strawmen, running to friendly admins, claiming what this admin said or that arbcom member said furthers their case, and they both have selective judgement. THF especially loves wikilawyering and throwing policies out like WP this or WP that. They probably check the same boards or do something else to see where each other needs help, but they are not socks. Abusive uncivil pov-pushing meatpuppets is a better description of the two. That may sound harsh and sound like a personal attack but see my evidence about of THF's editing style. TharsHammar (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NB this is the same editor as User:MehTsag, who couldn't substantiate a single one of these allegations with a single diff above, but repeats the lies here. THF (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did change my username as I pointed out above. Saying I couldn't substantiate a single allegation is a lie, since I pointed out directly and explicitly the uncivil diffs. TharsHammar (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It'd be very simple if the accuser take the extensive evidences (?) to WP:SPI, not here--Caspian blue 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before: the basic rule with accusations of Sockpuppetry is that you either take it to WP:SPI/WP:SSP or STFU. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Response intended for entry below which was closed. That is very relevant, but does not address the Conflict of Interest issue that was raised. THF had stated "I'll avoid all main-page edits to avoid unnecessary contention." in regards to an appearance of a conflict of interest. That was not done, he continues to edit main-page areas where there exists a reasonable conflict of interest, such as this edit which is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest and should have been discussed on the talk page first as it involves the removal controversial tags of global warming denial organizations and neoconservative organizations. Maybe instead of an all out block a broad or targeted topic bans for certain main-pages is in order? THF has stated he would avoid editing main-pages where Conflict of Interest could be claimed, but has not followed through on his word so maybe it is time for action and blocks. TharsHammar (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:HOUND: this is now the fourth time you've misunderstood WP:COI and complained about a non-controversial housekeeping edit that does not violate WP:COI, even after other editors explained the guideline to you. Take it to the article talk-page if you think this seven-month-old edit was incorrect in some way. THF (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged." "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism. 2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. 3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors. 4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged. 5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page. To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial." Your edit was not in compliance with this policy, since another good faith editor had inserted the category tag it is therefore controversial that you eliminated it. TharsHammar (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone whose contribution history only goes back a few days there seems to have been a rather rapid propensity for wiki-lawyering, narrow-range of editing topics, getting involved in 'controversy', axe-grinding and attempted character assassination. Not to mention the initial username 'faux pas' (MehtSag - GasThem in reverse). Something smells decidedly fishy about this editor TharsHammar. Less fishy, but nonetheless suspect, having the initials TH whilst attempting to 'out' THF. Perhaps an admin more au fait with sockpuppetry would like to make further investigations? --WebHamster 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As said above about SPI, Put up or STFU. The filth on your userpage is disgusting and juvenile. As for my name, Thor and who is know to have a hammer. I thought it was clever to put in the a in the last vowels of both to make it sound like arrrrrr, like a pirate, because ThorsHammer sounds too cliche. TharsHammar (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What does their userpage (or, rather, your view of it) have to do with anything? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it's interesting to know that you consider an image of a healthy human female to be disgusting filth, it's also interesting to note your attempted misdirection. Also noted is the hypocrisy of your previous complaints about others' civility being replaced with your own "STFU". Bernie, the bolt please. --WebHamster 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll up and see I was referencing BMW. Would you please obscure reference to Bernie and a bolt. TharsHammar (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I was the one who said "STFU" ... perhaps TharsHammar should have quoted me directly ...? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting it or saying it amounts to the same thing, either way it shows an element of hypocrisy. Regardless, this digression is yet another attempt at misdirection from the point I raised. This has all the hallmarks of the sockpuppetry of a banned/blocked POV editor. Once again it seems I'm in a position of pointing out that WP:DUCK appears to apply. --WebHamster 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, just noticed a rather strange coincidence! It appears that User:THF was actually the editor who reported User:TharsHammar for his original 'accidental' user name of MehtSag (Gas Them!). What a coincidence eh? --WebHamster 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay people, the horse is dead. One reason why personal attacks are not a good thing (besides that they are not nice) is that after they've been made, & one side has eloquently & conclusively made her/his point (as THF did above in proving Collect was not his sockpuppet), it allows the other side to admit that they were in err with some modicum of self-respect & to end a dispute without any lingering bad feelings. Everything since that one edit, IMHO, has been squabbling for the sake of squabbling: you're not helping to improve Wikipedia. If you can't find anything better to do, there's almost three million articles, most of which aren't Featured or Good quality -- go & make that one less. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip

Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for WP:HOUNDing me. According to Tyrenius, this libelous claim of sockpuppetry was orchestrated by Ikip's "research," and Ikip's response confirms this. Ikip has previously threatened me, and this seems to be one of the manifestations of that threat. I'd like further sanctions against Ikip--perhaps a community ban to leave me alone, please. See also the diffs at the pending WP:WQA. THF (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban works for me. Ooops, maybe I'm a sock, too? Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the evidence presented by THF against Ikip[75] you at least merit being banned, as I left you exactly the same message,[76] which I also left to WebHamster,[77] and C S.[78] The case for sockpuppetry was no more "orchestrated by Ikip's 'research'" than it was by any of the other named editors. I did the research into the various users' edit histories to compile charts. Ikip had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I didn't even realise he'd left me a response till I followed the link just given. It is ironic that THF jumps to accuse someone else on an erroneous basis, and won't take seriously facts that cast doubt on his own behaviour. Bans seem to be being mooted with surprising speed round here nowadays: discussion and, if necessary, warning are the first stages. And talking of "threats", THF, please confirm that your remark "libelous claim" does not carry any implication of legal threat. Ty 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The currently self-requested blocked editor Ikip continues to make accusations against THF on his user talk page. It would be best if both editors just left one another alone, but I have to say that getting reverted by Ikip when pointing out that he is incorrect in his statements (just happened here[79]) does not give a good impression of Ikip. While he is usually willing to apologize when he makes an error in judgment, it is a bad sign when a long-time editor has to apologize often in a short term, and continues with questionable behaviour. Not archiving his talk page (but simply removing things) and making his block log hard to interpret with multiple short self-requested blocks are both not prohibited, but make it harder to accurately judge the editor. Fram (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip appears to be the subject of personal attacks by at least one other editor. See this succession:, first Ikip's praising another editor is declared an "oddity;" second, he is renamed in that listing in an obviously derogatory manner; and finally, when it's removed, well, we have this edit summary. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that THF is Edgarde, I'm not sure what the relevance is. I do note that you're mentioning a tangentially related page in order to get attention to someone who has slighted you, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It provides the context of Ikip's state of mind, i.e. that he is himself being personally attacked from multiple fronts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker's polynomials (again)

reposted from WP:AIV Hello,

Could someone please block Arammozuob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Auclairde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and semi-protect Wikipedia:Notability_(numbers) for a little while?
Both accounts are likely sockpuppets of Boubaker et al.: a couple of regular edits and then going straight into editing notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination) for a better understanding of the whole story. Thx, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Auclairde and semiprotected Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Arammozuob's immediate interest in Notability (numbers) is surprising but he has yet to make any Boubaker-type edits. For previous background, in addition to the AfD discussion that was mentioned, see:

• Long-term abuse report for Mmbmmmbm on the French Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183#Boubaker polynomials
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm
• User:Lucasbfr/Boubaker

EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the other one as well.  Confirmed as the Boubaker polynomials vandal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at/by [redacted]

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted in response to an OTRS ticket. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark day (night?) for Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Use WP:DR on Talk:Barack Obama for content disputes; report WP:CIVIL violations to WP:WQA

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

---

I find the hostility to new users and those who express concerns about the omission of any mention of notable controversies in the Barack Obama article troubling. The story that spawned the outside interest is certainly amateurishly written, but the response here is even more troubling. I think it's a good question why Rev. Wright isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, for example. The article certainly seems scrubbed to me and far from NPOV. Perhaps I'm a radical fringey wacko nut-job for thinking that at the very least links to articles containing information on the controversial aspects of Obama's career, fundraising and associations should be provided. I think the hostile response to this outside scrutiny shows a bunker mentality and a lack of accountability (which ironically was a big criticism of the Bush administration). I hope some of the more responsible and objective editors here will step up to the plate and take people's concerns seriously and respond appropriately, instead of attacking every new user who seeks to remedy a quite reasonable, based on the evidence, perception of bias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article is fine. Nobody scrubbed it, and characterizations like that are unhelpful. The article represents careful editing, sourcing, and Wikipedia consensus. It is not true that there is no mention of controversies or negative claims about Obama. Reverend Wright is mentioned in a footnote because that is the consensus of the moment. There has been a concerted assault on various Obama subjects in the past few hours with many dozens and possibly hundreds of inappropriate edits and comments. A misleading off-wiki article was just written by an anti-Obama partisan, and emails and ignorant blog posts are flying comparing Wikipedia to Orwell, Stalin, and such, recommending people flock to fix Wikipedia's liberal bias. The comments that are starting to appear on our pages, when they aren't outright vandalism, mirror the partisan editing that arose during the election cycle and turned out to be the result of several editors with many different fake accounts. We gave them far too much patience last time, and thank goodness a no nonsense policy towards the disruption now. It is true that a few editors have taken a little too much glee in putting down the vexatious editors. However, that hardly makes this a dark day for Wikipedia. I am impressed that we withstand the assault as well as we have. For us to cave in the face of a frontal assault from a source that is, with good reason, not considered a WP:RS, would be the sad day. We need to hold the line, let this blow over, and if any serious editors from legitimate accounts have anything to propose, consider it like we always do, under Wikipedia policies and good sensible editing, not under taunts from detractors. Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Freepers and kossacks both can go back to their hidey-holes. I don't want them here. I don't see any reason to treat repeated paranoid claims about birth certificates as anything other than disruptive. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem to have come under a time-wasting deluge of silly edits by people with bizarre obsessions. That said, something about the response smells off. I see edits such as this one, in which somebody removes an unblock appeal because of "BLP violations and personal attacks": the only imaginable BLP violation is what's said about Obama, but it's very feeble stuff for somebody who as "potus" is routinely subjected to far worse, and the only other ingredients interpretable as personal attacks are the description of one user as a "liberal" (which I believe is an insult in far-right circles) and that of the blocking admin as "unfit for the job", a very humdrum (if counterproductive) response from somebody who's blocked. At least let these people rant on their user talk pages; the more of their own time they waste on these the less they have left over for other stuff. And the patterns of spelling mistakes, etc., make it easier to see which sets of IDs are the same people. -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness to BB, the real problem there was a non-admin removing an unblock request. I also agree w/ your comments that the things said in the unbock request were weak tea as far as the subject is concerned. Protonk (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because I saw a stupid BLP-violating rant, and failed to notice it was an unblock request. When he re-posted it, I left it alone and let an admin take care of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that. I guess I'm wonky about unblock requests. didnt' mean to imply that you meant wrong. Protonk (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should seriously consider locking down the article - in a state without drive-by NPOV tags, recent disputed additions, etc. We've done a commendable job avoiding with mayhem so far. That's involved constant article patrol attention from a number of editors, five (or more?) blocks, a sockpuppet report, several AN/I reports. Yet there is still some edit warring on the article and some heat on the talk page at what is normally the quietest time of the entire week. When North America wakes up for the morning and people read their blogs and email, things could be more out of control. Wikidemon (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, another whiny complainer who frets that there isn't enough criticism of Obama. Get over it. We have entire articles devoted to the controversy surrounding Obama (conveniently linked at AN, but you must have overlooked that). We don't do "Criticisms of ..." for obvious reasons. If you want your crackshoot racial- or general conspiracy theories, Conservapedia is where you need to be. seicer | talk | contribs 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are you calling "whiny", Seicer, and on what grounds? I see plenty of whining around that article but I see no whining here. Neither do I see any interest here in crackpot conspiracy theories as publicized in far-right websites. Anyway, even if somebody were a "whiny complainer who frets", please address the substance brought up by the complainer, or say directly that there is no substance; let's cut the ad hominem stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Let me find some fringe publication... oh wait, it's a non-respected right-winging [i]blog[/i], try to source it in Barack Obama, and let's see what happens. There is a reason we don't link out or cite garbage such as that, and if individuals have trouble seeing it that it is not a reliable source, then I question the validity or the constructiveness of their edits. Surely we can find editors who can determine what is reliable and what is fringe or just downright laughable -- and if the tagline at WND makes it anymore clear... seicer | talk | contribs 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was anyone "whiny" here, yes or no? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-citizen business really is Truther territory. But honestly, no mention of Ayers or Wright either in the main article or in the campaign article?

“ McCain barred using the Jeremiah Wright controversy in ads against Obama,[248] but the campaign did frequently criticize Obama regarding his purported relationship with Bill Ayers.[249] ”

Please to explain how this sentence appears in the main article on John McCain, but the only link in the Obama article to Jeremiah Wright controversy is in a footnote and the only link to Bill Ayers presidential election controversy is in a collapsed template. Thatcher 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It just looks to me like assuming good faith doesn't fly with the Obama articles. I don't remember putting this level of control on the Bush article, ever. Semi-protection, full protection, wheel-warring yeah, but I don't know the whole history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we must expose the truth because it is out there and people must know. In all seriousness, there are already articles that cover this, but what all these arguments boil down to is that these people want to add the controversies to the main article to give them more weight then they really have. Let's close this before it continues to digress. Brothejr (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, how about mentioning the controversy in the main article and linking to the fork, so that interested readers can follow it and disinterested readers can pass it by? Seems to work for John McCain. Thatcher 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher on this one. The incident was notable enough that it deserves a sentence IN THE TEXT with a wikilink or a {{main}} tag. To have the only reference in a footnote smells of hagiographic editing, which is just as a gross violation of POV as is intentional negative misrepresentation. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What these editors, who keep on bringing it up, are trying to do is point to other articles to prove their point. This is like trying to say that a Ferrari and a Mack Dump Truck are exactly the same thing. In this article, if you weight each controversy independently, you see that they do not carry that much if any weight. Most of them were election stunts by the conservatives and have no real substance. The main article is written in summary style, which means only the major points are covered in the main article with the rest in the daughter articles. Now the majority of these controversies are covered in the sub articles in depth. Yet, none of them raise to the level of the main article. What the main issue is that all the editors who are bringing it up want to give more weight to the controversies. Finally, to have a controversy section on the main article will only become a honeypot for everyone who has some crazy conspiracy related to Barack Obama. Again, lets close this thread. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Following your argument we should remove all negative entries from all articles, because we can never give weight to controversies. Controversies, or some of them, help define the person. Controversies that had enough merit to cause Obama to change places of worship and have to make public statement about someone with whom he was associated for decades, IIRC, and had other candidates have to make decisions as to how to address this in their campaigns (McCain's not using it) are worth at least ONE sentence in the main text and a wikilink to the full article. Anything else smells like post-event whitewashing and hero worship, which are just as bad POV violations as would be throwing in unsupported conspiracy theories. I agree this should not be its own section or paragraph, but it cannot be ignored either (specifically Wright). -- Avi (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the article and the sub articles, you will notice that the controversies that actually do have some merit and weight are both in the article and appropriate sections related to the controversy. Yet, what these editors want is not only these controversies but also many other smaller ones highlighted and expanded upon for everyone to see so that they can show how "dirty, evil, etc" the man truly is. Brothejr (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We've specifically decided to treat the Rezko and Wright affairs in one sentence each, the latter of which slipped into a footnote somehow. And we've decided the Ayers matter is too trivial to include in the main article. That's a content decision. The "dark days" for Wikipedia, and accusing other editors of hypocrisy, whitewashing, hagiographic editing, hero worship, and whatever else various people are saying about not being negative enough about Obama., are all not going to help much. We can deal with behavioral or administrative issues here. Wikidemon (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Determining how much weight to give a fact and whether it should be covered in the main article or a subarticle is obviously an editing dispute and does not require admin action, unless you decide to go on a vandalism spree about it (at which time you would presumably regret bringing it to our attention beforehand). It's important to keep in mind that these facts are covered, just not in the main article; talk page consensus is responsible for deciding whether facts are notable enough to cover at the top level. Dcoetzee 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"slipped into a footnote somehow"? Do expect me to take this seriously? Please address my original point, and stop using straw man arguments. The John McCain article, written in "summary style", manages to mention both controversies, with links to the main articles. There is no "Controversy" section, not even use of a {{main}} template to set it off. Now, is it your "content decision" that because the Wright and Ayers controversies were "election stunts" that they should be mentioned in the McCain article and not the Obama article? NPOV much? Or shall we remove the mentions from the McCain article since they were "election stunts" that he did not endorse or participate in, and are "trivial"? Thatcher 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent; editors of different pages may make different editorial decisions. Moreover, because McCain was not actually elected president, there is a greater focus for him on his presidential campaign, as opposed to his presidency. Dcoetzee 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've inadvertently hit upon the real issue - that the Weapons of Nut Destruction types apparently think the campaign is still going on. And by the way, it seems like the defenders have backed off and the wingnuts are taking over the Obama talk page - especially since the request for protection was denied. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like the complaining (and johnny-come-lately) user to define a different way to handle an orchestrated assault on wikipedia. Maybe we should just back off and let them go crazy for a day or so? That would certainly help wikipedia's credibility, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although Antandrus is suggesting we do just that. Maybe he's on to something. It's pretty hard for them to complain about censorship if we let their every change and comment go unreverted (for a day or so, anyway). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the man given the "Citizen of the Year Award" for 1997 by the People's Democratic Republic of, uh, Chicago important in Obama's life? I don't think that anyone who writes prose without foaming at the mouth has demonstrated this. But if we put aside mere facts and instead go after the truthiness, was this Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar important to Obama? In the view of the McCain election campaign, yes he certainly was. What do you do with baseless innuendo that has achieved truthiness? PDFTT: you revert, you semi-protect, or you protect. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased and POV warriors like Wikidemon, who are no different than Kossack and others except that they haven't been blocked, shouldn't be allowed to get away with their censorship. We're not talking about fringey unsourced speculation, we're talking about notable controversies and criticisms. At least a mention of Rev. Wright who Obama dedicated his book to and made two notable speeches addressing. The idea that this isn't notable enough or didn't receive enough mainstream news coverage is laughable. People keep mentioning articles on these subjects, but how are people supposed to find them? The number of personal attacks made by Baseball Bugs is also troubling. He should be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarily calling for blocks or other sanctions only serves to exacerbate issues, CoM. If you feel that there are editors here whose PoV's do not allow them to edit certain articles in the spirit of neutrality (be it a leaning to denigration or veneration) the proper steps to take are those of dispute resolutiion. If you have sufficient evidence, I would suggest filing a request for comment, keeping in mind the caveat that opening one allows others to peruse the filers edits as well. Good luck. -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, read all the personal attacks from Scjevessey and Baseball Bugs. And this on an ANI board. I don't make the suggestion to block this type of editor lightly, but clearly it's warranted based on their posts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright is mentioned in the Obama article, and a link is provided to another article where the controversy is discussed in detail, i.e. Jeremiah Wright controversy. Tagging articles is meant for legitimate concerns and valid, thoughtful rationales brought to the talk page. They are not for the sort of drive-by hysterics that people like you have been bringing to the article over the last day or so. Your edits to the Obama page are being made solely to push a minority POV, and are not being made in good faith, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright is not mentioned in the article. I also can't find any mention of his opposition to the surge, which was controversial. There's no mention of the type of high school he attended. There's no mention of anything that's controversial or that Wikidemon and his cronies think might cast a negative light on Obama. This is unfortunate and needs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will indulge in some slight WP:AGF and assume that you are simply unaware of this line in the article ("Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.") rather then willfully lying here in AN/I. As for the rest, the old "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is quite applicable. The ticky-tacky list about surges and high schools and such really only has "controversy" within the far right of the ideological spectrum. i.e. a fringe point of view, which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rev. Wright bit was just added a few hours ago here [80]. So I would thank you for not accusing me of lying. A better question is why mention of Wright was removed from the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his opposition to the surge is fringey. I think it was a key issue in the campaign and that the Iraq war was a critical issue he ran on. Punahou is one of the top private schools in the country and it's certainly worth noting in that context. I corrected this statement "Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image.[210] Not only did several polls show strong support for him in other countries,[211]" which is inconsistent to the sources provided. It should read: "Polls in other countries showed strong support for Obama over McCain during the 2008 campaign,[210]" which is what the source says. Also this statement "Obama established relationships with prominent foreign figures before his presidential candidacy, including with then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair,[212] with Italy's Democratic Party leader and then Mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni,[213] and with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.[214]" Is inaccurate. There is nothing in the source that says he establishe da relationship with Sarkozy. But any change to these innacurate and non-notable tidbits is immediately reverted. I think POV warriors of all stripes should be blocked. And those who make personal attacks should also be blocked. I thought that was our policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not discussing the changes you propose on the article talkpage? Your response to requests to do so [81] per WP:BRD has been instead to edit war for your version [82] and to edit war an unbalanced tag [83] [84]. It's unreal the complaining at ANI of poor response to concerns when you aren't using the article talkpage to propose edits and get consensus. Don't claim that the process is broken if you aren't bothering to participate in it. --guyzero | talk 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I had commented on the talk page. And also commented here where the issue was being discussed giving example of good faith edits and corrections that are reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your article talkpage contributions at the time that I wrote my comment above were these two: [85][86], both ruminating that an NPOV tag was required due to "censorship." Nowhere on the talkpage had you discussed the material content edits that I linked above. ANI is not the place to discuss content edits, the article talkpage is. It is really disruptive to create ANI threads over content issues, claim censorship, and call for blocks when you yourself have not participated in the process. --guyzero | talk 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the need to respond to this comment by ChildofMidnight "The article is clearly biased and POV warriors like Wikidemon, who are no different than Kossack and others except that they haven't been blocked..." If he is comparing Wikidemon and other users working for NPOV (perhaps failing sometimes given natural human bias, but striving for it in good faith) to blocked user Kossack4Truth found to be one of the 23 socks of banned user BryanFromPalatine, who used his socks to edit war in tandem for years (and in all likelihood is still doing so with yet undiscovered socks) to introduce unsourced, pejorative and frequently demonstrably false information to articles, I recommend ChildOfMidnight retract his/her comment.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was comparing Wikidemon to other POV warriors who have been blocked. I have not made any suggestion that he uses sock puppets. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM, the problem is that K4T and other POV pushers that have made extended appearances on the article have all tended to be socks of editors that were blocked from editting on Wikipedia. Of the ones that were not socks, they tended to run afoul of WP:3RR because they preferred to edit war over getting their information included in the article, rather than actually discuss it on the talk page. For good or bad, the article is on the watchlist of more people that are opposed to extended voyages into the "controversial" aspects of Obama and the random appearances of a single editor that is trying to force in the "controversial" aspects is generally opposed by multiple editors. This means the single editor tends to get hit by WP:3RR, while the multiple editors that are opposing the inclusion end up dodging any reprecussions because they've only made one or two reverts. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The conduct issues going on with that article are being discussed above. May I close this section and suggest to all concerned that a discussion over how heavily the good reverend and the former radical should be featured in Obama's bio be remanded to that talk page? It doesn't really serve us to discuss those specifics here. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion of whether a group of editors can censor any mention of material they disagree with and prevent a neutrality tag from being added when there is a dispute. As you can see from the Obama talk page, numerous editors have tried to fix the article or to at least mark that it is unbalanced and have been reverted. At this point it is a matter of administrative concern. This discussion should not be closed until it is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but please note that what constitutes "censorship" will vary depending upon how significant a particular editor judges some content in regards to an article as a whole. So in order to persuade an admin that some ownership is going on (barring some obvious sign), we would first have to convince that admin that the content change was an agreed upon and beneficial one. That walks like a content dispute and quacks like a content dispute. But if you like, I won't call it a content dispute. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article is unbalanced and POV. It omits any mention of notable controversies and criticisms. The article doesn't provide any links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. Even the correction of poorly sourced and misleading content is immediately reverted. Hence the need for a fix or an unbalanced tag until the situation is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. There are apparently a number of editors that disagree with your assessment. The proper place to convince them that your opinion is correct is on Talk:Barack Obama not here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the article didn't mention Rev. Wright. It's not my opinion that there is no criticism or controversy section and that the notable ones aren't mentioned or linked to anywhere in or from the article. I'm certainly not the only editor who has raised these issues, yet any unbalanced or pov tag is treated as vandalism and the editors putting them in the article harassed. This is a problem that requires community attention until it is resolved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And the proper place to discuss this is on Talk:Barack Obama not here. There are a multitude of ways to get community attention on a content dispute that does not involve long content discussions on WP:AN/I. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, this is digressing into a tit-for-tat argument. Please take it to the relevant talk page and maybe could we close this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothejr (talk • contribs)

Protection

Why wasn't ChildofMidnight blocked for edit warring like the rest of them rather than the article protected? Grsz¹¹ 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure I didn't edit war. I did try to correct some improperly sourced information and improve the article's balance. When that was reverted I tried to add an "unbalanced" tag to the article. On the other hand, I think the personal attacks made by Baseball Bugs and other editors shouldn't be allowed to stand on an Admin board. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:THF

• This is being discussed above. No need to duplicate this. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The above discussion has closed as the main editor involved has left the building; situation concerning other editors may still be developing and in need of outside attention. Skomorokh 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this It's relevant to note THF self-declared here that he is a "Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute" see the bottom of this article he saiys he wrote. "When not compiling movie statistics, xxxxxx is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He directs the AEI Liability Project."

• Point #1: Within the top edit he offers: "I'll avoid all main-page edits to avoid unnecessary contention." in regards to an appearance of a conflict of interest.
• Point #2: many "insiders" here at Wikipedia know of THF's connection with a powerful organization (apparently it was acknowledged on his User page at one time) which might influence some editors,like myself, to stay away from him.

Re: point #1, perhaps his offer should be considered.

Re: point #2, perhaps in the context of fair and equal disclosure, at least the history of THF's User page should be undeleted. Abbarocks (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With regards to point 2, for good or ill Wikimedia allows contributors to be anonymous, and further allows them to take such measures as are feasible to regain anonymity once breached (by their own actions or others'). Undeleting portions of THF's user page specifically to breach his anonymity would be unprecedented and entirely contrary to current privacy policies. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? I'm the resident fellow for the lollipop guild. So long as I'm behaving in an ethical manner, it shouldn't be a problem. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How many different sections involving THF and Abbarocks do we have to have around here? //roux   16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Abbarocks, I thought you'd resigned? I don't think it's very nice of you to post links from 2007 to try and "out" an editor who has made it clear he would prefer some privacy. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you're just trying to stir up drama. Over the top comments such as

"I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way ... I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner"

make it hard for us to take this seriously. You've been posting all over this page and at WQA, trying to present the fact that THF has/had a job in a think tank as if it was evidence of a vast conspiracy against you. I know you disagree with this editor, but you can't just keep throwing shit at him in the hope that some of it will stick. yandman 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Preserving a reputation

We really don't need seventeen bazillion threads on this. Talk:Barack Obama is thataway. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. --John (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For a long time I have held Wikipedia in great respect (even with it's occasional quirks and editing wars) due to the idea behind it: unbiased dissemination of information to the public of the world. Of all organizations out to change the world in their own way, I supported Wikipedia the most because I could believe in it.

So, now I have to ask the question of... what's going on with the bias? Your rules state that you consider information to be valid if it's corroborated by at least one major news source, or many reputable smaller news venues. And what of documented history? Is that now subject to 'peer review' on select bits of content? I thought the goal was to let people grow and learn on their own, not to indoctrinate them on select views that you deem to be acceptable.

Put Ayers back in Obama's page, and allow posting of the eligibility concerns. Regardless of your own personal views on these subjects, they ARE valid news, and they ARE history - and you haven't the right to censor them for any reason. These things are documented facts of valid concerns, and people have the right to read them and believe or disbelieve as they choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.153.123 (talk • contribs)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Undue weight to explain this issue. There are way too many crackpot conspiracy theories in the world to include all of them at every opportunity. In the meantime, I don't see where any admin intervention is required here. Specific article concerns should be discussed on the article talk pages. Friday (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was written by 74.192.153.123 (talk · contribs). Don't things here get autosigned? Hmm. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Preserving a reputation" - LOL What reputation? Its reputation for politburo-like political purges? I think that's pretty safe - even though it's taken on an unusually big "purge" now. See ya. No Time Toulouse (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus there are entire articles devoted to these controversies. Can people really not read all the material before complaining. A biographical article is not like a biographical book, it has be more concise. The article focuses on the person and sub articles deal with the rest. It is all well linked together. Furthermore, it is the product of months of consensus by a lot more editors than are currently complaining or have ever been bothered to be involved until they read some shock horror story on a blog. People need to have some respect for the community and process that got the articles to this point and realize that coming along this late on and expecting to have things changed instantly without reading and understanding all the discussions, arguments and processes that have got it to this point is unfair and does not allow for clear representation of the facts of the situation. This little destructive incident is dwarfed by the constructive collaboration that got us to this point. Mfield (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People can't read those articles, because there is no link to them from the Obama article. Once this is fixed I think a lot of the concerns would be alleviated, although the article itself is clearly not balanced and also needs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Rabbit bites

Could somebody check, whether this merits an article and, if yes, whether this article meets :en standards. - (coming over from Commons to where a related image was uploaded)Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It could use some formatting/wikifying help, but it appears to meet notability standards. --Masamage ♫ 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 76.24.114.232

After attacking an editor at Talk:Barack Obama, this IP then reacted to the usual talk page warning with further unpleasantness. The IP has now continued his inappropriate behavior here. I would like to request admin intervention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I missed that one. Awesome. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching Talk:Barack Obama, and looked out for that IP after their first edit. Blocked for 24 hours by me while you reported this here: this could have gone to WP:AIV but no harm was done reporting it here. Acalamari 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WLaccount

• WLaccount (talk · contribs)

Originally posted this at WQA here, but this is starting to spiral quickly out of control. Incivility issues are noted at the WQA, and I don't know what the hell is going on at Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. Other relevant pages include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Mortensen (actor), User talk:WLaccount, User talk:Shawnpoo, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters. MuZemike 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, he is taking things very seriously and being offensive. He's ranting about articles of his that have been proposed to AfD, and attacking other articles. Something needs to be done. All of the controversy has been linked above by MuZemike. §hawnpoo 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, keep Henry out there. The article is there since 2007 and mostly built by other people. It gets a lot of bad faith only for being somewhat related to the other three). The Kriss Perras article also is quite old but has some IPs ranting at the talkpage. Our friend is either Kriss or a close friend or simply a fan. Funny enough Kriss is accused to be nothing more than a fan of Viggo Mortensen herself. Also note, that another account with the name of the production company has been blocked yesterday (if I remember right).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also report these two people who deleted my request for deletion at the top of the talk kriss perras Running Waters page - Administrators said you are not supposed to do that and yet you did delete the request for deletion which is against Wikipedia rules for reqeust for deletion. The things listed on that page are grossly inaccurate and do not belong on a Wikipedia page. And that is why I am writing. I am neither a friend nor affiliated with Kriss Perras Running Waters. I came upon the vandalism on the page yesterday and decide to rewrite the page according to accurate information. My my this gets very petty on Wikipedia. This is really bad and I think I might report this page to the PR firm that represented the magazine the poster said was only a Vanity magazine. The irm was listed as Dick Guttman Asscs. and he represents Barbara Streisand among some other notable people. That was who was listed on the masthead of that magazine that this person says is vanity: Dick Gutman. Chek here for the facts on where it is listed this director lives: It is People Search http://www.peoplesearchnow.com/summary.asp?fn=Kriss&mn=&ln=Perras&state=CA&x=18&y=7&vw=people&Input=name It states on there the director lives in Topanga

the reason I am mad is the whole thing onmy edited pages was about no citations other than IMDb but when I say that someone is posting bad information without even one single citation other than OpEd News, which I guess is considered credible by Wikipedia, then yeah I get upset. If this is suppose to be about factual findings then why is it when I call the Administrators to the carpet for facts on someone else they do nothing but when I post edits with citations from known sources then all of a sudden it is request for deletion - that makes no sense. And the article on that talk page said more than just a fan the person states "However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." That is not just stating she is a fan - if that was all then so what but god what the Hell? That is all I am saying is if this is suppose otbe about facts then why not make this person who wrote this without even posting a signature delete the posting? WLaccount (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the template off the talk page as it was being used in the wrong namespace. Please handle all article debates ont heir appropriate talk page or AfD page. §hawnpoo 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the request for delete on that page because it was specifically that page I was requesting be deleted - where are you suggesting I put the request? please post a link here and I will put the request for deletion there as you say - it just is not right there are no citations on that page and it is not neutral so that is my reason for request for deletion. Your rules state there must be citations and the article must be neutral. WLaccount (talk)

It's irrelevant there. Period. It doesn't belong there and nobody is going to be looking for that talk page at random. You have an option right now. You can either (1) continue to whatever you want to do, attacking every single person who disagrees with you, ignoring all advice, putting warnings and statements everywhere you want until you find yourself blocked and the fate of those articles decided without further discussion by you or (2) grow up and actually attempt to help get them saved by listening to people and doing the things asked of you. Go to the deletion discussion pages and try to convince people why they should be here. Read the policies they cite and be polite. Really, what is more important to you at this point? Getting a few minutes of insults and screaming out of your system or keeping that stuff there? Because, to be honest, blocking you to stop the disruption and moving on is a million times easier than actual conversation and dealing with you. And believe me, this pattern comes again and again. Some grow up, stay, become productive and things work out. Others have their ten minutes of fun and then are locked out forever. It's totally on you. Sleep on it overnight (nothing is going to get deleted in 24 hours and if it does, then go to my talk page and I'll personally put up a stink about serious violations of process here), and come back with a cool head. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't pan on posting anything else on this site and whatever happens to my two hours of research on what I posted and the article that cites not sources is whatever happens. I no longer consider Wikipedia credible about anything now that I see what happens here. WLaccount (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. §hawnpoo 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• It appears as though s/he has friends/sockpuppets who have stated their intent to disrupt the process in the AfD. Tagged notavote. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but I didn't even open a sockpuppet case for this. Doesn't make sense at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I started a thread on data and citation manipulation to which this admin referred to as "stirring the shit", and asked me why I wouldn't "stop stirring the shit". [87] no comment.--Bizso (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have no comment on it, why do you start another thread on it? I maintain that "stirring the shit" fits your behaviour rather well, and I think I'll soon formally impose that editing restriction on you that was discussed the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"? --Bizso (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, given this is about a thread on WP:AN cross posting isn't helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also not a PA. WP:WQA is that a way. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...and as one of the regulars at WQA, I have to say this: being accused of "stirring the shit" is certainly not a public attack, nor uncivil. It's a description of an action (unless, of course, we're talking an actual physical/homosexual-based derogatory usage - which it clearly is not in this situation). Indeed, you could have been accused of "stirring up a hornet's nest" - also, not uncivil. But please, do open this at WQA so I can say the same thing :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't condoning the view that FutPer's statement was actionable, merely pointing out the appropiate venue. I'm hardly FutPer's greatest fan but I wouldn't even glare at him over this alleged incident. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not generally the appropriate venue ... but once it's here, it generally gets dealt with here (especially with related potentially threads above). This would be why I commented as if it was in WQA above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in this case, I say that Fut Pref is clearly protecting his certain users, by blurring and wiping the shit around them so that it becomes really hard to make a clear consistent and unbiased judgment on these cases. I made no personal attacks. Halleluja--Bizso (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna change my mind about that ANI ban proposal a few days earlier... Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Relatively huge spike in random-IP vandalism

In a couple of cases it's random IP bombing, but most of it seems to be coming from specific IPs. Also, each IP seems to be targeting a specific article. Has someone left a gate open or something? HalfShadow 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

is it spring break already? --Ludwigs2 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Bluescreenofdef

Is there any chance of an admin looking into the current editing exploits of User:Bluescreenofdef. In a re-occurence of a similar stalking episode from last year this editor is following my edits and doing his best to undo anything I've done with a special interest in an article I've done a lot of work on. His/Her contribution history is proof enough. Although some of his edits are righteous his main aim seems to be to annoy me. --WebHamster 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on List of lead guitarists and similiar, the other editor is right. You keep adding non-notable names to those lists and articles. [88] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at his contribs and tell me that they aren't targetted at me. When I first saw his edits I just did a blanket undo. It was afterwards that I realised that some legitimate edits had been undone, which I referred to above. Any person who sees his contribs and doesn't see the stalking must be blind. --WebHamster 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of WP:HOUND and this clearly is a case, yes. Still he's right at least on the articles I've seen. Not to mention the warning templates you posted on his page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now here is a most revealing edit by your chum Mr Screen (talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All articles surrounding the "not really notable band " The Hamsters are badly written and reek of WP:OWN and WP:COI from sole contributor User:WebHamster. I implore you to look at the edits and accept my WP:AGF that I am acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster needs to explain how [[89]] satisfies WP:AGF. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSOD, it is incredibly hard to assume good faith when you make edits like these. — neuro^(talk) 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just how credulous do you ["Bluescreenofdef"] think your readers are? The article on The Hamsters wasn't even created by WebHamster, as its history clearly shows. Meanwhile, would you care to explain (preferably in thirty words or fewer, or in sonnet form) how one should "accept an assume good faith" (which even syntactically is a blunder), or assume any good faith from the perp of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good durable control (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of BSOD, since User:WebHamster/fucking had no edits for a year, and then suddenly after BSOD's vandalism two edits occured reverting the article to the offending content. Yes, it's stale, I realise, but it still is not acceptable, and makes it hard to assume good faith (although, admittedly, not impossible). — neuro^(talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluescreenofdef for reference. Is there maybe a connection to User:Elspeth Monro? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any sockpuppets, however I must say it is hard to engage in reasonable talkpage discussion when you are confronted with replies like [90], and then immediatey brought to an admin noticeboard. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like both of you have some civility issues. Regardless of who started what and when, you should always remain civil and assume good faith. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not a robot. I do not show civility or assume good faith automatically under any circumstance. It's patently clear that this user's edits are not done as a result of good faith and are specifically done to annoy the hell out of me. Now you may like to be civil to someone in those circumstances, I do not. Likewise I don't say "please desist" to the mutt who's chewing my leg. I tell it to fuck off and give it a kick. Now, as far as I am aware this is the English version of Wikipedia, not the Stepford version? --WebHamster 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to not assume good faith, at least stay calm (which you aren't, at the moment). — neuro^(talk) 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When some youngster pipes up with the over-used mantra of AGF and WP:CIVIL and then uses it to lecture me then that is not a prescription for my calmness. It stokes an already warm boiler. --WebHamster 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits do not have anything to do with you. They are to improve the encyclopedia and improve all "Hamsters" related articles. Please engage in civil talkpage discussion and treat every edit on its merits. Do no assume everything is all about you. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the band you referred to as "non notable garbage" would it? Plenty of NPOV editing going on there then. Perhaps you'd like to bullshit us enlighten us with the reason you chose to use your expansive editing skills on The Hamsters article first after such a long absence, especially given your activity last year? Add to that the fact that it's a band you know nothing about, know nothing of their material and know nothing of what they do. Yet here you are deciding that's the article you want to, errr, improve. Given your propensity for using WP shortcuts, here's another one for you: WP:DUCK. --WebHamster 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluescreenofdef writes to WebHamster: My edits do not have anything to do with you. Reluctant though I am to play armchair psychiatrist, and unwilling as I am to call Bluescreenofdef a liar, I can only infer from this edit that Bluescreenofdef is deranged. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSoD continues to remove sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet User pages, and continues to remove references to the Hamsters from articles. There needs to be a resolution to this concern. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

he also called the other user a "fucking idiot" and he doesn't even have a warning. an admin needs to step in here. untwirl(talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case has been closed as "stale". What I didn't see first, it was February 2008 and not this year. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done, some expert on the field should confirm if diffs like this are legit or not. Mediation? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall I didn't put that in the RTH article, though I can't swear to that as it must have been a long time ago. But as an expert on The Hamsters I can say categorically that the bass player's pseudonym came directly from the radio show as the band, though mainly the guitarist are big fans of the show. As the diff you gave was in the "cultural effect" section I can't see what the problem is. "Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist" is indeed a character from the show as any RTH fan could attest. Further to that if one puts "ms zsa zsa poltergeist" into Google... --WebHamster 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, should you want an expert on the show, try The British Comedy website (see "The Escaped War Criminal" section) which is a reputable, reliable and independent source for all things British radio comedy related. --WebHamster 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you added to the article [here]. It is part of your long running conflict of interest to insert you non notable band into wikipedia for self promotional purposes. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Either prove these accusations of WP:COI or quit using it for your dodgy reversions. I referenced that paragraph yet you still spouted about consensus and COI yet you have proof of neither. If you have proof then I suggest you bring it up at WP:COIN. I am simply a fan of the band who obviously knows more about them than you do. Likewise you don't have a consensus on those edits, so quit with the accusations as if they give you power to do what you want. Now will some admin sort this out? One way or the other before this person gets his way and I get blocked for saying what I really think about him. --WebHamster 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? I can't file a case for you, you must do it on your own. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want mediation I just want this fucker off my back! --WebHamster 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be on User:WebHamster's back when editing the article The Hamsters unless he has either a WP:OWN issue or a (blatantly obvious) WP:COI issue. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So report it at WP:COIN, you can't though can you? You have no proof do you? Whereas you are just an editor with a grudge trying to game the system and throw around accusations. You seem to have more conflict of interest (it can be negative interest as well!) than me as your edit history can attest. Out of 13,000 edits I have done maybe 90+ on The Hamsters. I wonder what percentage of your contribution history can be shown to be Hamsters related? Now put up or shut up. Meanwhile can some admin either block him or me, either way this guy needs a wake up call. --WebHamster 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See this diff and another piece of the puzzle seems to fall into place, given that the band's drummer's real name is Alan Parish. --WebHamster 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD canvassing?

I just noticed the following and am not sure if there's anything to it: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], etc. If that's okay, then okay, no big deal (hence, why I am not accusing the specific user in the title of this section), but wasn't sure if as that editor did, we're allowed to contact so many editors. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been contacted about AfD's before (some airport I don't remember) where a user contacted all people who had participated in a prior debate on a similar topic. It's not really a problem unless they are only recruiting people from one side of the debate, they may simply be ensuring that there is some consistency in the debates about similar deletions. SDY (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. My feeling is that all article writers should be contacted as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the flag is raised specifically because those who !voted keep in that previous AFD were not notified, no? MuZemike 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...never mind. Those notification were handed out to the keep !voters as shown [106] and [107]; they were not included above. MuZemike 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the etc. was to suggest that there were more than just those I listed as I figured I probably missed some as the edit summaries were unclear. Would it be appropriate to post a similar message on the talk page of anyone who worked on the articles in question? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block

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

Resolved

 – Administrator intervention not required. Appeal to ArbCom at WP:RFAR, but it is doubtful that they will endorse or look into the matter as the clarification specifically states that these sorts of edits are disallowed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:ScienceApologist was just blocked for making three spelling corrections and link fix: [108], [109], [110] and [111]. As no fringe science content was involved, this looks like needless drama. I hope someone with good sense puts a stop to it and cautions the Admins involved to use better judgement in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying he edited fringe articles while he is banned from editing fringe articles and got blocked for evading his ban? Brothejr (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. His topic ban is as states:

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

By editing the page in question he violated the above. Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The block was dubious and ridiculous. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or not. SA has made it clear he will not abide by the ArbCom sanctions imposed on him. Indeed, he announced that he would be making edits like this as a form of 'civil disobedience.' The thing about civil disobedience is that you tend to get arrested anyway. Context here. //roux   01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How does correcting spelling and a link have anything to do with quackery? This is absurd, and I say that as a fan of quackery. Now we have to have a long drawn out discussion because somebody got trigger happy over spelling corrections? This is absurd to the extreme. And Seicers personal attack below is a much more substantial violation of our guidelines, but will be let stand. This is a joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he has a newly installed meatpuppet, as indicated by the request. The case was decided upon at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and there was a clarification that was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist. As noted here, continued abuse by editing fringe articles, even if it is for spelling corrections, will lead to an outright permanent topic ban. These blocks cannot be overturned by administrators, and can only be appealed to ArbCom. As they just ruled on the clarification and agreed with the amendment noted above, it is highly unlikely they will even accept case or look further into it. No administrator intervention is required. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's personal attacks and disruptive edits today are disturbing [112]. I thought he was retired? Please try to keep in mind that we're here to improve the encyclopedia not make personal attacks and rants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, accusing people of being puppets merely because they side with someone you don't like is inappropriate behavior for an admin. You also appear to not understand what a meatpuppet is. I hope this isn't indicative of your normal behavior. kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an example of someone looking for an excuse. There was no change of content at all. Was the topic ban intended to prevent all improvement of the encyclopedia, or to prevent change of relevant content by SA? I believe it was the latter. If he is abiding by the spirit of the ban by not changing relevant content, and using his time to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia by fixing minor errors without changing content, what is the purpose of this block? Is it to prove that punishment is the name of the game? I totally support the concept behind the ban, and I have never defended SA's style, but this is ridiculous. This is the type of thing a child incapable of understanding the reasons behind complex matters would do. It's just focusing on the letter and forgetting the spirit. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This board and its respondents don't have the authority to overrule an ArbCom imposed topic ban. Its enforcement is plainly within the text of the remedy, and has essentially been ratified by the Committee in any case. Refer to WP:RFAR for further action. Avruch ^T 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Admins should set a good example and be expected to use common sense, not shoot blindly in the dark and close discussions when they can't provide well-reasoned responses. BTW, the admin who made the block can self-revert as an act of good faith. That might restore some measure of trust in this process. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious close of thread

An editor has quickly closed a new thread when there is strong disagreement and the issue remains unresolved. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, starting a new thread immediately below in an attempt to disrupt the administrators' noticeboard results in either closure or migration to a related topic. There is nothing that can be done, sans an appeal to ArbCom which is unlikely to even take place. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Hmmm...I followed the instructions -- Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. and you then improperly edited my comments by moving them into a closed section, thus essentially blocking the participation of the community in this matter. Are admins immune from community scrutiny, or do they have a right to ignore it? This is really embarrassing. I'd be embarrassed to be an admin at this moment. It would appear that you have more at stake in this matter than the blocking admin. Interesting. You have previously been called out for your protection of quackery and fringe topics and their editors here. Is this a continuation of your strategy? Let's face it, you closed the discussion too early, at a point when it was obviously not resolved. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically a good block. I'd make those edits by proxy if asked...so I'm not really sure what the block serves.... --Onorem♠Dil 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] "Technically", yes. But not in spirit. It stinks. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on Quackuru. The thread clearly states (and seicer even put it in the closing remarks) where the issue needs to be taken if you wish to pursue it further. If you aren't satisfied with how things stand, take it to WP:RFAR. This is not the place, as has been explained already. Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's remark can be ignored, since he doesn't make the rules. The blocking admin has the right to change their mind and save their honor. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Seicer can also save some semblance of honor by reopening the thread that obviously was not resolved. The tag he placed at the top of that thread is a bald faced lie. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that I must repeat myself? ARBCOM passed a motion that administrators cannot overturn or reverse action taken in pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, unless there is written authorization of ARBCOM or that there is clear community consensus to do so. This is specific to users, passed in a motion in January 2009. seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't refer to self-reverting, only to one admin reverting another, IOW to prevent wheelwarring. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And he has no inclination to overturn. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] I don't see much evidence that you are giving him a chance to talk. This is your battle, and you have taken over. That's a shame. And you have indeed misused and misquoted an ArbCom ruling to justify your actions here. Shameful. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no significant harm at this point from letting users continue to discuss on this board, especially in the interest of stopping the forest fire and centralizing the discussion. That having been said, there isn't any gain either. We are not interested in Wikipedia becoming a battleground over ScienceApologist, his edits, or his cause celebre.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear community consensus that typo fixing is OK? I don't agree with many of SAs edits, but this block is stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the basic issue here. Please get a decision on this. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree that blocking for spelling corrections is disruptive, unwarranted, and creates unnecessary drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'd agree too, if that was why ScienceApologist was blocked for. It was not. Any attempt to frame the debate this way is simply setting up a strawman to be knocked down— he was blocked for willfully and deliberately violating a topic ban that was even clarified a few days ago. He did so after having been warned in no equivocal terms that he would be blocked if he did. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Coren, this is about three spelling corrections and a link fix. If SA spends the next six months or even one month correcting spelling and making non-controversial edits that would be fabulous. There was no need for this block. THere was no dispute. This wasn't a grey area. This was spelling and a link fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Whether the block is proper or not, Seicer's early marking of "resolved" archiving the thread is inappropriate since a couple of editors began to point out on his "persona attacks" and absurd accusation. That act seems like he wants to wrap up or divert the "new" topic. However, that kind of his incivility is nothing new.--Caspian blue 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You should review the history. I didn't initially archive the thread, but only applied the resolved tag since no administrator action is required. seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I fix my comment accordingly. (the meaning is not that much changed though)--Caspian blue 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I marked it as resolved because it was inappropriate to post it in this board as no administrator action was required. The OP should have brought this up to the blocking administrator, who was not even informed of this thread until I notified him. seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • You know I did not comment on the merit of the block.--Caspian blue 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of SA in the sense that I believe almost all of his edits have been improvements, and overall he's been a great asset to Wikipedia, but he's clearly been fishing for a block and I can't see any reasonable way to avoid giving him one. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Rfar#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science--Tznkai (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, this isn't about spelling corrections. SA is quite clearly attempting to de-legitimize ArbCom, a democratically elected body charged with enforcing WP-wide policy. I see little reason to reward this behavior. Close this thread, please. Ronnotel (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Offer to SA

I disagree with most of your edits from a pov perspective, but feel free to leave me a note if you'd like simple things corrected like you edited today. I'll make clearly productive edits by proxy if you need to avoid silly sanctions that are unrelated to generic fixes. --Onorem♠Dil 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent offer, Onorem. As SA's mentor I've been waiting for a response from him about today's events. Normally I wouldn't advocate proxy editing, but for simple spelling corrections and things like that your proposal looks like a very good way to move forward. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, proxy editing is something explicitly contemplated by the arbitration ruling, which permits SA to participate on the talk page.

SA's behavior here is like the little kid who gets told don't step one foot outside of his room, and then does just that to test the parents. He's entitled to engage in civil disobedience, but WP:POINT is WP:POINT, and part of civil disobedience is accepting the resulting punishment. THF (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Quick block review requested

Resolved

 – No problem here; block deserved on username alone; actions are purely secondary.

I indef blocked Wikinìgger (talk · contribs) per the obviously profane username. A moment later I realized that the account vandalized my talk page here. Not a big deal, but it might be considered inappropriate of me to block a user who vandalized my userspace, so I'd like a quick confirmation from another admin. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Username alone deserves an indef. Endorsed. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

good block. You don't need to second guess yourself when it's this obvious. Ronnotel (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I just prefer to err on the side of caution. :) Thanks for the input. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's he going to do, start an ANI thread about it? Jtrainor (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised we do not have a username filter that disallows that as a username at the point of user creation. Mfield (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The third 'I' looks weird; he probably used that to sneak past the filters. HalfShadow 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, I assumed it was dirt on my screen, should have known better as I came across the same trick the other day, plus I was dealing with the request just below that is closely related. Maybe extending the filter to catch the accented Is would be smart, as there are a few of them. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And the dotless "i" (ı) as well, and the number "1" as either "i" or "l", like spam filters do to prevent ads for Ro1ex watches and Vıagra, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive and unnecessary talk page?

Resolved

Is this talk page really necessary? The account is blocked and the userpage deleted. And if a speedy delete template or MfD would have been more appropriate than here please let me know. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted and salted. Mfield (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipe Spam

Resolved

 – Hardblocked

Rklawton (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried reporting this at WikiProject Spam, but there has been no response. It seems a user is creating new accounts and repeatedly spamming a recipe (usually with an edit summary like "added recipe") to random pages. Warning is of no use, as only a small number of vandalism edits are made before each account is abandoned. Examples follow:

• LeftMorall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuideHeadss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Virtual Reactionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kitchener753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheirSmilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiveGrayy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voluptuosity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raspberryshandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AboveLoann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoingAreass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangeyouglad830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ubersardonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WithHairr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimeExact3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimePanell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalestartt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EndedDailyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The tallest man in Togo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• How do Pigs eat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagatelle (talk • contribs) Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a very good recipe. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; it tastes like chicken. Which is sort of unusual, since it's a banana bread variant. HalfShadow 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Add *History Demon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Also, the recipe is the one from the Banana bread article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipes? Spam? Banana bread? I'm about to go into pun-overload. At least there's no article recreation requiring that the article be "salted". More seriously, could a sock puppet investigation or checkuser get the underlying IP blocked? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF posing as an Admin

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Horologium (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to mark "resolved" WP:COI issues as per here

I wouldn't have thought just anyone would be allowed to do this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to Wikipedia:COIN#User:WebHamster_and_article_Round_the_Horne.

Per WP:MULTI, "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." I don't see a requirement of adminship needed to do that. If anyone besides the disruptive editor who made 22 edits to COIN finds my shutting down that mess problematic, when it was entirely redundant of a pending mediation, and consisted of the two editors in that mediation squabbling, feel free to revert me. THF (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was right in the middle of posting diff's for evidence when it was closed. I asked THF to reopen it here, however he ignored this request and then promptly changed his closing "reasoning" making it impossible to revert. Can some random non-admin editor really come in and close a discussion while someone is in the middle of posting their evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it's a wiki. Their decision to close can also be overturned, by a consensus of editors who, too, need not be administrators. Skomorokh 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So..I can reopen it and continue to post my evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Given WP:MULTI and WP:HOUND and WP:TLDR and WP:COOL, I don't recommend reopening a COIN discussion dealing with the same subject as a pending mediation on the possibility that your 23rd edit to the section will be more persuasive than the first 22, but that would be up to an administrator whether that sort of disruption is worth a preventative block as the only means to get you to drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was more interested in a third party opinion. Considering you closed the WP:COI section while I was in the middle of posting diff's, I have noted your position quite clearly. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You state that you were in the middle of posting evidence. I have to ask why you did not post such evidence when you were creating the thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that the "evidence" of COI that BSOD made a dozen posts on my talk page and at ANI about before undoing the thread closure to make his 23rd post was File:Zcolne1.jpg--in other words, the editor with whom he has been squabbling with attended a concert. I feel like I've been trolled. THF (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 4.227.106.12

4.227.106.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repetitive nonsense vandalism to BabyFirstTV article such as changing the date of it being founded from 2003 (the correct date with a reference from the channel's official website) to 1982 (false). Same vandalism has twice been reverted. Why vandalize an article about a channel made for babies, I'll never know, but its ridiculous. Please block them. I already reported them on WP:AIV but they told me to come here. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is probably kind of pointless in this case. While the user has made, what, five, six acts of vandalism to the page, he edits in very short stints and then reappears later under a different IP. The issue of sufficient warning aside, blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and, well, a block probably wouldn't prevent anything in this case. If he returns, it will probably be in several hours or days under a different IP. So just stay vigilant, and revert/warn/ignore. If he does pass four warnings, feel free to return to AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• 4.227.109.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP vandalism, possible WP:sock puppet of 4.227.106.12, vandalism of BabyFirstTV. Both IP's are changing the year the network was founded from 2003 (clearly stated on the channel's official site and referenced with an inline citation) to 1982 (obviously untrue, no reference cited) without explanation. Please block both IP's.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought i'd like to point out that TomCat has had a history of edits that include edit-warring, personal attacks, jumping to conclusion before getting all the facts, and making claims that people are sockpuppets without proof. Plus merging and redirecting pages without starting discussion. And i may or may not be out of line, but i know a semi or fully disruptive user when i see one. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never done any of that and I ask you to WP:AGF before making accusations like that. I make constructive edits to dozens of articles a day and I'm a member of WP:CVU. I would appreciate it if you stopped this blatant WP:harrassment.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, and you have done all of that: merging Toon Disney into Disney XD without discussing and it wasn't untill after a few users reverted you started a discussion [113]. And i never said you vandalpzing pages, disruptive edits can be more than vandalism. And secondly i'm sorry if it seems i'm harrassing you but your edits are very suspicious. And the block for edit-warring and harrassment raises an eyebrow [114] and before you go check my block log i admit that i've been edit-warring too in Feburary but is stopped that after i gained rollback rights. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the one not getting all of the facts. I stopped the merge war 3 days ago and discussed it in on the board. You are clearlyhounding me which IS a form of harrassment. If you continue to do so I will request you get permanently blocked.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you got the facts all wrong. I wasn't really blocked. The tell tale sign was the "block" said "for an eternity". It was really a long term WP:sock puppet vandal pretending to be an administrator who was in turn REALLY permanently blocked for vandalizing my page by a REAL administrator. I HAVE NEVER BEEN BLOCKED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolding, caps, yelling and arguing are not helping here. The case is in full view of the admins - the links are available to all - and the immediate post above merely detracts from your case as a whole. I'd recommend a few deep breaths. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just took a close look ... how many times did you re-merge articles after the first reversion? You were bold, it was reverted, it became time to discuss immediately. I'm trying to find one good reason why your actions were not themselves actioned ... that said, this quite possibly has no relationship to the complaint filed (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the person is clearly hounding me and has been since Saturday because she's mad at me because of the TD / DXD debate. Well I haven't touched the article in 3 days, and I contributed to the discussion instead, which is still unresolved btw. and I don't appreciate this harrassment and all of these false accusations. Look at their contributions for proof.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(You might be the one failing to provide a little WP:AGF here with regards to the Disney stuff. You probably also did little to help your argument by continually re-merging after it was reverted once. You're obviously not being hounded)

With respect to the IP address issues - the incidence of vandalism from a couple of IP addresses is quite small - so little that nobody is going to rangeblock a swath of IP addresses and cause problems for valid editors. IP addresses are a tricky thing, and have to be handled carefully. Thousands of IP addresses will not be blocked to stop a half-dozen well spread out incidents of minor vandalism, so I am not sure exactly what additional action you think can or will be taken.

So, short form: based on the above, what action are you still looking for here? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the past. The important thing is I STOPPED re-merging 3 days ago and haven't done it since. I also contributed to the discussion. You're just singling out one small incident that has since stopped. You're making me out to be a bad editor when I'm not. So anyways if you can't block the IP's, fine. End of discussion. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Look TomCat, I know you're having a bad day...don't take it out on neutral people who are simply trying to help. The reason the issue about reverting was inside brackets was because for this incident, it's actually unrelated and I wanted to mention it as a closing thing to that part of the discussion, rather than leaving it hanging. You don't need to be overly snarky here please...I simply wanted to know what action you needed based on my IP discussion above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Freep?

Resolved

 – Nothing. Nada. It's Miller time

I've been warned that I might get "Freeped", as indicated at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202207/posts - Post 50. They apparently think I'm an admin or something. Woo-hoo! I would ask that my friends, enemies, and who-careses would NOT REVERT whatever they might post on my talk page (if anything), so that it will hopefully all be in one place and maybe make it easier to round up these mosquitoes. Thank's, y'all. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you change your mind, semi-protection is yours if you ask for it. And actually, I figured you were an admin... Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's the same person or not, but you were also been mentioned in a Newbusters comment. Switzpaw (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Freep crew.. I always wondered why they took a name that was so stylistically similar to creep.... SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Celebrity status! "I wrote this, and it was delted by an Admin named 'Baseball Bugs'." Not only I'm an Admin now, but I "delted" something. I don't know what that means, but it sounds dangerous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the best part of that post isn't "delted", it's the sig quote by "Ronald Reaga". Don't piss them off, they'll misspell things. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the reference to "Reaga". Right much pathetic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neophyte wants to e-mail Jimbo and have me "de-sysopped". [115] Well, that shouldn't take much effort. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So far just one blanker; and one attacker (and that was a repeater). It's nice to know the level of fear and respect we command among the drive-bys. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, "Free Republic" is one of the first things I thought of when this tedious troll showed up on my talk page (see User_talk:Antandrus#Why_is_Wikipedia_afraid_of_opposing_viewpoints.3F). It's the style -- the let's argue politics even though it's completely irrelevant to the issue, the constant harangue, the will-not-let-go manner. I finally just had to walk away from my computer. Good grief. Come to think of it, I wrote number 16 just for this. There is still an angry thread in their 2005 archives about my deletion of a page they tried to create called "Wikipedia liberal bias" (or some variation on that name, I forget). Antandrus (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, your mistake was to write "Pretend I'm a robot..." at which point the Anon IP pretended that he was a robot & began to repeat his point over & over, caught in an infinite loop. Or a race condition. Only thing one can do in that situation is reboot. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point. Drop the shields, let them have their way for a day, and let their self-righteous thunder dissipate. I'll keep that in mind next time one of these assaults comes along. I wonder if anyone has told these mushrooms that the election campaign is over, and they lost? Or would that fact be labeled as "liberal bias" also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully more blogs pick up on this information in that day. Won't matter to the Freepers, but some of the chan boards might want to name a new master troller... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying work avoidance reading your observations, Antandrus, and it seems like #37 (which made me spew my tea, thank-you-very-much) is particularly applicable here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Howcum nobody ever mistakes me for an admin? Dammit, I want my fifteen minutes of fame! HalfShadow 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I mistook you for an admiral the other day, if that helps. I was probably thinking of a half nelson for some reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To show the level of respect for, and interest in, this website in the greater internet world, despite my user ID being mentioned over there, I got a grand total of 1 page blanking and 1 negative comment. It's nice to know how much influence one has. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Anything I can do? Topic ban, blocking, snarky note, illusions to your Illuminati membership...? Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Tell them I'm a liberal" (i.e. a communist, the way they use that word), but they already know that. Tell them I know all 4 verses to The Star-Spangled Banner by heart, and then they'll know I'm a commie, because no real American would bother to learn the other 3 verses. My favorite is the line about the blood of the enemies washing out their own "foul footsteps' pollution". I'd like to hear Celine Dione sing that line at the Super Bowl someday. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, she's from Quebec, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham is still fresh in their minds, and the allegory would be a-propos for her to get emotional about. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Half-truths are more fun. I'll just quote you as saying you "like... Celine Dione". Rklawton (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm born and raised in Baltimore, of COURSE I know all 4 verses of the Star-Spangled Banner. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Including the "O's!" part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It took me YEARS to realize that wasn't in the anthem...Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not? Maybe that's why I get such funny looks when I sing it that way. Or maybe it's because the point is lost on them at Wrigley Field. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I should be elected to Congress. I didn't know the anthem had four verses, and I sure as heck don't know all the words to the first verse. And the tune? God help you if I try to sing it. Rklawton (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I only sing it in the car with all the windows rolled up. Much has been said about our national anthem, and I like best what Richard Armour wrote: "When, by the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, they fled in terror." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because originally it was a drinking song: those high notes come easy when you're suitably lubricated in the tavern. "I'll instruct you like me to Intwine/The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine." In the original the high notes aren't sustained as long, either. (If a cop pulls you over for singing it, I'm not sure I can help you.) Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. And maybe if the Brits and the Yanks had spent more time drinking and less time fighting, we'd have been better off. But it's possible to hit the high notes when stone cold sober. Of course, it takes the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir (men and women) to cover the range. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It still is a drinking song. After the last two words ("play ball!"), the beer vendors come out in the stands and everyone starts drinking. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that a young Abner Doubleday was taking dictation from Francis "Off" Key on that occasion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the tune did not become the national anthem until 1931 (during Prohibition). There's a delightful irony. Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yer nuts if you think that's when the drinking starts. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, starts back up. They don't sell beer during the anthem and it's a mighty long song. A gal gets thirsty during all that singing. ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That fits with what I said just below. It turned out to be a good way to promote beer sales. And throat lozenges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

However, maybe that was part of the reason they ended Prohibition. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't drink beer; I make it a habit not to drink things that enter and leave me looking exactly the same. HalfShadow 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old joke about how American beer is similar to having sex in a canoe ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And hence the old saying, "You don't buy beer, you only rent it." That reminds me of a story I read in Sports Illustrated years ago, which I suspect was apocryphal. A beer company sent a sample of their product to a lab for analysis. Unfortunately, the lable fell off and the techs took their best shot at it, with this report: "Your horse has diabetes." Two for the price of one! Which is why I tend to stay away from Rolling Rock. Hey, three for the price of one! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker's polynomials (again)

reposted from WP:AIV Hello,

Could someone please block Arammozuob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Auclairde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and semi-protect Wikipedia:Notability_(numbers) for a little while?
Both accounts are likely sockpuppets of Boubaker et al.: a couple of regular edits and then going straight into editing notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination) for a better understanding of the whole story. Thx, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Auclairde and semiprotected Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Arammozuob's immediate interest in Notability (numbers) is surprising but he has yet to make any Boubaker-type edits. For previous background, in addition to the AfD discussion that was mentioned, see:

• Long-term abuse report for Mmbmmmbm on the French Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183#Boubaker polynomials
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm
• User:Lucasbfr/Boubaker

EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the other one as well.  Confirmed as the Boubaker polynomials vandal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Popo le Chien is an old WP:FR vandal who is declaring expressively (in his blog page [116] that he came to WP:EN to delete a page just per Hatered, Vengence anfd Racism...

He is declaring to his band (Users Jean_Clémént_Martin, jean-Roger_Tixier_Toutain, Nicolas_GUILMAIN Gilles_ and the others) that he WON on WIKEPEDIA:EN !!!

Please be aware, the user Arammozuob is not an Arab Country issued IP, so how can it be a sockpuppets of Boubaker?? Please, WP:EN will notice taht this user has been blocked instatously at the demand of POPO le chien?????, with no mention of valuable reason ...

further

Please unblock these users and let Racism away from WP:EN.Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof of racism, please, or go away. All I see is a checkuser confirming that there's skulduggery going on. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Shari Lewis called. She wants her sock puppets back. MuZemike 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bradbeker quacks and is unblocked. Even sounds like Boubaker. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know why I am mentioned in the edit summary? Apparently his disputed edit was "approved by Mazca" among others. I have no recollection of ever being involved in this article or dispute in any way. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting... it has been approved by a bot as well. Chamal ^talk 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like on one occasion, using Huggle, I happened to revert some blatant vandalism [117] to that exact contentious section during a previous period it had been inserted. Hence, apparently I approve of it. From his list of names, apparently the vandal in question also agrees with it despite removing it. Nice to know. :D ~ mazca ^t|c 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adil your

talk to me 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 – editor blocked, but after reading the talk page I doubt it will be the last block.--Fabrictramp

I think this guy needs a block frankly. He was unblocked recently and carried on reverting against consensus again. His sources are ridiculous and in my opinion his edits aren't much more useful than vandalism, eg Khemkaran using defencejournal.com - the ref article is nonsense and non-RS written in a childish tone, laughing off conventional history etc. The same on the others, citing the pak govt as truth on wars involving pakistan. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing and edit warring. Tried to explain about consensus editing on his user talk page. I'm OK with another admin lessening the block if Adil your seems to understand and acknowledge that disruptive editing and edit warring aren't acceptable behavior, but if you do so please be prepared to reimpose if they revert to this behavior again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey again

Resolved

 – I smell someone's socks.

Please see User talk:Ultramegasuperstar. He blocked this user for sockpuppetry, with no further reasons. --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. Good block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And Bollywood-Turk (talk · contribs) isn't the new user his contributions suggest, so... dougweller (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially given YellowMonkey has CheckUser, I'm inclined to trust any sockpuppet blocks from him. Suggest this thread simply be closed. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless the poster meant that since YM is protecting WP from socks, again, he deserves a barnstar. In which case I say, yes, I support, do it. ;) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got to admire, however, how the unblock reasons shift from There is no way, that I'm a sockpuppet. This is my only nick here, and there will be no other to Sockpuppets are not illegal. "I don't sock, oh, wait, I do, but it's OK!" This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Break it up, break it up, PLEASE!!!

talk to me 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 – Sarcasticidealist will keep an eye on this.--Fabrictramp

Talk:Goguryeo controversies - these users have gotten out of control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The behaviour you're complaining about, while certainly problematic, appears to be about two weeks old. I've added the page to my watchlist, and will intervene if problems continue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Contact Administrator

Can someone tell me where I can contact an administrator? Sorry I`m new here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickbugun (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just place {{Adminhelp}} on your talk page and one will be along shortly. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alternately, you may just ask your question here if it absolutely requires immediate attention. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Secthayrabe & User:Secthaycaan: continued page creation vandalism.

Continued from this previous AN/I post:

User:Secthayrabe repeatedly recreated Nabil Rastini until it was salted, at which point he started doing variants such as Nabil' Rastini & Nabil A Rastini. I gave him an only warning for inappropriate pages. The extremely similarly named account, User:Secthaycaan, has recreated Nabil' Rastani. (I initially considered this a vandalism issue, but AIV told me to come here.) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Secthayrabe's talk page says he has retired; but he still has User:Secthayrabe/Nabil Rastani in his user space. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, both users' pages say retired, yet they continue to edit. Their recent contribs are almost entirely related to Nabil Rastini. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Secthaycaan has been continuing Secthayrabe's pattern of page-creation vandalism. See his talk page for all the CSD notices. I suggest blocking both accounts and account creation to prevent further disruption. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Secthaycaan has created Nabil' Rastani again. Is there a more appropriate place to bring this problem? It seems clear to me that this user does not intend to contribute positively. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

I've just blocked Rambam rashi (talk · contribs) for a week for changing to another variant of English contra WP:ENGVAR after warning and previous blocks. The user clearly knows better than to carry on after being blocked. But I would like a review and advice, and in particular, he's done a redirect because he didn't like the spelling and I'm not sure how to undo it as it isn't just one redirect. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He hadn't been warned recently but he had been warned a bunch before and blocked once for it. I would recommend you leave a more verbose personalized message as well - the template is not that great an explanation.

I've reverted some bits of the spree he did in the last few days - I will try and unwind the redirects. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Second block for the same offense, I would hope he's aware by now. There was a detailed post earlier on his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama probation issue

Twice this evening, a drive by editor Neophytesoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted a "POV" tag on the article, with an obvious conspiracy-theory angle as indicated in the edit summary, but without bothering to post anything to the talk page. Someone with more authority than I (i.e. more than "none") needs to say something to that character about the probation on the article and about frivolous tags. This article has been under scrutiny for months now, and the supposed "bias", having to do with Rev. Wright, birth certificate, etc., are already covered at length in other articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BLP attack in edit summary. Although edit summaries are not specifically mentioned in WP:BLP, I think we can all assume that it is inappropriate. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a stern warning from an administrative figure - that article is under probation for a reason, and 'terrorist ties' is definitely a WP:BLP vio. — neuro^(talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has now had a polite probation notice posted on his page. Also, the user has been inactive for nearly 2 years [118] and suddenly turns up with this drive-by "shooting". There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WND did an article on the WP entry and the Drudge Report linked to it, so expect a spike in activity over there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say, admins here might find this relvant: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] Kangasaurus (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that would explain the sudden surge in drive-by activity. They're abusing wikipedia in order to generate a "news" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That makes sense. — neuro^(talk) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are separate articles that talk all about the stuff that is alleged by that WND rag to have been "scrubbed". They conveniently left that fact out. But considering their advocacy, it's pretty obvious they're on the looney fringe themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So disagreeing with YOUR point of view puts you on the 'looney fringe'?!? Perhaps following Wiki rules "According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." There have been many including court cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.115.111 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Bugs is a sign of being a crank. And we have something called WP:WEIGHT to consider. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention every single one of them has failed. Obama has never even had to address this in any form. It has very little, if any impact on him. --70.24.182.79 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on AN Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Point of View junk edits" mentioned at the end of the WND article was my revert. This is actually the 2nd time that WND has commented on an edit of mine. Awesome. We're probably going to need a full protect shortly, this is a rabid and vocal minority that has just been given today's marching orders. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the page to request article protection, or I would have done so already. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I say let more sleeper socks come out of the woodwork - maybe we can catch them all and see where their IP address is coming from. There's a strong suggestion that the folks at World Net Daily are behind some of this. I can forgive a partisan organization's ignorance of Wikipedia reliable sources and neutrality rules. WorldNetDaily and its editors do not practice neutrality themselves, or much of a truth test at all - they say whatever scores a point for their cause. But this piece seems deliberately misleading. If it's true that they have been "monitoring" Wikipedia, it would be obvious (and should have been disclosed) that Jerusalem21, the Wikipedia editor Klein leads off with and who was supposedly pounced on by the whitewashing Obama-lovers, is an SPA and suspected sockpuppet, whose entire sparse but long career on Wikipedia until causing disruption at Barack Obama, was to edit the Aaron Klein article. Even before the incident the editors commenting on Jerusalem21's talk page were placing COI tags and assuming Jerusalem21 is connected in some way to Klein. "Monitoring" indeed. Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to post at WP:RFPP, but if you want to let these idiots expose themselves (pun intended), then I'll defer to your judgment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was anything but a coincidence, but a couple days ago, after Ann Coulter posted a story about Keith Olbermann, several accounts came out of the woodwork that hadn't edited in years. Same thing here. Are they sleeper socks, or are we at the stage where everyone has a Wikipedia account, and when their favourite columnist calls forth his minions, they pick up their old account that they haven't used in years? Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The next time one pops up, maybe we could ask the account if they could get us Ann Coulter's autograph or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's obviously more than one person. They could be novice or infrequent editors coming out of the woodwork because something got their goat, they could a coordinated meat / sock attack, and/or it could be a deliberate manipulation by someone connected with the author of the article. The past year's experience on the Obama article was that the majority of disruptive POV editors crying whitewash/censorship/terrorist/scandal turned out to be socks of a handful of puppetmasters, some of whom had been blocked/banned before. Jerusalem21 was quacking from inside the encyclopedia. The World Net Daily article about Jerusalem21 quacks from the outside. Plus there are new accounts, SPAs, and accounts that haven't edited in months or years all showing up on the exact same bogus claims raised in the article. If shenanigans are going on it's helpful to let it play out for a bit so we can connect the dots. But if it continues we may have to protect the article. But we can't reasonably full protect the talk page, and much of the weirdness is going on there. Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could fix the article so it includes mention of notable controversies that have been covered extensively by independent sources and improve the article so it provides links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbingly impossible for someone to claim to be unbiased when referring to those with whom they disagree as the "looney fringe" "idiots" or "socks" (sock puppets). Do you really think these terms convey the idea of "neutrality"? Tlwitness ^{Live to Learn and Then Learn to Question} 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, try again. I guess this is another account to add to the list... seicer | talk | contribs 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another matching sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think this fellow intends to contribute productively and civily once his block expires: [119]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, and he'll have to wait 17 hours longer for that. Since you nobly overlooked his personal attack on you, I dealt with it by extending the block from 31 to 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation here... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Make a tub of popcorn and head over to the article's talk page. But pay careful attention to the rv's on the talk page, or you might miss some of the best comments. Did you know that unless you've seen someone's original birth certificate, you don't know where they were born? What does that remind me of? Of yeah - that good old creationist retort to evolutionary claims: Where you there? Did you see it happen? Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of the Baron Münchhausen retort - "Vas you dere, Charlie?" And the flip side of Criswell narrating Plan 9 from Outer Space: "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary 3RR exception for article patrol?

Wondering if that is a good idea. At least, please consider giving warnings and only blocking if an editor persists after being asked to stop, if what they are doing is good faith attempts to keep the article and talk page stable.Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing one here prescriptively... hold on for just a moment.Wikidemon (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An aggressively misguided editor, Expertfp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just filed a 3RR report on me[120] which I've deleted per WP:IAR[121] so as to avoid wikidrama. Technically I think the editor's 5 diffs only show 1 reversion on my part. The rest is nonsense, and another editor has already called it "crazy", but I would like to get a ruling and some guidance on this. Not whether the 3RR report has any merit, but whether it's okay to be doing talk page patrol. I've been on article / talk page control for many hours, holding down the fort, organizing various talk page comments, etc. If you want me to go away and keep the peace without me, fine. I won't do this if the opinion among administrators is that I should not be aggressively patrolling the Obama talk page. Thx. Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh. When the Mark Foley scandal broke I went well over 3RR trying to keep crap out. No one seemed to complain. Not sure the situation is that different here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU filed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Axmann8

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For some reason, he chose this night to start violating established reliable sources and consensus and much discussion, to push the idea that Obama is not the first African-American President. He has violated 3RR as well as probation, and refuses to retract. Another blockhammer, someone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was coming here to report same user for obviosu trolling, wiki-lawyering, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Mfield (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He was once indef-blocked (briefly) and was given a second chance. Has he used up his second chance yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And his unblock request makes it perfectly clear that he intends to continue pushing the conspiracy theory stuff in defiance of consensus, and presumably in defiance of article probation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that but the last block was a standard indefinite for legal threats which were retracted and he had nothing else. Had this been another legal threat then I would have thought no second chances but this is different in nature and . If he continues once his block lifts though which seems likely (hardly a good argument for being unblocked) then he is going to find good faith harder to come by I suspect, I for one will certainly be watching him closely. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, the legal threat was against me[122] after I warned Axmann8 about edit warring on Obama's discussion page.[123] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, I don't feel happy about changing the block to an indef at this point, having given him the benefit of the doubt. But I think he has a fair amount of attention now and he is certainly burning bridges faster than he should with that in mind. Mfield (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, and he has reverted it. —kurykh 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. Appears to be fishing for an admin who will unblock him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting that rant slamming everyone he can think of is not likely to get him an early unblock. After the first one was refused he wrote a second one that was basically the same as the first one. If he keeps this up, he might be among the few tagged for 3RR on his own talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "I have the right to do whatsoever I wish" is hardly clueful either, or telling the declining admin they have "corrupt leftist liberal trash fogging up their mind". Man he sure can dig fast. Mfield (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He really shouldn't be blocked indefinately. He's a newcomer, and has made many constructive edits previously. As I'm his adopter, I'll be sure to look over more of his edits. -download | sign! 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He will be blocked indefinitely (not by me) if he continues on his crusade for truth, justice, and the American way. </snark> —kurykh 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Kfedup

Kfedup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Four, three, two, one, liftoff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

done Mfield (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

The stuff is spreading. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I am leaning towards full protection of the article until this dies down. A look at the history shows a lot of editing warring. Unless opposition is voiced here I am going to protect it in one hour. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One potential issue with full protection is that it might push edits to the daughter articles all the more, and there are likely to be fewer eyes watching them. Not saying I'm opposed to protection, just that it may cause additional problems. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching several daughter articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support this. In the last 15 hours, there have been 50 revisions to that page, including 26 reversions explicitly stated as such in their edit summary (not counting the reversion of the grammar fix at 1502). There has been exactly zero blatant vandalism in this time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see protection for the article's Talk/FAQ page. This isn't a place for random comment; it should be subject to the same consensus constraints as the man page. It's attracted at least one soapboxer so far. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Protecting a high-traffic protected articles talk page should not be done except in response to actual vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is blatant vandalism, the article should not be protected. These are content disputes and possible policy violation corrections, not vandalism. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060 is referring to the talk page, not the article itself. Protection policy specifically authorizes protection for content disputes resulting in editing warring. However, I am not going to protect the article right now as things seem to have quieted down. I will check back every hour or so to see if this changes. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put full protection on Barack Obama? They are edit warring over an NPOV tag now.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am watching it. There have only been 4 edits in the last hour and a half. KnightLago (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Excellent point. I was more looking at the count of the edits rather than the timing. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things picked back up quickly and I have fully protected the article until things die down. I am going to notify the communications committee. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the protection (overlooked this subsection). I've doled out enough blocks, filed enough RFCU's, and given notices about the probation that I should have recognized something more should have been done earlier. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went with the full protection template over the small so the "this is not an endorsement..." language was there. It has since been changed. Is there a preference for high traffic articles? KnightLago (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the communications committee and also changed the template back to full in order to have the explanation. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note this Foxnews.com story which riffs on the WND business, mentions the current full protection, and also links directly to the Obama talkpage. --guyzero | talk 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, everything dealing with Obama either has or is degenerating into a massive clusterfuck and, frankly, outside sources really aren't helping us out here, unless by 'helping' you mean 'making our job multiple times harder by attarcting drive-bys'. HalfShadow 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And cracked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Glad to see the Wingnut→Drudge→Fox News cycle is still working. Now, question is, will the "→Everyone else" portion of the cycle kick in. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the "→Olbermann/Maddow" part before the "→Everyone else". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not missing the Olbermann/Maddow part, I'm just lumping them in with the everyone else. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• From my transatlantic impression of Olbermann, that's not entirely wise. When the most powerful right-wing lobby in the US launches a stinger at Wikipedia, it's not prudent to side with the closest left-wing equivalent. Common sense and reliable sourcing is plenty sufficient justification for the status quo that is being attacked. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News has picked up the "story" now and plastered it on their front page: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is following it, but the supposed story is not exactly what it seems.[124] I'm going to do an SSP on Jerusalem21 and cohorts shortly. I'll post back here when that is set up.Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

I went ahead and filed a sockpupet investigation on Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who was according to the Aaron Klein article that started this mess blocked by Wikipedia administrators for submitting sourced info. As you can tell if you poke around people have long suspected that this editor is in fact Aaron Klein, and has been sockpuppeting. A couple issues there.

• First, other than Jerusalem21 none of these editors have been active for a year or more - Jerusalem21 may or may not be subject to banning / long-term blocking as a disruptive hoax account. But as for sockpuppetry that may be stale. Does anyone have any advice there? I haven't notified the accounts yet. If the report is unlikely to go anywhere I'll just withdraw the report instead of making a go of it.
• Second, the earlier report on multiple editors was declined as premature.[125] That may be, but it's almost certain that there is some serious sockpuppetry going on now in the Obama article. Mostly a hunch and there are some alternate explanations, but the editing patterns, insults, tactics are familiar and last time it did turn out to be a sock farm. If this issue brings a new flood of problem editors to the encyclopedia and we can't tell who is real and who is not, we are in for some long-term trouble. The other regular editors and I are unlikely to be in a mood to rehash what happened last fall there. Okay, thanks.

- Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, when WND and Aaron Klein were asked their relationship with Jerusalem21, instead of answering, they removed all references to the User name in their "article" and replaced it with "one Wikipedia user – acting as part of WND's investigation". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Jeusalem21 be banned. Sock or no, he is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If who then was a gentlement has got that quote right (don't doubt him but a link would be nice) then WND has admitted to a major conflict of interest involving the whole premise of their story -- whether or not the Jerusalem account is klein, they're saying it was someone working with them, who appears to have deliberately run up against 3rr with the express purpose of getting blocked and then deceptively whining about it elsewhere. If socking is unproven, i suggest a broadly construed politics editing ban on the COI basis. ALso, a minor point. I keep reading about the Jerusalem account being "banned" but i see only a 72 hour edit warring block in the log. That appears to be another inaccuracy in their reporting.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he will never edit again from this account. If we block or ban him, we at lease cause him some inconvenience in setting up a "new" account, and maybe we'll catch him again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very tempted to block him myself per the "major disruption" clause in WP:INDEF, but that may well be locking the barn door after the horse is long gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, unless there is objection, I'm going to block for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." per WP:BLOCK--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some updates

Aaron Klein has apparenty admitted to "supervising" the edits.[126] I would wait for corroboration but the purported threatening letter / admission reprinted on Valleywag looks credible - not a reliable source for article editing purposes of course, but a good clue as to what is going on. Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Aaron Klein for a discussion I started there, suggesting that Jimbo may want to consider banning Klein, the individual, from Wikipedia. Given the sock report that means he may have been supervising the edit warring over his own article for some time. Please be aware that any action taken against Jerusalem21 or Klein would just be grist for the mill for Klein, and for the on and off-wiki malcontents who consider Wikipedia a liberal conspiracy. It's not my decision but I would suggest that dealing with a problem is ultimately better than capitulating to people who don't want to solve it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess he might take a ban as a badge of honor. But don't know if that is a sufficient reason not to act.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Likwidshoe

Likwidshoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This individual made a personal attack (and WP:SOAP) here and was reverted by an anon here. He then proceeded to attack the anon in this edit summary. He has thrice reverted the anon and me ([127], [128], [129]) by readding the WP:PA and WP:SOAP violation. Once more and, of course, he'll have violated 3RR as well, but the invicility (particularly in relation to an article on article probabtion) should probably be noted beforehand. Note that he has been blocked for incivility before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New version of the PA/SOAP added here with a snarky edit summary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nastiness and disruption continues. I've left a second civility warning, left a notice of this AN/I report, and also an article probation notice.[130] The editor appears incorrigible but we'll see. Can we please get a block if they continue disrupting the Obama talk page? We can't afford to go soft on that page. They've been blocked before for incivility and they know the drill. Wikidemon (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the claim of a "a second civility 'warning'", I never got the first.

I won't touch your precious Obama "talk" page anymore. I am apparently not of the correct opinion to have opinions and any disagreements will be crushed with a "second civility warning" that followed a phantom one. Add in the promises of blocks for some kind of continued disruption (two comments total there) and we find that the claim of "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" to be a bit of a sad joke. All of this stemming from a "talk" page of all pages.

BTW, whatever happened to the Wikipedian who invented AN/I? He left, didn't he? Said that he created a "monster" or something to that effect and along those lines? Looks like he was right.

Closing note: thanks for proving Wikipedia's detractors right. It didn't take much before you guys fell right into that partisan censoring line. You guys are pretty shameless about it. Likwidshoe (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed, regardless of personal opinion. Assuming bias because we don't want people verbally abusing one another is a bit over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this page and so many others begs to differ. Personal attacks are allowed - for certain individuals offering certain opinions on certain highly contentious issues and subjects. The supposed assumption of bias wasn't over the top - it was simply an observation of what is actually going on. It's okay though. Most don't want to admit when they're being hypocritical or when the place they're representing has some glaring double standards. I noticed it and brought it up, which has ruffled the feathers of a few here and has gotten quite a response! Oh, boy, did it ever. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of never getting the first civility warning is not true: [131]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but you then responded to the civility warning 'you never got' four times. *cough* HalfShadow 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the one from more than two years ago about a completely different subject involving completely different individuals. Silly me for thinking that some were talking about the same incident and were possibly overlooking the time stamps of the one from more than two years ago. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add "responded to the civility warning ... with increasing levels of additional incivility..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm wondering if it would be considered rude to ask him if he knows where he is right now... HalfShadow 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See? You're a rude smart alec and then you wonder why people push back in kind. You really don't get it, do you? Do you know where you right now? You're reaping what you sow.

Now sit back and watch as only one of us gets the childish "responded to the civility warning ... with increasing levels of additional incivility..." remark suggested by Bwilkins above. The hypocrisy of this place is sometimes pretty damn shameless. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for public / official statement

This kind of sockpuppetry is simply unacceptable. But blocking this user has been used to leverage some kind of political cause, when really the problem is disruptive behavior: edit warring, POV pushing, sockpuppetry. I think this is the kind of thing that should go to arbitration, if not Jimbo, if only so that Wikipedia can defend its reputation and deliver an appropriate response. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post at Jimbo Wales' talk page? We're just admins here, we clean up the messes, we don't make policy. Excuse me, spill in aisle 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of "official statement" needs to be made as this is just an extreme case of vandalism. The policies are already in place, so I don't see any reason to give those articles any more attention than necessary. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be extremely averse to dignify this incident and its perpetrators with a "public/official statement". The people behind this incident already accuse Wikipedia of a liberal bias, and no statement by us will change that. The general populace does not give a damn about such frivolous attention-seeking antics. —kurykh 06:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)