Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive328

Andre Douzet Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Article nuked by snowball AfD Guy (Help!) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

moved from WP:AIV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet

The Andre Douzet article on Wikipedia is contributed by his Supporters Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough who also run websites that promote him - therefore the Wikipedia article cannot be Neutral or Unbiased in nature. Andre Douzet is regarded as a charlatan and a hoaxer in France and I have placed a translated French article in the Talk Page regarding this. My comments in the article that he is a writer of pseudohistorical books and my comments in the Talk Page about who the people are that contribute the article get blanked out by his supporters. Can something please be done about this? Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted, and will revert the talk page blankings if they reoccur. From my understanding of policy, removing others' talk page posts that are not attacks is a violation of policy. I would urge you to add references which support your view that Douzet is a "peudohistorian". Douzet is still alive, so we have to be careful not to violate WP:BLP. I see from the talk page that you have French references. These are acceptable, as long as they are reliable sources. Perhaps you can pull some of the references from the French Wikipedia entry about him?Jeffpw (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• OTRS ticket 2007111710004458 refers. Filip Coppens describes Douzet as one of his authors, and is co-author of some books, so has a conflict of interest. I am having a hard time digging up much in the way of non-trivial independent sources for this subject, help would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• How about WP:AFD? His one dubious claim to notability, in the page history, is that he appeared on some low-brow TV documentary, presumably talking about his supposed discoveries. No article = no problem. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• And fewer than 900 Ghits, as well. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Different IPs have been blanking sections of Talk:André Douzet: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. One option is to semi-protect the Talk page, but if the AfD goes through, the problem will be moot. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Florida 2007

Resolved

This user, along with a group of users listed in Template:Wiki Florida 2007 seem to be building a load of unreferenced articles in the userspace. Please can someone have a look at Wiki Florida's 2007's subpages, located here. There is an unusual large amount of subpages, all of which look like articles. I also believe the people listed in Template:Wiki Florida 2007 are sockpuppets of Wiki Florida 2007. Davnel03 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The main account (WF2007) is blocked, so I deleted everything in his userspace (random Google checks of several pages has shown nothing). As of other socks, does anybody know their suspected sockmaster, [email protected]? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The template looks like a vanity one as well unless such an event really exists. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The template should be deleted, its basically useless. However, the other users located on the template are probable sockpuppets of [email protected] I guess. Davnel03 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Asad Aleem is a long-term hoaxmonger. Lately, he's been using the account User:Kevin Hotfury to create a large amount of hoax articles, but since they're in userspace there's not much to be done. He also edits wrestling articles, but I don't know much about that and other editors seem to consider those edits OK. JuJube (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see they're really his socks. Blocked 'em all and nuked their userspace. "since they're in userspace there's not much to be done" you say? Disagree, even userspace is not for publishing boolshit. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been trying to have this guy dealt with for a long time. See User:JuJube/Asadaleem12. JuJube (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:W.GUGLINSKI

Resolved

 – User was indefinitely blocked by Ryulong. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account that has been going around posting lots of non-notable pseudoscience. Several articles have been created and re-created, which consist entirely of invalid claims to have disproved certain parts of quantum mechanics. Guglinski also seems to mis-understand AfDs, seeing them as a forum for low-level personal attacks and flaming. Observe the current active AfDs: here and here. I've warned the author about inappropriate article creations, but an eye should be kept on him.

I personally would speedy the current pages as being non-notable and advertisement, but Natalie Erin has reminded me that speedying pages that are the subject of active AfDs is generally avoided. In any event, based on his history, Guglinski will likely create additional pages once the current set is removed. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous AFDs are here and here. shoy (^words _words) 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If somebody could talk to this user too, it would be appreciated. Every comment listed on the AfD's for his articles, are replied to by him, a...well....annoying and/or disruptive format. See for yourself: AfD, AfD. There are more I think, but you get the picture. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Has this user made any significant quantity of valid contributions to the encyclopedia, or is he mainly pushing pseudoscience? I refer you to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Proposed decision which is about a case I recently started. Before acting, I'd like to review the evidence, and I'd also like you to notify the user so he has a chance to comment here. As for the evidence, can you present sample diffs showing the problems. Linking to the AfD's helps, but I'd also like a selection of diffs so any casual observer can see the problem. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoy has notified Guglinski. The AfDs are most of what we have to go on, because almost all of the account's activity has been adding articles pushing one or another pseudoscience. The rest has been adding such to existing articles. One diff is [[6]]. See Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University's page history before the article is removed - at this point WP:SNOWBALL dictates it will be removed soon. One of his articles (Cold fusion theories) was merely stripped and redirected, so we have this version: [[7]]. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The red linking shows that the last article was just snowballed. Ryulong has given Guglinski an indefinite block (see User talk:W.GUGLINSKI). This would seem to be over for now, unless a sock shows up. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slow deletions, possibly exploratory, with likely sockpuppetry

• White Devil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crimson Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

White Devil repeatedly deletes information from (among others) Iggy Pop, typically up to last warning, cools it for a week or so, then resumes vandalizing. This pattern seems to seems to fly under WP:AIV's radar as on several occassions they refuse to block because editor "hasn't vandalized after a final warning".[8] [9] It has been difficult to pursuade WP:AIV to give this editor even a short term, "warning" block.

Today this editor tag-teams with Crimson Head for identical edits, which should extend final warning timeouts considerably. As I type this, WP:AIV are sitting and waiting for another vandalism edit that characteristically will not happen.[10]

No idea what White Devil's motivation is, might be testing the system. User deletes and otherwise vandalizes other articles as well. WP:AIV perceive that some of this editor's contributions are constructive. However since some of this user's edits are misinformation, the value of the positive ones is debatable, especially since they are unsourced. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is resolved for now. Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 11:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

COI or not COI?

I reported Langbar International on User talk:Satori Son as I thought it attack page after checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nigelpwsmith . Satori Son reported it on User talk:RHaworth. User RHaworth dismissed it even after saying that the author appears to be involved in 'Langbar Action Group'.

I would like to bring it to your kind notice that same user-Nigelpwsmith went on adding 'Langbar fraud' to Barry Townsley and Serious Fraud Office (UK). I clearly see conflict of interest here. I seek your opinion. Thanks. sharara 10:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to report this at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The volunteers there are very experienced, and the cases remain on the board longer. Something like this may take time to investigate and resolve. As a preliminary measure, I've added {{COI}} to the main article. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that WP:COIN board exist. One more curious thing is message from anonymous IP on Talk:Sharara which originate from UK. I wonder how this person searched article created by me and what this person has to do with hindi language. If he had been hindi speaking Indian, he was free to discuss with me on hindi language. I am ready to debate. Langbar is in UK and this IP originates from UK, it makes me suspicious. Thanks. sharara 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia

I just came across a revert war gone totally wild (30+ reversions in a day between two users) on National Liberation War of Macedonia. I'm in the embarrassing situation of having realised the extent of the revert-warring only after I'd decided on a revert myself, purely on grounds of preserving grammar corrections, and I IAR'd in then applying short-time protection myself nevertheless. Please see my explanation on Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia and review as you see fit.

Note that this article is part of the recently opened "Macedonia" Arbcom case, where I'll submit a note on the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti Om (film)

Resolved

 – Reverted by User:BorgQueen. GlassCobra 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the turnaround time is on WP:RFPP so I'm duplicating this somewhat urgent issue on this board. Om Shanti Om (film) was protected from IP vandalism, but the proecting admin left the defamatory vandalism in the article by accident. The diff of the IP edit can be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been taken care of. Deor (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spam and COI editing by search engine optimization firm

Resolved

 – Thanks for the help.- Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some of you to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites. There are possible sock puppets advocating for a bio and corporate article of a SEO firm' CEO and the firm itself. For several years I have kept watch over the SEO-related articles because they are a honeypot for SEO spammers and COI editors. By nipping these folks in the bud when they start articles about their own firm, we prevent them from creating dozens of advertisements within Wikipedia for their clients. An IP editor, first edit, has accused me of attempting to delete the article because the fellow competes with me. Well, I'm in the US and he's in the UK, and we have no connection whatsoever, but I'd rather that somebody else handled this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see too many "keep votes" there, could you please provide some diffs for this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the thread here I've gone through and added some refs and some more info to the article, seems to be alright as per WP:BIO just noting here so I don't get accused later of being a sock/SPA :P I'm not paranoid, it's happened before. - Dureo 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, VivioFateFan, your account was created in late October and immediately started making lots of WikiGnome edits.[11] The activity of this account shows that it's either an alternate account, or a replacement account of an experienced user. You yourself have suggested keeping the article.[12] - Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikignoming- Well, I had to start somewhere, and this seemed the easiest place to start.

Policy knowledge- My "extensive knowledge" of this is only because I have reviewed most of them at least 10-12 times.

Point 2- I have to admit was just laziness on my part. I went under the assumption— without checking the page's history— that the page wasn't sourced before, and now is. I also have to admit that I didn't even check whether the sources were reliable or not in this paticular instance.

I will accept whatever sanctions Wikipedia applies towards me with no complaints.VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby slap you with the wet haddock that can be found here. You are free to take the haddock and slap me once. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this resolve the issue for you, Jehochman? — Sebastian 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An article, an old OTRS ticket, a user and accusations...

I am a fairly new administrator and I have found myself in an odd situation that I don't know how to handle. I am a party, so I don't want to accidentally misuse any admin powers.

I summarized the situation leading up to this incident in this request for an OTRS review. The reviewer generally agreed with my position, stated here. As a result, I reverted to my recent edit, with a polite explanation; however, the other party (more on this individual in a second) reverted it back claiming that the OTRS review was incorrect. This is where I need to explain a bit further: during the original OTRS back in July, I received an email from this user that made the rather incredible claim that they were working on behalf of USC (I wasn't sure if that was true); I tried to talk them out of making bad COI edits, but to no avail --because of the OTRS ticket I wasn't sure how to proceed (it was my first time seeing one and the OTRS agent didn't explain things very clearly) --but I kept all of this correspondence in case the situation became a problem. Because the same user was now disputing the OTRS with weaker logic, I feel that the line needed to be drawn and finally called out the WP:COI issue. I am now being accused of having an "agenda" against the article subject and the other party has claimed to have contacted the Foundation (which seems a bit outside of standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but that's not really a central issue here). Needless to say I disagree and feel my edits stand up to scrutiny on their own: please read the edit and decide whether that's true for yourselves; I'm happy to answer any questions on any of my edits on Wikipedia. I have stopped editing the actual article because I do not want to violate 3RR. The most recent comment from the other party is exceptionally self-damning, including "I have contacted colleagues at USC so they can inform the Compliance Office that you are attempting to harm a student-athlete's reputation and put his family at risk." I should state that I am, in real life, an attorney in Minnesota and from that experience I know this is starting to sound a bit, um, fantastic in both what an organization can or would do --but again, I want to be sure so I'm writing here (I now work in medical device law so "online encyclopedia issues" aren't something I regularly deal with). I spoke with another admin, and they suggested going here (in addition to possibly contacting the Foundation if the other user actually has and letting them know I am happy to answer any questions). I am open to doing anything, as I want to solve this situation. (Alas, I'll be leaving for the night soon, and I hope to make my next step after reading the input here tomorrow) Thank you for reading this situation, I will appreciate any suggestions and input. --Bobak (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is information that is hurtful to the subject of an article, then it should not be included if there has been a formal complaint to have it removed by what appears to be the mother in this case. By putting back information that was taken out does appear to violate the original complaint. It would not necessarily be COI if it is to protect someone from being harassed. By going through these edits of yours, I have to be honest, it does appear that you are trying to take both sides of an argument. In one case, you do not want Mark Sanchez to have information included from reputable sources, but on the other case, you want to include information about Mitch Mustain from similar sources. In the instance of Mark Sanchez, those are incidents that appear to have been his own actions, yet you want to take them out. In the instance of Mitch Mustain, those are incidents that appear to have been the actions of other individuals out to attack him.

So I have to state that you do not appear to have a strong argument to put information in the article for Mitch Mustain if there have been complaints to have it removed due to its negative effect on him or his family. You do have quite a history of edit warring and this appears to be the latest chapter for you. You should perhaps recuse yourself from editing this article since it appears that you may have some inappropriate agenda based on your words and editing history. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are, as you observe, many issues here, but the first that strikes me is that the edits of Caffehamp, even as they do not strictly run afoul of NLT, tend to suggest that he intends to involve extra-Wikipedia entities in a content dispute. Although there is, to be sure, nothing the Foundation or any individual editor should fear from the involvement of the "USC Compliance Office", neither is there anything actually worrisome about many of the legal threats we encounter here, but we nevertheless block indefinitely because, for one, we (correctly, IMHO) view attempts at coercing editors as quite pernicious and as profoundly acollaborative; since certain of the edits of Caffehamp are of the same character as legal threats, then, and since his edits are confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez, I wonder if we might not do well to block, at least until such time as the user clarifies his intent vis-a-vis IRL "authorities". Joe (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I somehow failed to scroll down Special:Contributions/Caffehamp; "confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez" is, I now see, erroneous, and since the editor is not, I now gather, a single-issue user committed to pushing a POV contrary to consensus, as first I read him to be, the whole "block indefinitely" thing ought probably to be disregarded. Joe (talk)

In apologizing to Caffehamp for my non-trivial initial misreading of the situation, I have notified him of this thread and asked him to comment at his leisure... Joe (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Joe.

In regards to this issue, the main point I am raising here is that the content Bobak keeps putting in clearly causes distress and harassment to a 19 year old student-athlete at USC, which is a concern that has been raised by his family with Wikipedia. That is why there was mention of the USC Compliance Office being informed in regards to Bobak being an alumnus of USC; not a legal threat. Since Bobak attends USC athletic events, they should be made aware that he is the reason why Mitch Mustain's family have disputed information that he has put on Wikipedia that puts them at risk of continued harassment and threats against his family. By including content regarding how there are people who wish to cause physical harm or, even, kill Mitch Mustain's mother on Wikipedia, despite their earlier complaints that such information regarding action by those at the University of Arkansas was damaging to Mustain's reputation and caused distress, Bobak is not only putting Mustain's family at risk, it is considered harassment to attempt to link one set of events to another without knowing the full facts of the situation, especially considering that Mustain's family disputed the issues in an OTRS ticket in July.

As far as using "reputable sources," this again goes back to the initial complaint in July. Those "reputable sources" only present one side of the issue, having come from the University of Arkansas, with Mustain never having made any comments, one way or the other, regarding the situation due to his position. By not speaking on the issue, Bobak has asserted that Mustain does not dispute those facts. Again, according to the OTRS complaint, that is not the case. The threats against Mustain's mother and harassing messages have all come from people within the University of Arkansas' athletic department, while Mustain cannot speak both due to his position and for legal reasons.

Now in regards to Mark Sanchez, if one goes to the talk page of that article Talk:Mark_Sanchez, one sees that Bobak has consistently attempted to remove information that could put Sanchez in a negative light and he himself stated "The issue wasn't about painting him in the best light, it was about how much information violates the principle outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm." Based on Bobak's own statement, he is clearly violating this principal in regards to Mitch Mustain as Mustain's family has asserted that these comments not only harm this student-athlete, it is subjecting them to harassment and puts them at risk. If Mustain is a 19 year old student-athlete at USC who plays football, it is inappropriate to include on Wikipedia information regarding how people affiliated with the University of Arkansas seek to physically harm or, even, kill his mother. That immediately puts them at risk. Likewise, putting information regarding a booster who has harassed him, causing significant distress already, also adds to the harm to both his reputation and his family's well-being.

So Bobak's constant attempts to put information on Mustain's article not only attempts to link one set of unrelated events to other events without knowing the full story, they also harm Mustain's family and put them at risk. They already complained about this issue in July and it was resolved, but Bobak insists on putting it back, yet has long attempted to take out information about another student-athlete at USC under the premise that it causes harm.

This should not even be an issue. If Mustain's family believe this is harmful to a 19 year old student-athlete and causes them harassment, and places them at risk, which they already have, it should not be included. Caffehamp (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote some on this yesterday, but decided to delve a bit deeper today. Let me start off by saying that I have no affiliation with USC or Arkansas and my alma mater did not even have a football team. I do enjoy college football and have contributed to college basketball articles, but mostly stick to popular culture. Looking at my history, you can all see that I have never engaged in an edit war in all my time at Wikipedia and that is saying quite a bit. Whenever I make changes, I describe the changes, with no one engaging in back and forth editing. So hopefully that qualifies me as an impartial observer here.

So after seeing Bobak's user page User:Bobak saying that he is a graduate of USC, I looked up the USC definition of a booster on their athletic site and it is described as alumni who "have been involved in any way with promoting USC’s athletic programs," which would include posting pictures and biographies on sites such as Wikipedia. So based on that, Bobak can be identified as a USC booster, which would make his claims that Caffehamp has a WP:COI to be quite hypocritical. Bobak could be considered to have a COI, too.

I went back and sifted through Talk:Mitch_Mustain and Talk:Mark Sanchez and several things struck out to me. These are two people who are both players in the quarterback position at USC, so I would assume they would be competing against each other in the future. Therein lies much of the problem that I encountered with the two articles. With Mark Sanchez, Bobak has a history of edit warring to portray this Mark Sanchez person in a very positive way, with his main editing issue being that he has tried to remove significant information about what appears to be an arrest in the 2006 season for suspicion of sexual assault. For this Mark Sanchez person, Bobak has tried to change the wording for the arrest to his own POV wording while trying to reduce the information available there on the grounds that it harms that person. With Mitch Mustain, Bobak has repeatedly put in information that makes this Mitch Mustain person come across in a negative way, including putting information that an OTRS request by Mitch Mustain's family believed was hurtful. With that information removed for several months, Bobak has put the information back in.

So all things considered, I would have to say that based on Bobak's editing history of these two football players at his alma mater, it does appear that he favors portraying the Mark Sanchez person in a positive way and wants to remove negative information and factual wording and wants to put in negative information about the Mitch Mustain person that is considered hurtful to his family. I do not believe the information about wanting to hurt this Mitch Mustain's mother should be included. That would be considered harmful, hurtful and stressful to the Mustain family. I also do not see what the criminal view that some people have (which is, quite rationally, very disturbed) regarding Mitch Mustain's mother has to do with inclusion on his article. Based on that, I would have to say this information not only does not belong on the Mitch Mustain article, if it has been known to cause hurt and harm due to an official complaint, it should be removed. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I looked up the OTRS ticket. The fundamental problem is that this is subject to multiple, conflicting accounts. The text as included gave only one of them, and also linked to the content of offensive emails. In my view the events are neither significant enough nor well enough covered by properly independent reportage. We should not include this content. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that other editors have looked over the situation, and now please allow me to respond to some comments made about me, which I believe can be tied back into the topic at hand: does the OTRS ticket from July still hold sway over information published in November (which in turn have no negative comment to say about Mustain or his family).

Since my previous actions regarding Mark Sanchez have been brought up, I will address them: my position on the Sanchez article is that as a criminal charge that was not ever prosecuted due to a lack of evidence, I was concerned there was too much information (criminal law issues are treated with different than civil law issues --as an attorney, it makes me a bit more nervous). With that said, the current article remains with CaffeHamp's information because I really can't dispute its current state (it was whittled down through edits back and forth, the only thing I can't say is that it was totally amiable). However, outside of Caffehamp there were incidents (that predate his involvement with that article) that are tied to a single sock-master who was banned but still had a few accounts that were eventually swept by me and another editor (open proxy issue). I have never abused my admin privileges in the content dispute (and we know a dispute does not automatically equal an "edit war" accusation), and I've worked around the information Caffehamp's put in that article. I am treating the issue on the criminal charges in the Sanchez article as settled (and my edit history demonstrates that). An editor should never have to apologize for good faith edits and disputes if they are willing to concede, which I have done. Bringing up this issue is fine, but does pull the issue away from the facts of the Mustain article's situation.

With respect to JzG comments regarding the original OTRS, the media does not have multiple conflicting accounts (especially in the months after that OTRS complaint). Please re-read the information I've added as well as the sources: All accounts, especially in the recent month I cited to, agree. On top of that, the issue that is being argued by Caffehamp is that I am adding negative information about the subject. Here's what's even more odd: the articles do not disparage Mitch Mustain, the people who are getting the worst of these articles are Houston Nutt and the Arkansas staff. He claims the information is all coming from the University of Arkansas: then why is the University of Arkansas coming off so badly in the articles? So this argument that I am trying to "harm Mitch Mustain" doesn't make sense because this is, at worst, a bizarre side show he happens to have been been inadvertantly involved in. So this accusation that I am trying to harm Mustain while help Sanchez is also demonstratably incorrect: nothing I have added about Mustain in any edit has given a negative image to his ability as a football player, a person, or as a future quarterback --please point to cases otherwise and I will be happy to take a look.

Finally: The definition of booster for any university includes anyone who graduated, anyone who is a family member of a graduate, and even broader groups that would create absurd problems in COI and university articles. I am a USC and University of Minnesota alum, I edit a lot of USC-related articles (and players), but I do not feel I have a proven POV issue because I've added NPOV information to every player, almost always with citation (again, I stand by my edit history --not what others summarize it as). Unlike Caffehamp, I do not claim to work for the University or on behalf of the University. Caffehamp has openly admited to writing on behalf of the USC sports information department in an email I am happy to provide to any third party for evidence as well as in this edit. Having him point the COI arrow at me is, well, interesting. My goals on this website are to include interesting stories, but avoid things that could create legal issues; I, in good faith, feel that criminal charges (that were never followed through on) could be dicey if not written correctly, but I did not see (and continue to not see) the negative side of any of the information I have written on the Mustain article in regards to Mitch Mustain himself. I turned the article from a stub into a big article, and any careful review of my edits will show that I have no bias against him --just accusations of bias, which, I hope, other editors here can see or point me to where I am incorrect (in which case I will eat crow).

Thank you for any continued attention. --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, you need to stop your obsession with CafeHamp. It does not even matter if Cafe Hamp is the president of USC, as Joe quite rightly pointed out above, any review will show that CafeHamp has always conducted himself with class and never pushed a POV against consensus, or POV in any way. In fact, this CafeHamp user has always come across as being quite rational and fair, always pushing for accuracy in articles and not trying to link unrelated issues to lead the reader to believe something that may not be accurate. Just accept that your POV was not accepted by consensus and there are people who could be subjected to harm and hurt by your actions. I am saying this as an uninvolved party and am calling it as I see it based on the actions of your edits and discussions on talk pages. CafeHamp cannot be blamed for being anything but calling for accuracy and preventing someone's family from being subjected to harm. In regards to evidence of your bias, the Mark Sanchez article and discussion page is sufficient proof that you wish to inject your own wording and choice of what is included to portray a subject in a favorable way, while ignoring what was really the situation as stated by law enforcement agencies. No more needs to be added to that. So I urge you to stop this obsession that is hurting your credibility. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not merely about Caffehamp, this was about whether or not an OTRS ticket still applies to clear and consise articles that were written several months later that happen to state that the supposed party "against its posting" here is actually involved without hiding their involvement. With respect, SouthFerryRoad, you have not actually pointed to any actual POV other than simply saying I have edits with POV. Please show me and I will apologize and drop it entirely. I admit this situation isn't black or white, but I find this comment not grounded in any evidence. Wikipedia is about evidence, track records and using those to make a point. Simply calling me a POV pusher doesn't make it true unless you can point to where I've done it. You have not stated how the information I added in this edit actually harmed anyone or portrayed his family in a negative way. If you hurl an accusation, please have evidence. I have nothiing more to say about Mark Sanchez than I said earlier (criminal charges are handled differently in the American legal system than civil --law enforcement agencies said "it wasn't enough to level charges" = innocence in our American criminal justice system, unless you know otherwise; but I concede the current write up is adequate), other than you cannot dismiss my work on the Mustain article simply because of it. There was no "consensus" on Mitch Mustain, it was one-to-one with an outdated OTRS that no one outside of OTRS is permitted to see. You are also incorrect in your assesment of WP:COI, as writing on behalf of an organization is not generally our policy, please re-review it. --Bobak (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's indefinite block of an established editor

This very long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size within reason.

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor

Please don't put any timestamps in this section, unless you want it to be archived. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk

Archive. Mercury

You need to add a timestamp to do that. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias, lack of consensus and misuse of administrative powers

Resolved

 – Libertyinfo has continued to play the man not the ball, so has been blocked indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Water Fluoridation Controversy article, User:jersyko has repeatedly deleted, edited and revised information so aggressively and over such a long period of time so as to indicate personal bias. As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy, for 16 months he has regularly and unilaterally deleted information from a variety of editors under the guise that they never comply with various Wikipedia policies. The policies cited for these deletions are usually subjective, but his revisions are frequently made without discussion and always without consensus. Here's a typical diff that has "too much detail": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=169091696 IIRC, as one of the original authors of the Water Fluoridation article, he mandated that any alternative or controversial information be forked to a new "Controversy" article, which he zealously guards, reverting and revising when any controversial information is presented. When he's through, the article bears no resemblance to the original. Later, any objectionable portions that still remain are edited again or buried further down the article. Just take a look at the above diff from two weeks ago and the current version. From time to time, this bias and censorship has been noted and commented on by other editors, including at least one other administrator. Jersyko's response is to always demand good faith, even when it hasn't been demonstrated.

I must admit to a certain amount of recent incivility and lack of good faith, but some of this is frustration over his bulldozer attitude that totally disregards any other opinion and an unfounded accusation that I was probably the same person who asked why he buried a section that I was recently defending (which gave him the excuse he was looking for to revert it again.) Allowing an obviously biased administrator to have unfettered control over an article without requiring that he seek consensus or demonstrate a NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about. Libertyinfo (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I assumed good faith from Libertyinfo for quite some time, Libertyinfo consistently revealed him/herself to be a single purpose account with a POV-pushing agenda. If anything, I've probably been too patient thus far, too willing to offer a compromise (which was rejected). Good luck with this . . . · jersyko talk 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note some POV pushing by libertyinfo to the (already messy) colloidal silver article.[13] Skinwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Libertyinfo has also been editing as an anon with a non-static IP. Some of his/her IPs can be found in this subsection of a relevant talk page. · jersyko talk 14:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that Libertyinfo is an aggressive POV-pusher and we should give him one more chance to clean up his act or conclude that he is not helpful to the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia and send him packing. Kudos to Jersyko and others for trying long and hard to work with this person - seems to me in return he's not interested in workign with anyone who does not accept his POV uncritically. Shape up or ship out, Libertyinfo. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I already gave him a friendly warning which went over his head, apparently. --Haemo (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I appreciate the warning and it did not go over my head. But why is no one addressing the central issue here? That being the propriety of one administrator taking it upon himself to delete and revise the contributions of not just myself, but many other editors over a 16-month period, usually without discussion and definitely without consensus. Has anyone even looked at how extensive these changes have been and how many editors have been deleted and revised? Isn't consensus and neutrality what Wikipedia is about? Is it really acceptable policy for one person -- especially an administrator -- to unilaterally and aggressively act as a gatekeeper of information contained in an article over an extended period of time? If it is, then I stand corrected. Libertyinfo (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. You're currently hearing a consensus that your approach is highly problematic. Speaking of consensus, have you made efforts to achieve consensus? My read of the talk page shows you making quite a few accusations and repeatedly focusing on an "opposing" editor rather than the content issues and relevant Wikipedia policies. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets

Sfacets (talk · contribs) was blocked recently by Blnguyen for brinksmanship at WP:PUI but unblocked when he agreed to discontinue delisting his own images there. Since he was unblocked, he has been generally uncivil at his talk page and at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_25, where he twice removed my warnings that by inviting other editors to review files he set up on his own server, he was collecting their IP addresses. (According to Will Beback, the text file in his directory includes the comment: "Thanks for your IP addresses.") I have blocked him for 1 week for continuing incivility and POINT violations, but I am posting this here because I have been involved in the back and forth with him, and because it was my comments he was removing. Thanks for your assistance! -- But|seriously|folks  01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time, do not exercise your admin privileges with users you are involved with. There are plenty of admins around to block people that merit a block, so that you do not compromise your position as a admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Sorry about that. -- But|seriously|folks  04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in disputes with Sfacets, and find him to be one of the most tendentious editors around. This is his third block in a month.[14] When I recently warned him that he violated 3RR he complained that I didn't give him enough time for him to undo all of his reverts.[15] The article was protected, but as soon as the protection was lifted he again restored his reverts. A few days later I reported him again for 3RR after a warning, and he promised to stick to 1RR in exchange for an early unblock, but was edit-warring again within five days.[16] He has long exhibited ownership over Sahaja Yoga, a movement he belongs to, as well as related articles. He's shown bias by adding or restoring poorly-source negative material about rival movements. Sfacets has had previous blocks shortened due to promising to change his behavior, but I think he's actually gotten worse instead. I'll prepare a set of recent diffs later so the community can see the scope and nature of the problem and see if there's a long-term solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not "collecting their IP addresses" - do you have any basis for this claim? You were poisoning the well against me, perhaps in a bid to persuade other editors to agree with your attempt to delete images uploaded by me. — Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I think the statement in readme.txt thanking readers for their IP addresses is a pretty good basis. Even though you've recently changed it to avoid scrutiny, it's still in Google's cache. -- But|seriously|folks  03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one POINT edit, and was not uncivil. Not that these are valid reasons for a block. The simple fact of the mater is, I removed edits by this editor, and he/she got anoyed, and is now blocking me, abusing admin priviledges, since he is involved in an edit conflict with me. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are at the matter of Invivility - here is a prime example of ongoing harassment by Will Beback. Far from commenting on edits, he appears to make it his mission on WIkipedia to target users, stalk them, [17], [18], ... , and harass them. I have seen many editors complain of this, and once my block is lifted I will ask the community what they think of his behaviour.

Will Bebacks' interpretatio of my edits is flawed, I have been contributing on WIkipedia since 2004, on a variety of topics. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of Sfacets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, Will Beback is a respected member of the community and a respected administrator. The fact that he may have opposing views to yours is no basis for a complaint. Yes, you edit a myriad of articles, but you keep making the same mistakes again and again despite a lot of understanding shown by admins that have dealt with you in the past. By now, you should know better: don't edit war; don't engage in tendentious editing; just be a good contributor and stay away from trouble. Otherwise you may end up being stripped of your editing privileges, and not just for a week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the blocking admin statement that I am agreeable to anything an uninvolved admin believes is appropriate. , I have reduced the block to 48 hours. Sfacets: See this as a chance for you to avoid repeating your mistakes. Next time around, you will be blocked for one month and I do not think anyone will challenge that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If a 48 hour block results in changed behavior then that's the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We shall see... It is up to Sfacet to demonstrate that he/she can change his behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Leader Blocked

Academy Leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to Wikipedia, and on the second edit [19] demonstrated that the account's purpose was to carry water for Wikipedia's critics, not write an encyclopedia. More from the first dozen edits: [20][21][22]. Within the first dozen edits this account is trolling policy talk pages, advocating for Wikipedia Review, a site that attacks and harasses our volunteers: [23]. Trying to get a link to slander and then discuss it: [24]. Justifies convenience links to harassment: [25].

Trolling an administrator: [26] Advocating for links to harassment sites: [27] Requesting policy RFC within first 50 edits. Is this really a new user? [28] No, it's a sock of Amerique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Disclosed: [29]

Stirring up trouble at Talk:Martin Luther, although the account never seems to have edited that, or any significant number of other articles: [30][31][32][33][34] Check this one: [35]

Gets involved in promoting an agenda at Gracenotes' RFA: [36] Dang, I supported this RFA, and Academy Leader responded to me: [37] [38]

Continuing through the contribution history to present, I see more of the same. This account has made just 7 mainspace edits of 530 total. [39] There's virtually no contributions of encyclopedic content. On the contrary, this account is used primarily for disruption. It homes in on any controversy and blows smoke.

The account comments to Privatemusings (talk · contribs): "I noticed your recent drama and just wanted to say I was entirely sympathetic to you. Like you, I created this SPA account so as not to let my "political" opinions get in the way of my editing activities. However, I didn't care about publicly revealing my old account when asked about it, as I was dealing with a different set of people than I was previously, and when I resumed editing articles under that handle I rather more rigorously kept this account confined to policy discussions, so less "drama," as it were, seems attracted to me." [40]

For the above reasons, I have blocked this bad hand account indefinitely. The user may continue using the good hand account, Amerique (talk · contribs). Please do not reverse this block without discussion and consensus. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned with what appears to be another poorly reasoned and inappropriately executed block of an editor account whose only infraction appears to argue viewpoints that differ from that of the blocking admin. I would comment that I am so concerned that I have given Jehochman a warning regarding his disruptive editing in applying blocks without reference to the processes and policies of Wikipedia. My own opinion is that the actions enumerated above do not constitute disruption that is remedied by an indefinite block, but that is not the grounds on which I am disputing the validity of the action taken.

I am unaware of any prior discussion between any parties prior to Jehochman issuing the block; there is therefore no consensus for the block. There has been no specific warnings issued to Academy Leader about the concerns mentioned above, and thus no violation of warnings which would permit the placing of a block. Lastly, the diffs provided are largely historical and indicate that Academy Leader has not suddenly turned rogue nor has developed a recent pattern of editing that required such action.

I hope other administrators will agree that the block is improperly applied, has not achieved consensus (and that consensus is required for a block to be enacted, not for one injudicially applied to be lifted), and should be lifted to permit Academy Leader to join in any discussion on whether the actions of that account is liable for blocking in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Academy Leader, like Privatemusings, is an account that is created just for drama. I would also add that Academy Leader made a taunting post about the real life identity of another contributor, with whom he was in conflict. I am not going to post the details here, but I did make it known to some members of the ArbCom. Basically, he was insinuating that User:X is real life person Y, and while in an argument with X, he posted a link to Y's personal website or blog, saying something like "What a coincidence, they both do this, and they've both had that experience. Maybe they should write to each other." It was taunting. It was completely unnecessary. And it was not for the purpose of arguing a point about how to improve the content of an article. It was simply posted for the fun of trolling. People who are here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia don't do that. Academy Leader escaped an indefinite block at the time, but has continued carrying on drama. ElinorD (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, as I noted above, the user has another account in good standing. He discloses the identity of the other account at User:Academy Leader. That other account is certainly free to come here and dispute the block. Likewise, I have asked you to refactor the "warning" which you admitted to issuing before investigating the facts of the matter.[41] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. The early diffs and subsequent behavior show Academy Leader is a special-purpose account for pursuing controversy, and engaging in meta-commentary about process. In other words, it's a drama-only account, not here to write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, good block. The encyclopedia is the point, not an afterthought. Account was only here to make a point. Shell ^babelfish 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The block is good. See WP:DE. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent block. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to create or support drama, or play games. Crum375 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse completely. It is not acceptable to maintain a separate account for tendentious edits and drama. There is no compelling reason why these edits could not be made with the main account. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Block of this one account was appropriate per WP:GHBH. As Jehochman stated, this long-time editor is free to contribute to this discussion and elsewhere using their primary account. — Satori Son 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. The account wasn't making any positive contributions, and was creating or maintaining controvery. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block...accounts set up just to engage in whatever ongoing drama there is and are not being used to write an encyclopedia, which is our primary mission, should be blocked.--MONGO (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• The idea of having a sockpuppet for controversial issues is that you might not want people following you from, say, Intelligent design to everywhere else you edit. You don't get to do things like this on a seperate account to avoid scrutiny. -Amarkov moo! 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a good example of a permissible use is if your main account is readily identifiable to your RWI and you want to help clean up after a problematic editor on pedophilia articles or some such. Using a separate account for drama is not in the spirit of WP:SOCK however much people might want to wikilawyer about it. If you have a position on a controversial policy area, then stand up and say it. It will get more weight anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Would someone reblock Academy Leader with autoblock disabled? --Iamunknown 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, sorry about that. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks :-) --Iamunknown 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my initial concern with this block is not with the use of alternative accounts, which I have now had the opportunity to review, but the process. This I did attempt to review; there were no warnings and no indication of consensus; simply one individuals actions following their view of what might be considered disruptive. In many ways the agreed process with dealing with a WP:BOLD action is to Delete (or Revert) and discuss, however my participation in attempting to redefine Wheel war (in the light of recent events) further disinclines me to go against the actions of another admin. I still maintain that the block was made out of process, that it should be undone and Academy Leader be permitted to state their case. As I understand it, this is how it is supposed to happen.

My consideration of the evidence is that there is no disruption, that this is an account that is being used in accordance with WP:SOCK; an alternative account being used in some contentious areas of discussing WP policy, which the editor wishes to disassociate from their article editing account. It is not a case of Good Hand/Bad Hand because the two accounts are not used in the same field to give the impression of two dissenting views, nor to circumnavigate any sanction against another account, and that (by Jehochman's provided diff) that the relationship between the accounts is both noted and reasoned. As regards disruption, I see nothing other than the presentation of a viewpoint which - while against consensus - is argued forcibly but politely and informs many policy discussions. The only drama generated is from the passion of the viewpoints, and the responses; there are no actions taken by this account which violate any of the policies they are arguing.

To that last point, I would ask some questions; if this were not an alternative account but the one used for editing articles, would a) there have been a block for the comments made regarding policy - notwithstanding the well regarded edits to mainspace - and b) would there have been a discussion beforehand and warnings given? If, as I suggest, that there a) would not, a b) would have, then I believe that this account operated in good faith application of WP:SOCK and should have the sanctions lifted.

I will also make a special pleading, outside of policy. This is not the only case today of application of an indef block of an account followed by a note to ANI. While there are differences (Jehochman provided material supporting his argument for the action) there is a similarity in that actions are made without consensus, and that consensus is then required for any variation. It isn't the way things should be nor have been done. I request that the openness and fairness of Wikipedia's processes be reconfirmed by the lifting of the block immediately and the allowing of Academy Leader to participate in this discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He can participate right now. The main account is not blocked, and he has disclosed the relationship, so there is no confidentiality issue. One working account is sufficient for most editors. I see no urgency to enable the second. Furthermore, we have here a very strong consensus that the block was appropriate. I think we need to avoid getting wrapped around the process axle. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and Arbcom has told me recently that they want administrators to take whatever action is necessary to protect the project, and that we have broad discretion to do so. Unlike the other cases you suggest, I have provided clear evidence, and I have not prevented the user from editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

Like me Omegatron you are clearly not a disinterested party to the reference tag dispute that has been going on for a long time on the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline page([42] [43] [44] [45] etc). So given that this action was clearly against the above statement in the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I am asking an administrator who is not a party to the dispute to remove the protection or to revert you last edit and reinstate the protection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Rejected.

Sigh. So I'm "involved in the dispute" because I tried to stop it? Or am I involved because I continued to try to stop it after you kept right on revert warring? Is it possible to do anything as an admin without becoming an "interested party"? Anyone can look through my edits to the page to see the extent of my "involvement".

Philip Baird Shearer has been disrupting this guideline page, reverting to his preferred version dozens of times over many months, and ignoring all the comments on the talk page rejecting his proposal. All this fuss, over a completely trivial point of the Manual of Style, just because it's contrary to his personal aesthetic preference. It's completely ridiculous. What should I have done in this situation? Consensus only works when people are agreeable. — Omegatron 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate whether you (Omegatron) think that I am disrupting WP:FOOT guideline page" --- I think that the talk page shows that I have been actively engaged with other editors in trying to reach a compromise on this issue -- this is about an administrator protecting a page after making an edit to a version in a section that is under dispute (and which until you made your last edit contained a {{disputedtag}} template). Making such an edit and then protecting the page is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy (Content disputes|). I think that if you were acting in accordance with the protection policy you would have protected the page at 23:15, on 17 November 2007 instead of making this edit. By making that edit you restated you previous position and yet again became an active a party to the dispute. As a responsible administrator please reverse you protection of the page now that it has been pointed out to you that you action was in breach of a Wikpeidia policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, you took a clear stance on the issue at the heart of this dispute in the poll more than two weeks ago. Given that there are hundreds upon hundreds of administrators who have not participated in the discussion at all, I don't think it was appropriate for you to revert (twice) to the version you support, then protect the page on your preferred version. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I note that the page has no {{protected}} tag, which neutral administrators routinely add to disputed pages protected to the Wrong Version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts in 15 minutes and then one of the involved parties protecting on their version is not appropriate use of the protection button (and with only those three reverts in the whole day, protection was way premature in any case). I have unprotected the page for now, with the hope that discussion will continue on the talk page without further edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scam Artist, Conman and Fraud

This concerns the article on Goncz Hi-Tec Pistols which is written by a scam artist conman who has defrauded many people by non-delivery of articles paid for on his web-site which is linked to the person's name in the article aforementioned. This article is written by the person who the article refers to as the Hungarian Inventor, Lajos John Goncz. The article cannot be verified other than by linking to other articles written by this man, except for a dated announcement of a lawsuit against him for copyright infringement which you can see the article has been written to defend his actions.

His ploy is to gather trust at forums and collect orders from his web site. He has been in and out of various forums, including candlepower, survival, and Bladeforum as I kept track of his posting and advertisements in order to intercept his discourse. There are literally hundreds of postings around the web involving goncz over the years and he has himself quite a notoriety, goncz has been involved in promoting himself as a technical expert in firearms, mechanical, electro-mechanical devices and flashlights and he has some history of firearms assembly with a hybrid pistol called the hi-tech, of course. He was basically heckled out of the blade forum but apparently he does deliver some variation of a misrepresented flashlight to some of his customers. It seems he targets those who are out of state for his scams. I believe his name is Janos; He was living in North Hollywood and had a fake business in Las Vegas which is what he uses as a cover operation to run his website.

I have just been contacted by a person named Mark who just lost $4000 by way of non-delivered goods. He is not the only person to contact me, and I am also a victim of his scam, losing $700.

Here is part of Mark's letter: I do not disclose Mark's last name of contact but can contact him to verify everything written here is absolutely true.

From - Chrismar (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Chrismar Chris Mar

The article in question appears to be Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

10 ghits, probably not verifiable. Does anyone want to do the honours, as I'm logging off for the night? MER-C 12:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the emails for the reasons cited in the drop-down box. Please don't readd them. Daniel 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the AfD nom sorted properly. Having a / in the title is a pain... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol.

The initial edits of this thread are BLP violations. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Claus

Resolved

There is a removed category (Wikipedians Who Like The Big Guy In The Red Suit) that shows up in the Talk page of the article, and folk cannot seem to find it. Could an admin lend a hand in removing it? To further my own knowledge base, would who ever does so please post here how they found the darn thing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is where the problem stems from. The userbox automatically adds that category. I've removed the userbox since it has no place on the talk page since it in no way, shape, or form helps to improve the article. Metros (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Metros. I would like to say that I suspected that the userbox might be part of the issue, but the only connection I made was they both seemed silly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

Moved from WP:AIV Woodym555 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this is right place but .... This are comments of user:Justiceinwiki on my talk page [46] Can you block him for few days ? In reality this block will not help very much because he has opened 10 socks for editing only 1 article but until end of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki this must be enough. --Rjecina 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally block without warning first. I've left a warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A permanently blocked editor has returned

Resolved

Permanently blocked User:Mark75322222 has returned today as User:Mark753222222. 156.34.224.2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:141.151.90.105

Resolved

Somebody want to block this guy? Persistant vandal who was blocked just yesterday for 24 hours, and is now back and page blanking, and is making legal threats - [47]. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Oxymoron83 has done the honors. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What can be done about this?

Resolved

 – Several editors blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Hopefully dispute resolution is effective when the blocks expire.

User:GundamsRus has been reverting most of my edits lately and falsely calling my edits vandalism in edit summaries. This is just another example of the disruptive and contentious edits this sockpuppet continues to make to Gundam articles and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Can something be done about this, please? Jtrainor (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While GundamRus doesn't appear to be going about it very well, their edits don't appear to be disruptive, e.g. the in-universe tag you keep removing from various places seem like they should be there, and you should stop removing them, bare in mind the 3 revert rule. This is not a matter concerning admins, it is a content dispute, and the two of you need to take it to the talk pages of the articles concerned.--Jac16888 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking further into it, it seems that you are not exactly a model wikipedian. For starters there's your userpage, care to explain the "jewish conspiracy" comments? Plus there is what could be construed as attacks on two other editors. Then there's your talk page, which shows you maybe need to read WP:OWN and WP:Fiction just for starters, not to mention WP:CIVIL--Jac16888 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MalikCarr, Jtrainor, GundamsRus, and A Man In Black have all been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on multiple articles over an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud Mr.Z-man for his actions, I've witnessed way too much edit-warring going on among these four parties for too long on many articles. east.718 at 04:12, November 19, 2007

I'll spam Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam again, but I filed that request before it literally exploded – GundamsRus wasn't around, and the breadth of articles have widened to at least a dozen more Gundam articles than the original three when GR was not there. Everyone just keep reverting after the page protections and/or blocks go away. GR toed the line with a 3RR block a week ago, though. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot help needed

Resolved

I've never had to ask this before, so I'm not sure where to put it. I think most bots are run by admins, so could someone tell me if one could help here? We have 250ish afd templates to remove from articles and oldafd templates to toss on these articles.. I'd rather not do it by hand [48].--Crossmr (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ill nuke the AfD templates. β^_command 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

71.239.133.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Resolved

• Continues to not sign posts to talk pages, in violation of "You should sign and date your contributions on all talk pages by typing four tildes: (~~~~)" on Guideline Wikipedia:Talk page#Using_talk_pages.
• Continues to make uncivil Edit Summaries, in violation of "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" in Policy Wikipedia:Civility#Examples, that tend to be judgemental of the editing skills of everyone who has let particular erroneous texts stay in articles for so long before this user deigned to notice and corrected those erroneous texts.
• Continues to violate "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" at Guideline Wikipedia:User page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings for every removal from the user's user talk page without reading.

I noticed this user's contributions (specifically this one) while on RC patrol early in the morning of 12 November UTC, and have tried to "take it up with them on their user talk page", but they keep removing my attempts without reading those attempts, in accordance with their posting on their user talk page, which currently reads "If you edit this page, no matter your intentions, I will undo it. This is, after all, my User Talk page, not yours."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To the first point, it looks like they've been signing more consistently; if not, {{unsigned}} is an easy enough template to gently remind them with. To the second point, I'm not sure if I see recent examples, and would appreciate if you could point them out. To the third point, I'm not sure what you're getting at. They're responding to messages left, it seems. Sure, they're not exactly being the most friendly person I've ever seen, but taking a look at things from their perspective, neither are you and Green Kirby. ;) Is there some compelling reason we need to slam them with the rulebook? Are they damaging the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To the first point, SineBot added the gentle {{tilde}} note to their user talk page as far back as 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[49]; it did not seem to help any. The very next edit is very telling - "I don't really care for this whole thing. I just come here to practice writing."[50]. To the second point, "bad spelling too" (08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[51] is not exactly a stellar example of civility. To the third point, they removed comments while still indicating they were not reading those comments as recently as this morning (07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[52], and they removed a warning while still indicating they were not reading that warning as recently as two days ago (23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[53].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of his recent talk edits have been signed. The judgemental tone in his edit summaries is nothing one could not handle. If he declares not to read messages sent towards him, it has no imminent effect; you cannot look into the editor's mind. That guideline is meant for those who put up a warning.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any urgent need for admin response. Sure, they should be signing talk page posts, but that's not some dire situation we need to start a witch hunt over. Likewise, "bad spelling" isn't the nicest thing I've ever heard about anybody, but it's far from the worst that could be said. Is this a big deal warranting this much attention? Why can't we just leave them be? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I was obligated by Wikipedia policy to sign my own edits on my own user talk page. I'll make sure to do so from now on. Incidentally, I'm at least the second user to have access to this IP address (hence the weirdly varying subject matter of edited articles). 71.239.133.107 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have seen much improvement from you in the past day. You are signing most of your talk page posts, you haven't made an uncivil Edit Summary, and you no longer claim not to read the warnings posted on the talk page for discussing your IP Address. In addition, you have done much good work on Jar Jar Binks. Consequently, I withdraw my incident report. You are still welcome to create an account to distance yourself from the other person who has used that IP Address, and for these other reasons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the Movie

Resolved

 – Restored by Cryptic Anchoress (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article just survived a near snowball keep AFD, but was deleted anyway, citing an AFD from this summer. The current AFD was authorized by DRV. What gives? I opposed the recreation of this article, but changed my mind after reviewing it again. There will be a major shitestorm if this article is not restored. - Crockspot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looks like this may have been a mistake, but I see you left a note for the administrator who deleted it 6 minutes before you filed this report. It might be worth waiting just a bit longer for him to respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if he packed it in for the night, so I was covering bases. Trying to keep ahead of the inevitable conspiracy theories. - Crockspot (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What NYB said. Six minutes isn't even enough time to post a proper "Ack, you're right!" and undelete even if you're still awake to see the message. Do bear in mind that we've been playing whack-a-mole with this article at a ridiculous number of titles, and unlike most DRV undeletions, there wasn't a restoration in the newly-afd'd article's deletion log to get anyone's attention. —Cryptic 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up for everyone - the actual movie page is Zeitgeist, the Movie - the title of this section is a redirect. Anchoress (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aware. I've undeleted both, as this was clearly an error - the deleting administrator was prompted by this helpful anon edit. —Cryptic 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy indeed! :D - *Note to self (for deleting admins): Check talkpage headers before deleting*. Anchoress (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for having contributed, albeit inadvertently, to this "shitestorm". Certainly it was the helpful link to the AfD, which I checked, that prompted the deletion (and in a strange quirk of fate, I actually remembered the AfD being closed out as a deletion, but clicked there to confirm my memory anyway). The other thing that led me to delete it without further ado was that I remembered seeing its name on the list of pages that are protected against further recreation -- I added the spelling I'd found as a sub-entry to the one that was there, thinking that someone was trying to get around the results of the AfD. I've gone and checked and someone has already gone in and deleted both entries, for which thanks. Just one thing: I'm not sure what "Check talkpage headers before deleting" might mean in the context. If there's something I need to learn here, I'd like to learn it; was there a clue I should have recognized? (I've only recently received admin tools.) Accounting4Taste:talk 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Accounting4Taste - congrats on your adminship. What I meant was that the 'deletion history' template at the top of the Zeitgeist, the Movie talkpage showed that it had been legitimately re-created and survived a recent AfD. Anchoress (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment; I did learn something, and will definitely be on the qui vive for anything that's been recreated after deletion in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the unconventional step of adding a note below the non comment "keep" close, which I wish to see retained. Thanks in advance. El_C 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Can someon take a look at Yamashita's gold? User:JimBobUSA is unilaterally deleting longstanding material, based on blatantly subjective reasons, regardless of discussion, in addition to adding material pushing his own POV. This has being going on for some days now. I have tried to reason with him and have created an RfC, regarding one issue, but he insists on continuing with controversial edits rather than discussing them. I am out of patience with him and would block him myself but am personally involved. My warnings to him are at User talk:JimBobUSA. Grant | Talk 05:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 1 week, so that the edit warring can stop and y'all can discuss. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo. We defiantly need a neutral pair of eyes. Jim (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

persistent edit warring under different user names, WP:COI

New user: Ugesum appears to be today's incarnation of AWachowski/LWachowski. He has picked up exactly where the latter left off on the BKWSU page with persistent large-scale edits without discussion or attempts to gain consensus. Further, as an extremely vehement ex-BK member he suffers from a COI (and is a single-purpose account). Please see Ugesum's first edit below and then compare with the exact same persistent edit reversions in the following difs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=172445848&oldid=172120342

(With this massive change above, identical to those difs below, this is all he wrote on the talk page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169339063&oldid=169128361
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169484684&oldid=169365976
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169512295&oldid=169496108
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169531222&oldid=169526066
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169695579&oldid=169548520
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=171341777&oldid=170961438

This is getting extremely tiresome. He just changes usernames and comes back as a different person over the different months. Can his IP be blocked? This is a waste of good-faith editors' time. Thank you for looking into this. Renee (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is under a very unusual form of probation, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. One IP editors has been banned from the article, and another is on probation. I recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, as they are probably better able to help sort this out, but the most likely direction will be to take it to the Arbitration committee for review. GRBerry (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Renee (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MobileHopper spamming

Resolved

 – Blocked and blacklisted. Oh what joy An easy one for a change. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please checkout Xiaoyezai (talk · contribs) (formerly MobileHopper (talk · contribs) ) who seems intent on spamming us with links to his/her Canadian website. He's using distinctly dishonest tactics e.g. [54] and [55]. It's pretty apparent that his/her only interest in WP is as an advertising aid. ---- WebHamster 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg and discussion of fair-use images

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use images of celebs in Biography articles? regarding whether it is acceptable to use non-free images of performers from their notable performances. During the course of the discussion, one party removed the above image from the Cillian Murphy article, stating that it was not free use, and an admin subsequently deleted it. I have two questions.

• (1) How, if at all, does one go about requesting restoration/undeletion of the image?
• (2) There was a question raised during the discussion about whether it was reasonable to delete this image while discussion is still ongoing. Are there any valid concerns regarding such conduct? John Carter (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:DRV. --Haemo (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Doctor Who sock?

Following the indef-block of Christian07TARDIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see here and here) who was a sockpuppeteer with I think 10+ socks, a new user account was created with, if memory serves, 27 minutes' interval. This new user, It takes ages to find a free username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems absurdly well-up on policy, having used the phrase 'non-notable' in an edit summary in his/her first 60 or so edits. Conversance with policy, however, doesn't seem to be one of Dwrules' strong points, however, so it may be just be on that side of things. The account's definitely a bit too knowledgeable, though. Good old Martinp23 agreed to edit for a banned user :-) and post this here for me; thanks, Martin. Would someone make sure that warning is given to ITATFAFU, too? Cheers, guys! --Porcupine (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted here by myself indeed, because I don't have the background knowledge to look at the big picture here and impose a sanction if required. Martinp23 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf (hero)

Resolved

 – no administrator action required

I moved Beowulf (hero) to Beowulf (fictional character) because I thought "fictional character" was more neutral and more in line with other fictional articles. User:Berig reverted my edits, stating that "There's a difference between legend and fiction". In the talk page, he wrote "Legendary characters, OTOH, like King Arthur and Beowulf have no identifiable original authors and there is scholarship which discusses their possible historic origins." Anyway, I still think "hero" shouldn't be used in the title for the reasons I stated before. If "fictional character" is not suitable then I think the title should be moved to Beowulf (legend) or something similar.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that CyberGhostface brings the discussion up here without even discussing the new suggestion "Beowulf (legend)" on Talk:Beowulf (hero). Notifying the ANI looks a bit excessive.--Berig (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. Note the big red letters at the top of this page reminding everyone that this is not dispute resolution. I would suggest that you keep this conversation to the relevant talk page for the time being, as this doesn't even appear to be a dispute yet. Natalie (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A unilateral move is bad practice. It may be your judgment that "fictional character" is more natural and more consistent, but making the move without getting consensus first can easily result in conflict and conflict escalation. For my part, I think Beowulf is just Beowulf the hero, because he actually has roots in more than one saga, because he gets reused, and because his function is Hero, with a big H. Never mind all that, though: moving without consensus can lead to the sorts of conflicts that do end up here. Even if it's wrong, the majority has to set the pace, and, if there is no consensus for a move, status quo has the advantage (particularly with old articles with a spiderweb of links). Geogre (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this minor dispute (but of course, I do have an opinion), it would be advisable for all editors to be aware of the principle set out in Geogre's last sentence. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to merge the article as a whole back into Beowulf. His roots elsewhere are barely mentioned in this article, and should be mentioned there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The Anglo-Saxon scribe was not very interested in psychological realism, so the character of Beowulf isn't very developed. The narrative origins belong in a "sources and analogs" section for the poem, and as Beowulf he appears only in Beowulf. Hrothgar has much more complexity as a character. Even Wiglaf is more interesting. Beowulf is an active force, not a meditative one. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please block this (my) username. Ais523 is not online.

Because it is name of Indian superstar, who was polled as 'superstar of the millenium' by BBC World. You can easily google it. Thanks. Amitabh Bachchan (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err...blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There were moments in my life when I felt like banging my head on wall. How on earth the whole world left this for me? Please block this also. I request you not to consider me as vandalist. This 'Abhishek Bachchan' is son of 'Amitabh Bachchan' and husband of Miss World, termed as most beautiful woman on earth, Aishwarya Rai. I am of her age. But I never proposed her. Otherwise... Abhishek Bachchan (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why this user decided to ask me, considering that I rarely do blocks except as sandboxing and on out-of-control bots. In case the same person is reading this thread: WP:AIV or WP:UAA would likely be better places to request blocks because they wouldn't depend on the admin you ask being online. --ais523 10:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? It sounds like the user is specifically creating usernames in order to get them blocked so no-one else will take them. But this could be accomplished just as easily by scrambling the password, and it's technically against the rules to do self-requested blocks. —Random832 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. If it gets out of hand I suggest WP:RFCU to clarify. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ATren

Resolved

 – ATren has disengaged, others are monitoring David Shankbone's behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some admin input. For those of us who have been around awhile, I think we have all come across users who rarely ever edit mainspace, but hang around on Talk pages and involve themselves in disputes, often making them worse. I'd appreciate it if User:ATren's edit history was looked at, because he is such a user. Very few vandal reverts, virtually no mainspace edits--and the ones he makes tend to revolve around a Talk page controversy--and lots of Talk page argumentation with a variety of editors. ATren became heavily--heavily--involved in my ArbCom and would never let any comment go unanswered, whether addressed to him or not. In fact, during the months of September and October virtually all of his edits were to my ArbCom. He was not a party, he just decided to involve himself vociferously. In his edit history are other patterns like this. On the stub I created for one of the U.S.'s most acclaimed journalists, David Margolick ATren fairly included a controversial issue, but he has taken a quote that pointed to a larger trend in journalism and put it on Margolicks page, which I think has WP:BLP issues. I don't think Wikipedia is well-served in applying a passing remark about a journalistic trend to one journalist, just because the journalist is talked about in the article. Regardless, ATren is also arguing non-stop against a quote about the National Legal Center for the Public Interest made by Margolick that three editors have seen nothing wrong with (User:Jeffpw, User:Swatjester and User:Newyorkbrad), in addition to myself. So his addition of that quote seems somewhat WP:POINT. Since RfC is going by the wayside, perhaps there is an easier way around and to have someone look at his edit history, that includes trying re-litigate a dismissed ArbCom on User:Raul654's Arb Nomination, and if they see a problematic trend, to please give him some advice. If there's nothing wrong whatsoever, then I would welcome advice as to why that is. Because I find it disruptive, and if one look at my contributions, they will see a wide array of high-value contributions (new lead photos on Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and Ingrid Newkirk and several new article creations, including Murray Hill (performer), David Margolick and Tashi Wangdi). --David Shankbone 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David still insists on edit-warring Ted Frank related articles, after 4 admins and one arbitrator has specifically asked him not to. Ted Frank is the directory of this organization. That fact was recently added to the article, and within a week David was on that article adding criticism. I felt some of what he added was undue criticism, but the main issue is that David continues to edit Ted Frank articles, and this is problematic since David and Ted were just involved in a very contentious arbitration case. There are millions of articles to work on here; why is David editing warring on the one which happens to be Ted Frank's employer? ATren (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer ATren's assertion, I work in law and I volunteer in public interest law; but I added a reputable cited source that is not even a criticism. What ATren is doing is focusing on the editor and not the edit, and multiple editors have seen no issue with it. It continues because ATren continues to stoke the problem when I'm citing the national legal affairs editor the The New York Times on something that is not even a criticism, but an observation. Second, ATren's behavior itself is a problem and there are other editors who have contacted me about him. One need only look at his edit history to see that 90% of his contributions are to Talk page arguments, ones that he involves himself in. That would be fine if there was a healthy mix of mainspace edits and vandal-reverting, but a pattern has developed with him that could arguably be called WP:HARASS. Regardless, with three other editors (including Newyorkbrad, who was also involved in the ArbCom) seeing no concerns over the addition, why is ATren fighting a fight that need not be fought? There's a pattern. --David Shankbone 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out ATren has a history of this. He has made his User page a place where he rants against other editors whether it be me or or other editors. My only point is that this is not healthy behavior on this site and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to go around arguing on Talk pages in disputes that have nothing to do with us, and using our User pages to voice our "disgust" with other editors. This isn't the way we should be working on here, and I am only asking this be pointed out to ATren. --David Shankbone 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, why do you continue to edit war on Ted Frank related articles? Ted has left the project, you won the arb case, so what is the point in continuing this conflict? The only reason you and I have a conflict is because you refuse to leave Ted Frank's articles alone, even after others in authority have asked you to. ATren (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ATren, this has nothing to do with Ted Frank--the source I put on there was fine upon review by three other editors, two running for ArbCom, and was from 17 years before Ted Frank ever entered the picture!--but has everything to do with your problematic behavior. Why are you on a crusade here? Why do you go on crusades? Why are you involving yourself in so many disputes? Why don't you contribute more and stop arguing with me, User:William M. Connolley, User:Avidor, User:Raul654, User:Ossified, User:Dev920, et. al. ATren, it is not so much that you have these arguments--we all do--it's more that these arguments form the vast majority of your edits. Discussing it with you, I have learned will get me nowhere. I'm asking for outside admins to look at your edit history and see if there is nothing wrong with it. --David Shankbone 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a pissing match here. I'm fully prepared to defend myself against all these charges, but I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread. If someone wants clarification on my position, you know where to reach me. ATren (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for admins to clarify anything with ATren. I'm asking them to ask themselves if a user with 80-90% of their edits revolving around Talk page disputes with next-to-no mainspace content contribution, whether there is a problem with that pattern. I'm sure ATren can explain all of his positions. My point is a pattern has emerged that is there for anyone to see, and it is a pattern that I think is problematic behavior, whether call it WP:DISRUPT or WP:HARASS. --David Shankbone 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find the arguments on both sides unconvincing. If you need action, post diffs to show what the other person has done that requires administrator attention. My advice to both of you is to avoid the other. If you want to make a complaint here, keep it concise and show us the problem edits. Otherwise, this is just a bunch of unactionable chat. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That 80-90% of the entirety of a user's edits are arguing on discussion pages is WP:DISRUPT. His relitigating a dismissed ArbCom against an arbitrator going through nomination could be WP:HARASS. He has followed me onto mainspace pages [56], [57][58], on my ArbCom (only one of about hundred diffs supplied) [59] then started to re-litigate that Arbcase at User:Raul654's ArbNom [60], on my work on sister projects [61] and ranted about me on his User page [62]. I'm getting sick of it, and I think it is very actionable and I'm asking for admins to review his edit history and to do something about it, because right now a valuable and longterm contributor feels this behavior is disruptive and harassing. --David Shankbone 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And he continues to follow my edits. I'm asking something be said to him about his behavior, because there is clearly a problem. --David Shankbone 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, ATren is clearly stalking David Shankbone's edits (see AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example). My experience with ATren is the same as David's: he focuses on motive, not content, editor, not edits, will not drop it once he has a bee in his bonnet, and consistently mistakes his own personal viewpoint for neutrality. But this is not a job for ANI (other than to instruct ATren to stop stalking David). Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Guy. If you had researched the situation more closely, you'd realize that Shankbone is clearly stalking Ted Frank. If you had researched the situation, you'd find that AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was not touched by anyone for two years - then as soon as it became associated with Ted Frank, Shankbone took ownership by adding undue criticism, then edit-warring to keep it. He also recently tried adding the "neoconservative" label to all of Ted's articles, which was rejected by others. And if you had researched the situation, you'd find that Shankbone is getting his "dirt" on me from your attack page on me, which you had ironically linked from your user page even as you were fighting to suppress such links in the BADSITES debate. ATren (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you think that David Shankbone is stalking another editor then the solution is not to stalk David in return. But thank you for noting the truth of the point that you never drop it. Neither do I. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stalking David, Guy, I'm disputing his edits on Ted Frank's articles. Don't misrepresent something you haven't properly researched. Every conflict I've had with David in the last week has been related to his pursuit of Ted Frank, and nothing else. ATren (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words you're following him round picking holes in his edits, which is what we call stalking. Is it not obvious to you that it would be better for someone other than an avowed supporter of THF to do this? Especially since the arbitration was set to go against him and his interpretation of COI? It's pretty obvious to me. There is no shortage of admins who would not mind reining David back a bit, it would be trivially easy to recruit one if your own approach were less self-evidently adversarial. You've also made a Real Big Deal about people "redacting" from dispute resolution where they are even slightly involved, yet you are pursuing this one-man crusade. It's not productive. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, do your research Guy. Four admins and an arbitrator already warned him, and he told them he'd stop. Then he turned around and added a 17-year-old derogatory soundbite to the article on Ted's organization, and edit warred with me and another editor to keep it. Yes, there is a grudge bearer here - and that grudge-bearer is editing the BLP articles of the grudgee. ATren (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, do you recall our discussion about Shankbone? I was and remain concerned about his editing behavior on two grounds; first, his continuing to make THF-related edits, and second, a tendency to edit war over any of his edits, whether content, photographs, or links to his wikinews interviews. In this case I agree with Atren that Shankbone is making questionable editorial judgements in regards to THF and projects THF has been associated with, and I am I think the fourth admin to ask Shankbone to refrain from making THF-related edits. He promised to stop editing THF's bio, but has not stopped making edits on THF-related subjects, and I think enough is enough. Thatcher131 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no Ted Frank-related edits and if you look at my history you will see. This argument over a piece of history with ATren pre-dated any agreement to not edit biographical data about Ted Frank, of which I think consisted almost solely of two edits that, had I not been the one to make them, would have been fine. This is always the problem with focusing on the editor and not the edits. Thatcher, you are so focused on the editor, as is ATren, that you fail to even see that the edits I made are only controversial because I made them. That goes against the entire idea behind this project, which is we are here to share information, not play political battles and put a Scarlet Letter over a particular editor. Additionally, the only finding against me was that I used THF's name too often. I have no "tendency" to edit war over anything. In fact, on Talk:Stephen Colbert I ran a poll to let the editors decide the new Stephen Colbert. Thatcher, ATren's behavior has not only been directed at me, but many others on this project. You go championing his behavior, you are only going to be left with editors like him, because editors like me have better things to do with our time than work on a project where proven troublemakers are defended, and those of us who have given countless and highly valuable contributions are see as the real problem. --David Shankbone 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher: Yes, I recall our conversation. You would be a good person to resolve the dispute. ATren is not a good person to resolve the dispute because his style and tactics are only inflaming it, and because he is clearly partisan in respect of THF, who he asserts had no conflict of interest (a view which was, I think, pretty much rejected before the arbitration became moot). It's also likely that Shankbone will accept you as an honest broker, whereas there is no chance he'll accept ATren as such. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy has an attack page directed at me - a page that Shankbone apparently read to get "material" on me. So he's far from a neutral source on my behavior. ATren (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you always have these problems ATren? Why is everyone else the problem? Have you not noticed that almost all of your edits are arguments? That's just a fact. --David Shankbone 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've had extended disputes with precicely 3 editors in 2 years. You've had that many in two months, and you don't see me waving your unrelated conflicts around here. My concern is and always has been your relentless pursuit of Ted Frank, which you seem to have no intention of stopping. Let's be clear here: I have no COI on Ted Frank. I don't know him and don't support his politics. I generally defended him in the arbcom case, but that's the extent of my involvement with him. You on the other hand, were his main antagonist here, and now that he's gone you insist on editing any article related to him, adding negative associations. So, why am I being asked to cease instead of you? ATren (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit history does not lie. You add virtually no content to this Project and spend all your time on Talk pages arguing. --David Shankbone 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I resolve my disputes on talk, not by edit warring in mainspace. I am generally very conservative about what I add to mainspace, especially when in a dispute - where I prefer discussion to mainspace edit warring. That's why my talk page ratio is high. So why don't you cite specific examples of my supposed abuse rather than citing inconsequential statistics? ATren (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited a few of those examples above. The problem is you have an excuse for everything, never realizing that most of us are busy on here contributing and not arguing. For most editors, ATren, arguments are a tiny percentage of our work on here and most of what we do is uncontroversial. I am in the top 1,700 contributors as far as edits go to this site, and I am one of the top 50 downloaders on the Commons of images few people can obtain. That I am not engaged in more disputes is what stands out. Virtually all of your contributions revolve around disputes, and ones you insert yourself into and that didn't happen organically (i.e. you weren't contributing, you decided to take part in a battle). Perhaps you should focus more on article creation and expansion, instead of arguments. --David Shankbone 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See below. ATren (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all Ted Frank related articles from my watchlist. I stand by every statement in this dispute, but in the end it's not worth the trouble. David, do whatever you want, I will no longer be involved. ATren (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is wise. Now monitor them occasionally, and if you think there is a problem, then state it to the three or four neutral parties who have expressed reservations about David's editing. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• ATren, the issue is not Ted Frank, it's the constant arguments and your pursuit of grudges. Declaring a "truce" in one belies my main issue with your edits and your personalizing disputes with User:William M. Connolley, User:Avidor, User:JzG, User:Raul654, User:Ossified, User:Dev920, et. al. Focus more on article creation and expansion and less on arguing ad nauseum. You have become a serial arguer, and that needs to stop. --David Shankbone 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, what part of "I will no longer be involved" is unclear to you? ATren (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, please save a permanent link to this thread (See the Complete diff and link guide for info on how to harvest a page section link). If ATren doesn't keep his word, it will be trivially easy for you to return here, present that permanent link, and a few diffs to show that the alleged (added) problem has resumed. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (modified at 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your help. --David Shankbone 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, just to clarify, which "problem" are you referring to? ATren (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the word alleged above. I take no position at this time whether there is an actual problem or not. If you avoid the contentious articles as you have pledged, the question is moot. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Vietnam War

Resolved

Can someone please userfy this deleted page? Thanks, Stayman Apple (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "userfy this deleted page".  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nat, userfy this page meant to move it from the main article space into userspace, as it was obviously created in the Mainspace in error. Regards, —Qst 21:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a copy on user's talk page. He was the only contributor. GRBerry (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:81.159.77.176 (and previous)

This user has been causing trouble on British Rail Mark 3. Under several previous IP addresses, the user used terminology in the article that is considered non-preferred, mainly because it is obsolete and also ambiguous. Myself and another anon tried to discuss this on the talk page, and got bombarded with huge breezeblocks of text telling Why They Were Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong. Any attempt to restore sanity in the article was reverted and any attempt on the talk page was met initially with more of Why They Were Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong, and later with a heavy dose of You Are All Wrong So There. Having failed to get any sense from them, I made it clear that it would probably be a good idea to stop. This was ignored, and the user again introduced poor terminology, making sure to wikilink every occurrence of the word "second" in the article, which I consider to be disruptive, since not only is the term unhelpful, to keep it in there would have required someone to clean up the mess of redundant links. At this point, I dropped a warning on their talk page, which was met by the user taking the You Are All Wrong So There onto my talk page. Having read the rather rude and insulting comments, I removed them from the page, only for this user to add them back (repeatedly). This stopped only after dropping a level 4 on their talk page, while they continued on the article itself. I have stopped for now, since I'm entirely sure which edits counted for WP:3RR and which didn't, and in any case since the other user insists on having their version on top (F5 syndrome at its best) I couldn't even revert myself when I realized.

Can someone deal with this user please? 90.203.45.244 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• With the greatest of respect, I have hardly been rude to anyone during any edits, or discussions, and have been more than happy to cite sources for any edits that have occured. Any changes I have made are POV changes, and having originally advised the user 90.203.45.244 that unless they could cite sources, they should form a concensus before changing the article. They have failed to do this on the talk page, only further editing of the article. The user 90.203.45.244 claims than another user has agreed with his POV, however, the editing history of both 85.92.190.81 and 90.203.45.244 seem to be very similar. This is, I believe is the same user. As the user 90.203.45.244 has never cited any sources, nor formed a concensus on the talk page, I believe that they are responsible for the vandalism. 81.159.77.176 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid any more edit warring, I have semi-protected the article for a day. For what it's worth though, from a quick view of the edits User:81.159.77.176 is technically correct in his assertions - as built the "S" in the MkIII designation codes does refer to 'Second'. There was no Standard Class in the 1970's. Linked to this, British Rail coach designations is actually misleading and I have edited it accordingly. (Note that the wikilinks on 'Second' do point towards Second class, so it's not that misleading). ELIMINATORJR 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So who did it?

Resolved

 – No administrator action required. — Satori Son 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

hi this is Tasmin Jahan. I would like to know who entered my name on this Wikipedia site in the very beginning. It took me by surprise that I was mentioned within the Tonbridge article. So who actually entered my name? Tasmin Jahan was thrown up through a search engine. It was not entered by anyone I know. When I saw the question mark in brackets regarding my year of birth I thought I was being helpful by entering it but instead it was completely omitted because - this makes me laugh - you guys think I am that sad to think I should be shown in this article. I had no clue this had happened in the first place. My name appears all over the place but to be entered into an encyclopaedia page was an honour until you decided to accuse me of a big head?! Make up your mind!!!!!!!!!! Whoever put me there had their own reasons. Wikipedia admin people you are very strange. It definitely was not me who entered Tasmin Jahan in the very beginning. How sad is that? Could you not track your records and see who indeed took time out to put my name there? I thought I had to open an account with you so that I could give you my year of birth. So I did but maybe I went the wrong way about it. This is all new to me. I already have websites for my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmincaramba (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You did. See WP:COI. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And it was removed as non-notable about nine hours later. Meanwhile, Google picked up the intermediate version. That's timing! Diff See also here: Re--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was added by 86.151.64.57 (talk · contribs) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tonbridge&diff=167721468&oldid=167717622 _→AzaToth 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 86.129.115.165 (talk · contribs) attempted to create an article on Tasmin Jahan which was speedily deleted. [63] --Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't just add the date of birth, you re-added the entire entry,[64] and then you did it again three days later.[65] Not exactly sure what you are so indignant about. — Satori Son 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough, probably. WP:DNFT?--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes; marked as resolved. — Satori Son 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

is Efrat illegal?

Resolved

 – Semi-protected against POV-pushing anon. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User Ynhockey is vandalising page about israeli settlement Efrat. According to UN Security council, Geneva Conventions, International Criminal Court Rome, The European Union and others ALL israeli settlement in the West Bank are ILLEGAL. Please don't vandalise wikipedia! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cernochvole (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on the wrong page. Dispute resolution is down the hall. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The original poster made a personal attack on the user on here (calling the edits "vandalism") and on their user page (calling the user "crazy"). The user was removing an utterly improper edit from an anonymous editor that defined Efrat in the lead sentence as an "illegal" Israeli settlement. If anyone wants to know about the status and controversies over Israeli settlements they can follow the links and read up on them. To tag each article about a settlement to call it "illegal" in the lead sentence would be absurd. Yet the single purpose IP editor has done nothing but go up to 3RR calling that settlement "illegal" in its main article, and in two others. The poster's account is also single purpose at this point, to complain about it. That kind of contentious WP:POV editing has no place on Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)‎

I think I linked to dispute resolution above. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you did too. But a misguided dispute resolution that dies on the vine isn't going to accomplish anything more than a misguided posting here that is quickly rebuffed. The underlying issue is a content dispute that was handled in a way that lead to behavior violations and counter-accusations of the same (aren't they all?) What's the proper way for cautioning someone that their bringing an incident up here is misguided and/or their accusations improper? Wikidemo (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP schoolblocked

User: 66.204.9.140 extensive vandalism, blocked in the past.

Resolved

 – Blocked for 6 months by EliminatorJR. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been persistently vandalising Repetitive strain injury, Binary code and other pages. They've been blocked in the past, and warned again since last being blocked. Can we block them again possibly? --cfp (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalism straight off a 6-month schoolblock. Re-blocked anon only for 6 months. Next time please take this to Administrator intervention against vandalism as you will probably get a quicker response there. ELIMINATORJR 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Racial slur and offensive insults

Resolved

 – This does not require admin intervention. — Sebastian 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• 61.202.37.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please spare a moment to see this. [66]. I horribly felt offended by this anon's abusive language like that. And also see this. [67]. It is so weird that the editor shows such the strong hatred against Korea at the discussion of whether the categories of Korean fruits and Japanese citrus are to be deleted or not. I want a same rule applied on the similar categories, but the editor utters the offensive racial slur like that. I want admins to warn the editor for his abusive language. I believe he is using an anon to look like third person. --Appletrees (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the "racial slurs" or "offensive insults" unless you think stating there are no fruits native exclusively to Korea is a "racial slur", or stating that all humans came from Africa is an "offensive insult" --Haemo (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't use administrator's notebook for personal vendetta. This does not require immediate admin attention. For incivility use an applicable template and proceed along WP:DR. — Sebastian 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. The sentence like Koreans are not even an ethnic people and are from Africa are offensive. The theory of humankind from Africa is one of theories regarding the origin of humankind and not an accepted assumption in East Asia. I also think that the repetitive emphasized sentences on "Korean has zero native fruit" are offensive. However, you guys say so, I could not be kind to the editor.--Appletrees (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(aec with Apple, whose reply appears consistent with my supposition) To be clear, though, in this instance no templated warning need be given since, as Haemo correctly observes, there is plainly no "offensive insult" or "racial slur" (one might, I suppose, were he to strain, appreciate a bit of incivility, but certainly nothing about the acollegial effect of which to be concerned) in the diffs proffered; the comments appear to be nothing more than attempts at analogy. I don't, OTOH, know that it's appropriate to term Appletrees's raising the issue here an attempt at furthering a "personal vendetta"; where one, acting in good faith, as, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise, Appletrees appears here to be, believes, rightly or wrongly, that another editor has been grossly incivil in such a fashion as to impair collaboration, the former may, one imagines, raise the issue with the latter and, if concerns linger, with others in the community. One may surely suggest that there is nothing at all here that should warrant administrative intervention and that Apple's first step ought to have been to address the issue with the anon in order that he might better understand what the anon meant, and so it is quite appropriate to mark this as {{resolved}}, but I'm not at all sure that it is appropriate to suggest that Appletrees erred perniciously in bringing the issue to AN/I or that his post here was some attempt at furthering a vendetta or garnering the upper hand on an editor with whom he has been in dispute; he appears to have felt genuinely aggrieved, even if for reasons that might be viewed as bizarre. Joe 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow the advice from the admins even though the result is not satisfied. I thought this page is somewhat good for avoiding further conflicts than directly going to visit his/her talk page. That is my ignorance, so I learn that. However, you're not certainly in the position to speak of what editors have to do in the scornful way. Your lengthy and perniciouss wording are neither plausible nor convincing at all to me. Besides, I don't like to be called the abbreviated name at first sight by unfamiliar people like you. People don't generally call a nickname when they firstly meet because that is a common etiquette. You appear to be rude and err. I truly relieved that Jahiegel is not an admin. I would take the advice from admins though. --00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required. east.718 at 02:21, November 20, 2007

Is deleting entire swaths of the Elvis article without so much as a little chat about it on the talk page. Irishguy has already questioned it on the talk, as have other editors. I have messaged him but he will not reply and continues this destructive series of edits, which remove entirely sourced content. Please stop him. [68] [69] Jeffpw (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 1 week, or until y'all can work something out. --Haemo (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have answered on the Talk Page within an hour, with good reasons for the cleanup, so kindly stop inferring that I'm not replying! Hoserjoe (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, come to think of it, these are not destructive edits; this is called cleaning up - cleaning up a huge mess of disparaging opininion and disgusting gossip regarding off-topic characters in Elvis' life. Entirely appropriate. If anything, it's a content dispute. Hoserjoe (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

153.18.232.132's constant vandalism

Resolved

153.18.232.132 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles. He/She should be blocked as I have warned him several times.--Jerry 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, submit such report of vandalism to WP:AIV instead. --Haemo (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.--Jerry 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected User:Studru sockpuppeteering

Resolved

 – Indefblocked account and sockpuppets. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Studru appears to be engaged on creating pages on some fantasy Alaskan village called Stuntville and its mayor R.S. Drury, partly using labour supplied by suspiciously convienient (and incredibly similarly named...) User:StueDrue and the great User:R.S. Drury himself. Comment from an experienced admin, please? Pyrope 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no joy in Stuntville -- mighty Studru has struck out. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ClueBot Problems

Resolved

 – User made a colossal mistake and hopefully realizes it. east.718 at 05:23, November 20, 2007

Whenever I edit anything (add facts etc.) ClueBot reverses it automatically! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugg600 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It may help if you weren't vandalizing our articles. Please stop or you will be blocked. GlassCobra 05:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved, see my comment below. Davnel03 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this user's contribution. Redirects, strange things. Something alien. I don't understand at all. For example Topple. I just can't figure out. sharara 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a soft redirect to Wikt:topple. So? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see why sahara is concerned, just look at hopiakuta's user and talk page, some proper weird shit going on, theres tons of bizarre, senseless links and weird formatting etc--Jac16888 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've striked the resolved tag as it clearly isn't resolved. Something is weird here. Davnel03 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to remove the tag; I simply looked at the link she provided to Topple. EDIT) The only thing I'm getting from the pages is "fraudulent" websites, bad wiki-markup, and the sense of doo-doo-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo. However, I think there was a thread in which Hopiakuta was described as using a screen reader.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this user is blind. There's nothing to see here (sorry). east.718 at 21:33, November 17, 2007

That makes sense, I guess. I chatted with him across a few pages and it was perplexing, like English was a third language perhaps. That makes sense, now. I don't know if it's appropriate, though, but could someone who knows him speak with him just about his signature and formatting, if it's possible? I have no idea what the limitations are of using a site like this with a reader as he does, but the grammatical disconnect makes it difficult to follow what he's after, to work with him. If not, no big deal and forget I asked (just tossing it out, if anything can be done to help him and us). • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikiproject on accessibility somewhere; editor assistance might also be able to help. In addition to being blind, I suspect that due to this user being a French/Italian immigrant, English is not this user's native language; they've also admitted to having physical, emotional, and cognitive disabilities. [70] east.718 at 22:14, November 17, 2007

Found it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility, doesn't seem very extensive, i would think that this should be a top priority of the foundation itself, to make wikipedia the encylopedia that Anyone can edit--Jac16888 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this user has previously talked with User:Graham87, who is also blind. I have some experience of JAWS myself, through a friend. Would it be a good idea to ask User:Graham87 of he would get together with User:hopiakuta to sort those pages out? I say this because User:Graham87's pages are legible to us lesser beings, and I can foresee this happening again if the pages are left as they are. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion and here for more on this. Tvoz |talk 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tvoz, wish you had told me this was going on, I would have been over here earlier. There was an extensive conversation regarding this user at my talk page- in fact this case was the basis for the formation of Wikiproject Accessibility. I cannot confirm that this user is blind- in fact he said something to the contrary during one of his conversations with Graham; "...I do know that you had expected that my primary disability, my severest disability, would be visual in nature. Now, although I currently have my machine set @ twenty pica, that is far from being my severest symptom. It is far down on the list..."[71] which would indicate that he is not using a screen reader. I am inclined to believe him, as he seems honest if nothing else. Although I do not question his good faith, I am concerned that his outlook, which seems excessively negative (apparently we are handicappist and racist... although I feel I've been quite understanding with him) may get him thrown off eventually. He has been asking for a phone consultation, however Tvoz, Graham, and I were unable to find someone willing to speak with him over the telephone. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out. l'aqúatique ^talktome 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had some time to collect my thoughts, (sometimes that takes a while *grin*) and I have a few more bits for you guys to chew on. First, while misuse of a screen reader could technically be responsible for some of his problems (formatting issues, mostly) I don't see how that could account for the overall weirdness of the actual content of what he writes. I'm also not convinced that English isn't his first language- I had originally hypothesized something along those lines... see here[72] because of his tendency to substitute common words for rarely used ones (for example he says "scribe" in place of "write," "type," or "say"), but I have since realized that his use of complex ironies and other literary devices would seem to disprove my hypothesis. I'm not an expert on these matters (but my parents both are... so I grew up with crap like this as dinner conversation), but my bet is on neurological damage here. l'aqúatique ^talktome 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For the formatting issues; it's possibly relevant that he is using older web browsers - iCab and IE on a [pre-OSX] mac. That's likely the cause of not only the formatting problems but the technical problems (crashes etc) he says he's been having with longer pages. Does anyone know a better way to browse wikipedia from Mac OS 9 or earlier? —Random832 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The user also does not seem to be 100% blind (though he does say he has a visual disability, and may well be legally blind) - he has (i think) said he does not use a screen reader, but must use a large font to read. —Random832 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Unindented)Well, if the screen reader deal is off the table, would it be out of line to ask him to use a different computer- say one at the library? He would have no problems getting one of the volunteers or employees to increase the font size for him if that's all that's necessary. On another note, I should mention that I think it was probably a bad idea to blank his userpage. He will perceive that as being handicappist or racist or whatever it is we are, in addition to the fact that the person who did it did it before we finished this conversation and came to a conclusion. l'aqúatique ^talktome 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, too, that partial-sightedness may be only part of the issue here. I spent some time looking at his (apologies if I assume incorrectly there) contributions, user page & talk page to try and figure out where this user is coming from. It's clear that his thought processes work on quite a different level from the mainstream, and I'd guess his allegations of handicappism/racism etc stem from his perception that others simply fail to grasp those processes, and tend towards him being frustrated, not at his inability to communicate but at others to understand. Some of the connections he makes in his language are extremely logical in one sense and even extend beyond the natural logic of language to take it in a different direction altogether. Having said that, he does want to contribute here in his own way and it is difficult to resist that enthusiasm. I think the first thing to be sorted out is his technological limitation; that seems to be something of a major hurdle. But I confess, I've no idea how that can be achieved; the accessibility project cannot force users to use particular technologies, even assuming they are available where he lives, and nor should it. I will try to send him an email and even if it takes a while, try to move things forward for him. Before I do that, can I ask if anyone has actually tried to email? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't, but if you do e-mail him I have a few suggestions. Be as clear and explicit as possible- no figures of speech, idioms, etc. Leave no room for misinterpretation, either unintentional or otherwise. Be warm and welcoming, but not overbearingly so- as that could potentially be perceived as pity. Put a link to your userpage in the signature.

If you'd like, you can e-mail me the letter before you send it to him and I could look it over. Two heads are better than one, right? l'aqúatique ^talktome 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The "email user" link from his user page returns an error stating that he doesn't have an email address set. It seems that, for whatever reason, he would prefer to communicate by speech in some way. The fact that voice-chatting isn't required here is one of the reasons why I like this place, so I'm not putting my hand up for that as I have said previously. Graham87 08:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would be of little help. I have a relatively minor case of APD, and it is difficult for me to always understand information I hear. I'm also quite shy on the phone, for understandable reasons. l'aqúatique ^talktome 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuebie

Resolved

 – Move along, nothing to see here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuebie (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring over Wei Man and, when asked to discuss the issues, responds by making derogatory remarks toward Chinese people. (See Talk:Wei Man; see also his/her contributions in general, as well as his/her talk page.) I would like to ask another administrator to intervene and warn said user. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff for the "derogatory remarks"? I browsed through the talk page and didn't notice any. — Sebastian 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

These are some examples:

• [73]
• [74]

Also see this -- which may appear innocent until you realize that this user is perfectly capable of using proper capitalization and is intentionally decapitalizing "Chinese":

• [75]

--Nlu (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything here either. Raising objections based on capitalization is heading into WP:LAME territory (note he did capitalize China and Chinese in the other diffs, for whatever that's worth). Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kuebie does use the words "masturbation" and "ilk" once. But I agree that this nothing that needs admin intervention. Nlu, an experienced user and a Doctor of Jurisprudence, should know better than to bother everyone here. I, for one, feel cheated of the time I spent reading through this frivolous mountain made of a molehill. — Sebastian 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is not serious; the display of prejudice and name-calling on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity on this cooperative project is never OK, and I am disappointed at the failure to view this seriously. --Nlu (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Turd the Borg

Resolved

I could use some help with Turd the Borg. He's disruptively adding cleanup tags to some video game featured articles, (example) but he mixes in helpful edits as well. He's been editing The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, a featured article I actively maintain.

• Borg adds unwarranted game guide tag
• tag removed by another editor
• Borg responds by deleting the entire section
• I revert
• Borg tries a different, still incorrect tag to the same section
• After others remove that tag and make other changes, Borg adds a sentence with a Fact tag

I feel like he's trying to goad me into violating 3RR. I've left him a couple of notes on his talk page, and he responded by cutting and pasting a piece of an article onto my talk page. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New user adding excessive cleanup tags in which another editor agrees that some of his edits are helpful, and other seem to make a WP:POINT. Another editor complains that Borg nominated an article for GA, despite it being an obvious quick fail due to numerous cleanup tags. Strange behavior for an editor who primarily adds cleanup tags. Any help would be appreciated. Pagrashtak 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Took a quick gander at some of their edits... the specific edits you've linked don't look so hot, as a group they seem passive-aggressive, at best. Of the other edits I've checked, though, most all have been helpful in some way or another, though (I'm not professing to have checked every edit). Is this an isolated mistake, or part of a larger pattern? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, some of his edits are helpful. Looking though his contributions, it appear he went through the list of video game featured articles adding cleanup tags and fact tags. For example, this is a bit of a stretch. Sure, the page uses "RPG", but the term role-playing game is introduced first. When viewed independently, it seems harmless or in good faith, but when taken in aggregate it is disruptive. Here's another example of a patently incorrect cleanup tag to a VG FA I helped with during the FAC, which I reverted. As I write this, the last seven edits Borg has made with the exception of my talk page, are to the seven articles I list on my user page as having created. While they are not of themselves necessarily bad edits (at least one is a notability tag with which I don't agree), it feels like he is doing this to spite me. Pagrashtak 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is one that's sticking out in his contributions for me. I personally care not for Final Fantasy, but he's removed a heck of a lot of text, spread all sorts of tags through the article and then put up a notice for additional citations. The fact it already has 86 references (probably more before he gutted it), most liking off-site to places like IGN, GameSpot, and other reliable games journalism source, apparently means nothing to him. Not even an edit summary to explain his edits.-- Sabre (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, he just added this, which is a direct contradiction of his previous edit. I am not assuming good faith with this user. Pagrashtak 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Should be username blocked anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  To quote Raul, "FAs are by definition the best Wikipedia has to offer. Therefore, any user adding a cleanup tag is by definition, wrong." Also support the username block. I'd do it myself if I weren't about to leave immediately for lunch. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that (and not referring to these articles), anyone who has been reviewing FAs recently will know that many of them can get into a terrible state if they're not watched carefully. ELIMINATORJR 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Username-blocked by me. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unblocked on user's request to allow a change of username. That's not an opinion on whether or not he should be (re-)blocked for conduct issues. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this page

I see that this noticeboard was semi-protected by Durova; is it appropriate for this page to still be semi-protected? At a glance, it seems there are some threads about IPs above, not sure how they're supposed to have any input. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All right; I've unprotected it. We were getting a spate of block-evading TOR nodes last night. Let's hope that's ended. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...since they appeared to be have been posting about a block that you were involved in, you probably shouldn't have protected the page yourself - it gives the appearance of using your admin tools in a dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The protection log does show numerous times the page has been semi-protected in the past, although usually for short periods in response to pretty intense disruption. I'm not checking, for sure, but I think seven hours is a bit on the long side, historically -- new users do sometimes need to participate here quite legitimately, after all. Likewise it'd be quite a pain to dig through and see how bad whatever disruption that led to the protection was, but for now it seems Videmus has a point (of unknown size and mass), best to avoid any appearance of foul play, when we can. Plenty of admins watching this page, after all. Something we can all keep in mind, I suppose. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calton blocked

Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by User:CBDunkerson in late September for persistent incivility and taunting. The block did not stop him from continuing to be uncivil, to taunt people, and to escalate every conflict he enters into, so I have re-placed the block, this time for a week.

I first left him a cautionary message on his incivility during a recent revert war he was involved in. He responded predictably, showing his usual disregard for the civility policy.

The purpose of this block is not punitive, of course, but preventative. In an ideal world, this would get the message across that his way of interacting with other users is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Here's hoping...

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical You have not documented incivility. The one diff you provide isn't worthy of a one week block. Other users have made serious allegations against ATren.[76] Consider the reliability of the source of the complaint. I suggest you either lift the block or provide proper evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (modified 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

This block isn't about ATren. I do not care about whether Calton is right or wrong in a particular content dispute, only that he blows up every dispute he enters with his incivility. Also, I'm pretty sure I don't need to go digging for diffs when reporting my block to AN/I in such an obvious situation - this isn't an ArbCom case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Calton's editing style. Is it too much to ask for three or four diffs that show actual incivility? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calton has a long, long history of aggressive, sarcastic, taunting behaviour, generally contributing to an unpleasant editing environment, and has shown himself unwilling to stop. ElinorD (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Need evidence. I am familiar with Calton's editing style, so won't be surprised if you can present some recent diffs showing some pretty impressive incivility. But please do present those diffs. This is not nice, but blocking for a week seems a bit harsh, and this is not usually considered a "I'm going to block you for a week" kind of warning. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some diffs:

[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

Also, if you read Calton's user page, you'll see he's already had loads of warnings. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's Calton. :-(. ATren was being much nicer than that. Some of those do go back to last month, and a week still seems a bit harsh (maybe suggest a downgrade to 2 days?), but I'm not going to object as such. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is by no means the first time that Calton has introduced an error in an article through reverting another editor without sufficient care and investigation, nor is it the first time that he has responded to correction with stubborn contempt. A couple of months ago I had an unpleasant experience with him after he erroneously reverted JackOfOz, accused Jack of vandalism, and then attacked Jack. See User talk:Calton#2007; User talk:JackofOz/Archive6#2007; a nasty attack.

As it says right on User:Calton, he sees his work on Wikipedia as "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". Unfortunately, I think he sometimes misjudges the line between the fanatical POV-pusher and the innocent miscommunication. His abrasive style then inflames a minor misunderstanding into a major conflagration. I don't know if this particular incident is the most egregious or the most deserving of an incivility block, but against the background of Calton's history of consistent rudeness, it's not surprising that someone was inclined to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, anybody who thinks that their work on Wikipedia depends on them determining other people to be "dishonest, incompetent and fanatical" shouldn't be here. That's beyond the pale, and flies directly in the face of "comment on the content, not the contributor". Our work here involves cleaning up bad edits, but to say those edits were made by bad people is way out of line. Those unable to distinguish between a person's behavior on one hand, and their motivations and moral qualities on the other hand, should leave. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good evidence, now. A week is within your discretion. Consider lifting earlier if the user shows a willingness to make adjustements. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• As is usual on Wikipedia, we give no quarter to any long-time user who does the encyclopedia's dirty work, demanding the utmost in perfection from them while assuming good faith beyond all sense of reason of those who they must clean up after. I have reduced the block to 48 hours - in my opinion, one week is a grossly over-long penalty. His last block was more than a month ago. Give him a chance to cool down for a day and return. FCYTravis (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but any changes to a block should have been discussed here before you changed it. The 1 week was within the blocking sysop's discretion. Secondly, blocks are not punitive as you have put it, they are preventive, and the 1 week block was justified as this user, according to the evidence listed here, has a long history of incivility.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good job discussing it beforehand, we all know who well fucking around with blocks without discussion goes. John Reaves 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is an administrator who wants to reimpose the week, they should feel free to do so - I'm certainly not going to engage in a wheel war. FCYTravis (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's generally considered wheel-warring to undo another admin action without discussion. Putting it back is just worse wheel warring. Since I'm not a fan of escalation, though, I'm letting you know that I'm okay with your shortening of the block, and we'll see where it gets us. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• FCYTravis, you aren't doing him any favors you know. If he doesn't accept what people are telling him and change it'll only be the worse later on. Calton does alot of good work, but he's one of the most consistently incivil users we have and has a tendency to attack even the admins who warn him about it. Sooner or later the hole he has dug for himself will be too deep for anyone else to get him out of it. --CBD 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  So give him a couple days to think about it. Seven days is not warranted here, IMO. If his objectionable behavior continues, another, longer block can be issued. FCYTravis (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  As long as people are willing to actually follow through on that, that's okay. But I'm rather convinced he will shrug off two days the same way he shrugged off one. Of course, I'm always willing to be surprised. Let's see if the Calton who returns in two days is reasonable and civil. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If I were willing to clean up the sort of shit Calton does, instead of rolling my eyes, leaving, and finding something less contentious to work on as is my wont, I doubt whether I'd be even half as civil as he is. If the users howling for his head above can maintain a straight face while saying they'd act differently, I'd be astounded. —Cryptic 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  What kind of "shit" does Calton clean up? I've worked on some pretty controversial articles, and I've never found it necessary to stoop to any kind of ad hominem attack, or if I have done so, I was wrong to do so. I'm not "howling" for Calton's head (ew), but I can say with a straight face that there's no situation on Wikipedia that would force me to be uncivil in the way that Calton habitually is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  The ends do not justify the means. If one can not perform certain kinds of work while remaining civil, either take a break or find some other work to perform. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I find this highly problematic. Calton's response was no more or less arcastic than Rspeer's "warning". I suggest that Rspeer unblock Calton. Rspeer, if you want to warn and then issue long blocks for civility, it might be better not to do it with sarcasm: ATren's "rhetorical questions" that you're complaining about appear to have been attempts at resolving a revert war civilly -- something you should try sometime. I think this was a case for telling both parties to step back and take a deep breath, certainly not for a one week block for an editor with over ten thousand mainspace edits and three years' contributions. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Guy, I don't buy your argument. Tens of thousands of edits do not buy you a free pass to ignore any policy you want, and getting away with it for multiple years certainly doesn't.

  Also, I didn't intend any sarcasm in my comment -- I really do want Calton to try being civil. I meant exactly what I said. But even if I somehow said something wrong in there, that doesn't affect what I blocked Calton for: his persistent incivility after being warned repeatedly and blocked for it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above evidence of Calton's incivility strongly suggests to me that a one-week block is not even enough. Someone with that much personal animosity is not a credit to this project, no matter how many edits he has. Besides, how many of these edits are simply him bickering with and insulting other editors? -CinnamonGirl (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, many of his mainspace edits are useful cleanup of articles. But when editors disagree with his cleanup -- whether they are right or not, and often they are not -- that's when he starts hurling the insults. And there's no reason we should have to tolerate this, because there are many Wikipedians who know how to clean up articles and be civil at the same time. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Endorse - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the block. Hopefully, it'll demonstrate to Calton that his current approach isn't acceptable. I understand that he does good work from time to time, but if he isn't able to make difficult edits without descending into gross incivility, then maybe he should be working on something else. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TougHHead indefinitely blocked

Resolved

I've blocked TougHHead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being an unproductive editor, being immature on Wikipedia pages, and overall nonsensical edits in the last few weeks. He has been blocked twice before for harrassment and other issues. He has this odd obsession with quotes that he was warned about several times (like [86], [87], [88]). Further nonsense includes the last day's worth of edits to his user talk page after he was blocked. See [89], [90], [91], [92]. I post this here for review. He was warned by several people that he was on thin ice. When he first arrived here, it was suggested he be indefinitely blocked rather than given the first 24 hour block. Some people, too, question whether the other 24 issued about 20 hours ago would be sufficient. I believe it is not and no amount of block will ever be sufficient except an indefinite one. Metros (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Metros. And, due to his continued ranting and nonsense on his talk page, I've now protected that, as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was ready to do it myself, seeing how this editor responded to my (generously short) 24 hr block... I support the indef and the protection. — Scientizzle 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor refuses to add required fair use rationales and makes personal attacks

Resolved

 – The Parsnip is advised to proceed according to WP:DR — Sebastian 07:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This person keeps removing the no fair use rationale template from images that are lacking ratiuonales and do not conform to fair use guidelines. Then they make personal attacks. [93] Would someone correct this person, please? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you haven't talked to them about it yourself? The user blanks their talk page regularly, but I didn't see any recent evidence of you bringing this to the user's attention first, before you bring it to ANI. You also didn't tell them you were discussing them here, as is directed at the top of this page. Natalie (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

This diff is indicative of a long string of vandalism by this user. I'd report him to AIV, but I can't reproduce the username. Could someone block him and mass-revert his edits? MSJapan (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the user, and all their edits have been reverted. GlassCobra 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does copy and paste not work for you, MSJapan? That's what I always do with these usernames. Natalie (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I got legalled

Resolved

 – AfD completed; legal threat deleted; Hesperian is taking care of the user. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Talk:Gary_Miliefsky, after the SPA creator of the page disputed a prod, then deleted a AfD, was corrected gently, and then deleted it again, I now have:

Should you wish to edit or change this page, please send your formal request to John Ottenberg, Esq., Corporate Counsel and Litigation, NetClarity, Inc. (his contact info is at http://www.odllp.com/). Also, please provide a legal address for correspondences and if notices must be served.

Note that this remains an active AfD. I'm not touching this page with a 10 ft. pole, though.

--- tqbf 04:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Hesperian 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Collateral-damage-friendly block message

See old version and new version. We get a lot of avoidable problems with newbie-biting and reader-biting from text that seems to tell the casual editor they are a violator of the rules; this is Luna's better text, per MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F. This should help avoid inadvertently offending people who've just hit an "edit" link, and one hopes turn their ire toward the actual vandal - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:HI, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY?

Before his recent indefinite block HI, HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? (talk · contribs) went on an patrolling orgy, patrolling at least one article that should not have been patrolled. I hope there is some way you can revert this damage. --teb728 (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Krista S (deleted) Deepalaya (not delete, as of this writing). Survives my first glance, at least. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Krista S is the other article I had in mind. I see there were several others that have also been deleted. I left the message thinking maybe you had a way of reverting his patrols. But I guess it works just as well to go down the log and look at the articles. --teb728 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some way, I haven't really poked around the new(ish) patrol feature, just yet. In this case, seems easier to just run down the list. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

is this some sort of bot?

Resolved

 – blocked

sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. i saw a single line removed from an article on my watchlist that seemed sort of odd for someone to show up and delete, so i looked at the users contributions. seems like this "person"(?) was removing single lines from a bunch of different articles. i dont know what to make of it. maybe it is a human (the note left with each change varies slightly), but i just thought i should let someone know about it. [94] ... thanks, Jon Lon Sito (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just vandalism. Reverted and blocked for a while. ELIMINATORJR 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked User:Whig

Whig (talk · contribs)

To summarise: Community banned homeopathic POV-pusher who was unblocked as part of an attempted mediation, then disappeared for a month. Just returned, and began the same idiocy all over again. Re-banned. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with reban, the user obviously has no intentions of contributing constructively here. Qst 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Multiple RFCs have failed to solve the problem. This one's here only to advance his POV, at which point he and the encyclopaedia have to part company. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user should have been banned months ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that this is a good block - but then I thought this particular tendentious user had exhausted all of his chances last time around. I don't see a lot of value being added to the encyclopedia here. That said, Whig was unblocked on probation under the mentorship of User:Mercury last time around, so I'd be interested to hear Mercury's thoughts on the matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should specify what you mean by 'began the same idiocy all over again.' what idiocy? please give the diffs. thank you Peter morrell 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to see what behavior Adam Cuerden was referring to in the form of diffs. Whig has made the same request. I think to be fair, this request should be satisfied. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no real stake in this one way or the other, but the last debate on ANI can be seen here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the reblock. As far as I can see from the logs, he has behaved appropriately for any other editor on Wikipedia since his unblocking. It appears you are reblocking him because he did not consult with Mercury when he re-appeared on Homeopathy. It also appears - from your justification given above - that the main force you cite for reblocking him is your antipathy to the topic of homeopathy. From the previous RfC it appears your behaviour, Adam, is being repeated, and needs to be addressed. Show us please why his edits since the unblock have been disruptive, conflict with Wiki policy, or (apart from not having sought an opinion before editing on the article of Homeopathy) contravened any agreements. From my reading of his edits, there are none. Justify please. docboat (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig is not "any other editor on Wikipedia"; s/he's a tendentious editor, as reinforced at his last RfC, who avoided an indefinite block and ban on the basis of agreeing to Mercury's mentorship. I think we should wait to hear from Mercury before going any further here. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I am going to refrain from commenting on the block. I am fairly confident Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) will address concerns regarding his reapplication of the block. Regards, Mercury 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig was unblocked because I and Mercury agreed that he might have some potential if he took a break and was able to get used to Wikipedia community behaviour standards, and we hoped he would learn what NPOV was as part of that. He disappeared completely for weeks, then suddenly came back, leapt into the topics that had caused so much trouble full-guns-blazing - indeed, he didn't edit anything else except to add homeopathy into Potassium dichromate - and his behaviour and language showed no signs of change. Whig is a true believer. We had hoped that he could learn to play nicely with others. Instead, we got more inane WP:OR homeopathy apologetics, and bold (and uncited) claims that, in fact, physicists and doctors support homeopathy, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=171726760 this post where he takes David's sensible suggestion and turns it into a repeat of the "no criticism whatsoever in the lead" POV-pushing that he'd been canvassing for before the block. In short, a return to the behaviour from the RFC. The objectors to this ban, User:Peter morrell (RFC where he was nearly banned, but agreed to moderate his behaviour (which he stopped doing a few months ago)) and User:BrianWalker are cut from the same cloth, and, frankly, if they hadn't cleverly decided to constantly attack me, meaning I couldn't ban them without a COI, I'd have blocked them already.

But then, I'm in a brutally honest mood tonight. And, frankly, I'm sick of the whole subject. I don't LIKE editing Homeopathy. I wish thew whole thing would go away. But I'm an admin, and that means I have to monitor articles that are prone to trouble. And so, when asked to help out there by friends, I did. And what hell it's given me. More stress than any other bloody article, and that's with me trying to avoid it as much as possible, just checking for vandalism and POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brutally honest, Adam? Right then. You have made a scurrilous attack on me now "cut from the same cloth" - how dare you, and you an admin? If this is the real, brutally honest you, and you have seen my edit history and read my own background to be able to make that ill-founded judgement, then the WHOLE of your judgements must be called into question. This will go further, I suspect. This is simply not good enough. Fail. You must do better. Quite apart from what you now decide with Whig, I want a competent admin to take a close look at your work. docboat (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we spend so much time on such users? We give these folks umpteen last chances, soak up the time of good editors in futile attempts at mentoring them, burn out admins dealing with their incessant wikilawyering protests, and on and on, in the hope that maybe, someday, perhaps, possibly, eventually, with infinitely patient nurturing and lavish attention they'll learn to push their version of The Truth^TM in a slightly less tendentious way. Are we really so desperate for contributors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. No, we aren't desperate for contributors, and much less for disruptive fringe editors who just "don't get it" and never will. Often it isn't even a matter of bad faith or ill will, it is simply that they lack the ability. They are immune to cognitive dissonance. We have the bar for acceptable behavior and attitudes set far too low here and this means we have fringe editors who get blocked, while their numerous sympathizers (whose - often fake - civility somehow protects them?) show up and reveal that they don't get it either, but they don't get blocked. In an ArbCom situation sympathizers can get blocked simply for showing too many of the same attitudes as blocked editors, IOW showing too much sympathy for them. They share their guilt because they think the same way and are also guilty of aiding and abetting them by supporting them in normal editing, in edit wars, in RfCs, and in the ArbCom proceedings themselves.

The bar needs to be raised and such sympathizers who don't get it and show signs of never getting it should also be shown the door, or at least be placed on probation. That is one advantage (possibly one of the only ones...) of RfCs. It draws all of the fringe sympathizers out of the woodwork so they show their true colors and they can be identified and the community alerted to which disruptive editors who don't understand NPOV are in need of watching. Unfortunately - because of the low bar - this occupies far too much good time that could be otherwise used on constructive editing. This situation needs to change. No more multiple and longsuffering series of warnings. Adam has several times revealed courage and resolute determination to protect Wikipedia from such time wasters and he should be commended, not interrogated by sympathizers from the flock of "birds of a feather who stick together." They should be warned together and blocked together. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time explaining common sense to those who don't understand it. I too am in a brutally honest mood this morning, but I'm sure only those who feel guilty will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying these points for months. YES!!!! Why do we bother with editors like Whig who has cost us time and energy with RfC's (which, if you note, he treated most of us with rudeness), ANI's, etc. At the very minimum, the project is going to be the same with or without him. Why do we expend energy trying to rehabilitate him? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutally honest eh? this does not seem to be an adequate response. The honesty of it must be judged by others, Adam. A number of specific points need to be addressed.

• you have edited homeopathy more than any other single editor in the last 9 months and control it (along with a few others) on a daily basis; you rvt other folks edits and seem hostile and owning towards the article and any other editors; you have created more edit wars and disputes on that article than any other editor; you are intolerant and disputatious and refuse to back down; this is why you block people; you abuse your admin powers; now you are threatening to block many more people including myself and docboat; I see you have a very 'impressive' history for deleting articles and blocking people; do you envisage a good WP as a police state? you are a self confessed anti homeopath; thus how can you say you dislike editing this article? the data simply does not stack in your favour.

• Why do you claim that Whig 'repeated his idiocy?' it seems he merely made some useful and factual edits to potassium dichromate; he never went near the homeopathy article as far as I can tell. His comments about potassium dichromate were fair, moderate, uncontentious, factual and neutral. How was he POV pushing? how was his language and behaviour block-worthy? I just don't see it in the diffs. Please explain your reasoning.

• you have still not supplied the diffs as requested by several folks here.

• attacking others who you claim are attacking you is a distraction, a side issue, and just muddies the waters; let's focus on the current issue and what you have said and what you have declined to say about this particular block.

• please provide the diffs which illustrate your comment that Whig was 'repeating his old idiocy' and show how his language and behaviour was block-worthy. You also claim he was POV pushing; please provide specific diffs that illustrate this.

• please provide the date you became an admin and also the dated diffs that show your claim that 'some friends asked you to check' the homeopathy article with dates. otherwise we have no idea of the factual accuracy of what you state. You must be able to show that you became an admin BEFORE you started editing the homeopathy article. I find that claim somewhat suspect. As I recall, you started editing homeopathy about February 2007. On what date did you become an admin? thank you Peter morrell 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, seeing as I asked you just yesterday to tone down the rhetoric after you made a couple of attacks on Adam, you should be aware that you're skating awfully close to the edge of a block. Why on earth would Adam not be allowed to monitor an article for POV-pushing before he got his sysop bit? (Which, for the curious, he got on 2 March 2007). Why would he need to dig through nine-month-old page histories to find an invitation to edit?

Asking (civilly) for more information about a block is a reasonable practice, and an important part of making sure Wikipedia is working smoothly. Using this forum to push what has apparently become a personal vendetta against Adam is not. Please find something – anything – productive to do on Wikipedia that doesn't involve commenting on Adam. (I have warned Peter on his talk page that his current approach is unhelpful and may draw a block.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When all the points raised have been answered, we shall all be happy. Assuming that is the answers are coherent and verifiable. thank you. Peter morrell

I have just reviewed the edits to the Potassium dichromate article and its talk page, and I do not see that Whig's edits were inappropriate. I note a rather aggressive edit summary from AC to one of the edits. [95] I think my few previous edits on this subject show no bias towards homeopathy, which, to be honest about it, I personally consider a dangerous absurdity. DGG (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more his edits on Talk:Homeopathy and WP:FTN. Though the positioning of the section he added to Potassium dichromate the first time shows very little ability to judge its importance - there's a chemical with numerous applications in industry and chemistry, and he thinks that homeopathy is more important than major uses that, if I recall correctly, appear in the A-level chemistry exams in Britain (if briefly). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Fringe notice board, I see only one November edit of his [96], a single sentence non disruptive comment. As for the Talk Homeopathy, I also see no disruptive edits--just the attempt to refine a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, Adam, you are a major contributor to the discussion on Homeopathy (and , as I said , I very much agree with what you say there). So why did you block someone for contributions to that subject? I would never use admin power on any one who had significantly contributed to an article on which I had also worked, especially if I were on opposite sides of the argument. (I am in no way defending Whig's earlier edits or opposing the earlier blocks.) There are 1300 other admins, and at least 1250 of them have never edited this subject. Why didn't you ask someone else to do the block for you? DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Adam wasn't the person to make this bock, but seeing that Whig was trying, once again, to push his ideas about quantum mechanics providing an explanation for how homeopathy might work eg diff and diff, the block itself seems justifiable - unless of course Whig had cleared these edits with Mercury beforehand. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the diffs that TimVickers cites are polite and reasoned contributions to the discussion in the section where they appear. If these are grounds for blocking, we might as well all be blocked and get the whole Wikiprocess shut down. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A good block, and I agree with Raymond Arritt, users who are here to make a fringe into the mainstream via wikipedia need to be shown the door when their agenda refusees to meet our policies. As for Peter Morell's post above, that's a perfect textbook example of wikilawyering. deamnding dates and times of adminship conferrence? What could that have to do with anything else? It's a distraction. The user's had numerous Procedural reviews, and continues his behavior. Let him find a new outlet. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(I have been away for a week and not following the discussion.) On reviewing it, I think two points I raised in the previous ANI discussion about Whig are still relevant. 1) I do not think Adam Cuerden qualifies as a neutral administrator in this particular case. This concern, which I made in all seriousness, was never addressed in the previous ANI discussion. 2) If an editor persists in a line of argument that other editors consider absurd, there is the option of ignoring them. In homeopathy, this option might usefully be used more than it is. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and disruption

On the talk page of WP:PW there is a debate going on which is going close to getting completely out of hand. Lid is trying to push a POV that WP:SPOILER applies when a wrestling title belt changes hands on WWE Smackdown, and edits that reflect this should be allowed. It has been argued by myself and by The Hybrid that this is not the correct path to take - due to issues with people within WP:PW who hate spoilers, and may consider them tantamount to violating WP:NOT (by turning the wrestling section of Wikipedia into a news site). My issue with it is that Lid is trying to push the Australian transmission of Smackdown (before the US transmission by about 18 hours) as proof. He has pushed the Cit Episode Template - which as a result I sent to TfD because of the threat the usage of this template posed in this manner (explained on the TfD). Lid's conduct - in my opinion - is disrupting what until now was a consistent and reasonable course of action within the group of editors who work through WP:PW or independently as wrestling followers. Lid's questioning of the process has got to the point where I can not address him any more without violating WP:CIVIL. He isn't listening to reason or the silent majority that The Hybrid has said he represents - and I agree with him. We need admin help on this, and because Smackdown transmits weekly and we don't know when the next title change will be, mediation or RfC simply isn't an option as it would take too long. Lid has made a number of false accusations against me (which could be a WP:CIVIL violation anyway but I'm not sure - it's certainly close if it's not) including accusing me of hyperbole and excessive "attitude" (for want of a better word). I am doing my bit to protect the wrestling part of Wikipedia under the rules - certainly WP:OR and WP:V in this case. This is being ignored or at least not respected. Admin help would be very much appreciated with this. !! Justa Punk !! 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot the direct link! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Consensus !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't quite see the problem. WP:SPOILER doesn't stop you posting spoilers, it just suggests that you post a spoiler warning. If the information is true and can be sourced - even if the source is the TV program itself - then what's the problem? it's a viable source, and we shouldn't, in my opinion, withhold content that's true and verfifable, even if it means some US viewers will have their entertainment spoiled. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it said DON'T include spoiler warnings, except in certain exceptional cases where you would not expect an article to contain spoilers (like if an unreleased movie leaks to the web, etc). <eleland/talkedits> 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PW who has privately had these conversations with two different administrators (both Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Lid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) I'm going to have to say that my view point has done a complete 180 on the spoiler topic. WP:PWis not a walled garden, and is subject to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of these being WP:SPOILER. If SmackDown airs in Australia, then the results do meet WP:V, and WP:RS. Also, the Cite Episode template does not lead to WP:OR in almost any case. How else am I supposed to source information say, on a character from the television show Scrubs since no other sources but episodes of the show exist? If the "spoilers" can be verified, then we cannot exclude them just because some people "don't want to be spoiled". It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality -- from WP:SPOILER. I'm sorry, but I don't see Lid POV pushing and being disruptive, if anything, I see him looking out for the betterment of this project. Not wanting to be spoiled is not a leg to stand on in my opinion. Bmg916^Speak 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is being missed here. The Hybrid brought his point up - and it's being ignored. He said that there is a silent majority that does not want WWE spoilers. It doesn't matter what WP:SPOILER says, a silent majority doesn't want them. Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case. It's outside normal spoiler procedure. I completely disagree with the assertion that the TV showing in Australia automatically passes WP:V and WP:RS. Where is the back up? What's to stop someone coming in with a spoiler after the Australian showing, and just make an edit that is completely false. And state that "It was on TV". TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS, and without a third party back up WP:V also fails. I thought consensus was a cornerstone of WP policy? Right now, Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus. If allowed this will open a massive can of worms and Lid can't see it because he is putting general policy forward without taking the unique nature of pro wrestling into account. This is a frustrating situation - WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site. Why can't anyone see this? !! Justa Punk !! 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What silent majority? how have you measured them? why should wrestling be considered a special case? This is just another example of one of the special interest groups we have here trying to twist wikipolicy to suit their own aims. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that it's aired in Australia, it's that it's aired in Australia (or Canada, for that matter) and it's been reported by numerous internet sites. I don't want to hear about dirtsheets failing WP:V, we're not talking about some nobody's speculations on who's going to main event WrestleMania, we're talking about event reports sent to these sites by people at the taping. When it airs, and we know what's been cut or what hasn't, what's left to prove? Moreover, most of these people have no reason to lie. Occasionally, a goofball does send in a fake Smackdown report to the sheets, but it's quickly corrected by the real thing. I grant that this happening at all is sufficient cause to not rely solely on the sheets, but a very similar situation exists with the World Series of Poker. Bracelet winners are "spoiled" on wikipedia months before they air, with nothing but assorted web reports to back it up (the main event winner is announced on TV news here and there, but not the earlier events), and of course the accounts of the people at the TV tapings. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I could not reply earlier but I was performing some things in real life that needed attending to. I will now do a little breakdown of your last post on me with commentary.

• POV: Yes, I will admit I have a POV on the topic. I say this as you yourself also have a POV on the topic and that is why we are where we are right now. Your usage of POV isn't the way it is meant to be used on wikipedia and gives the idea that having a point of view on a discussion is against wikipedias rules. It is not. What is against wikipedias rules is modifying wikipedia to reflect your own biases, which I have not done, and the basis of this topic has nothing to do with bias on a topic but apparently "bias" on implementation of WP:SPOILER. I have been involved in many disputes, that's not in question, but from your interpretation AfD's are against wikipedias rules as users are planting their POV's on whether articles should be kept or deleted. I have been here for over a year now and one thing I have always tried to adhere to, and to the best of my knowledge I have, is neutrality in articles.
• Silent Majority: You keep making reference to the silent majority of WP:PW supporting your view point except that my position in the discussion is that of the more important majority, which happens to be silent in this regard, which is the majority of wikipedia that support spoilers hence why it is an agreed upon subject at WP:SPOILER. I have stated it numerous times but a wikiproject can not overrule this simply because they don't want to and don't agree with it, it is the rule that wikipedia as a whole have agreed upon and countering it with an anonynmous silent majority in a wikiproject does not work.
• Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case.: Not once, until Bmg916 mentioned it in his reply here, has my admin status even come up in the course of the discussion. I have been simply a user bringing to light what I saw as a situation in opposition to wikipedias stance as a whole. In addition to which I have not used any admin tools in the course of this topic, in fact this entire topic has taken place on talk pages where my tools are worthless anyway. I have not in any way, shape or form used my adminship to take a foothold in this topic, relying on policy and guidelines to back up my positions and claiming otherwise is simply based on that I am an administrator and thus every time I involve myself in a debate it's "admin abuse" to the opposition.
• It's outside normal spoiler procedure.: No, it is not. There is absolutely no support for this position and you have yet to bring up a compelling argument as to why professional wrestling should be treated differently than either television shows or sporting events. In both cases the spoilers would still be posted, and that is even if they had not aired on television yet and had sources for the spoilers.
• TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS: Actually, from your point of view TV by itself, in the case of television shows, do not pass WP:RS because anyone could make up what they saw and post it claiming that episode was the source. It's a position that is illogical and seems to be based on potential abuse rather than actual usage.
• Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus.: You pointed me to it, although I thought I had also pointed you to it, but again - Wikipedia:Consensus can change.
• WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site.: This is correct, wikipedia is not wikinews, it is however an encyclopedia and recent results of wrestling events are NOT news in the traditional sense. Say a mixed martial artist won heir fight and the results get posted here, is this news? Yes because it is recent. Does this make wikipedia a news site? No, it makes it an up to date article with the most recent changes to the individual in question. Claiming recent events are "news" and thus omitting them because of that is a position that is semantical in basis and has no support in policy.

In the course of this topic I mentioned that if you felt so strongly about your position that you nominate Template:Cite episode for deletion as by your rationale it is OR. I was being sarcastic and attempted to illustrate why I thought your argument was illogical, but instead you took me up on the offer and are now attempting to have a template, linked to by 2000 articles, deleted on the claim that professional wrestling is a special case which, as previously stated, it isn't. Trying to create special rules for a specific area of articles is simply walled gardening and should not be allowed. I realise this reply is quite lengthy and wordy but it is all I could think of to respond to the allegations brought up against me, the suggestion that I am an incivil POV warrior. If anyone has any question to my demeanor or more actions in this case I implore them to look through my contributions and find a case where I have fallen out of line. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate the term silent majority, as it sounds like a cop-out. I did comment on that once, though I didn't use that term, when our view was described as a minority view, but I only mentioned it in passing. I don't see consensus as relevant to the issue, as this is a dispute about interpretations of policy. My view is that spoilers damage the articles. In the past we have had several established users threaten to retire if spoilers are added to articles. The detrimental effect to the articles would be permanent, while the benefits would be short-term, as short as 4 days. However, the long-lasting effect of slowing the number of new users joining while alienating the experienced editors of this subject would cause these articles which have just recently been dragged out of the gutters to go straight to hell all over again. Adding spoilers would be against the best interests of the articles, plain and simple. The Hybrid T/C 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter where the event was broadcast first. The fact that the event was broadcast and that multiple editors can confirm that broadcast is more then enough to deal with any WP:V issues. Also, using the broadcast to tell the outcomes of matches also wouldn't violate WP:NOR.

There is no, "unverifiable until broadcast in the US", clause in WP:V with regard to TV broadcasts. Never has been one, and never will be one because it just promises systemic bias. Also, keeping information off and article because it hasn't been released in the US is also a systemic bias. And if you use the excuse that releasing the results will "spoil" US viewers, then you run into trouble with WP:SPOILER. --Farix (Talk) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there have been problems in the past with Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (aka WP:PW) and so-called spoilers. To boil it down to basics, there are editors of the wrestling pages who appear to be opposed to any information, from any source no matter how reliable, about a wrestling bout, to appear on Wikipedia prior to some associated event (the US broadcast of a TV program, perhaps?)

As The Hybrid says, there have been expressions of extreme distress on this matter. We might well lose editors over this.

On the other hand, what these editors are demanding seems unacceptable: that they should be empowered to impose an embargo on publication of a certain type of Wikipedia content: the results of wrestling bouts that have been televised.

It seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, to be honest. A matter of much import to a few editors, but somewhat against our policies, in that it involves the putative embargoing of information for reasons that aren't easy for outsiders to understand. We have on occasion respected academic embargoes, but the suggestion of extending such limitations to sporting events and the like seems unlikely to gain consensus. Even in the academic case, we would not continue to uphold an embargo once the news hit the mainstream press. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be a storm in a tea cup. The source is the show legally broadcasted in Australia through one of the pay TV networks, under license from WWE. How much time difference between this broadcast and its airing in the US 24-36hours maybe less? From the way I see it the addition of a spoiler is wasted editing for its redundant within a day. The reverse is true to way more programs that get aired in the US first then the rest of the world waits for a couple of days to actually see the show, in reality TV series shouldnt use the spoiler tag on episodes because its impossible to fairly assess at what point it gets removed. Gnangarra 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TV is not a published source, so it fails as a source by that definition. (by Justa Punk.

I seriously hope he doesn't truly believe that as it is completely absurd. --Farix (Talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cite episode, see also my large comment above. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Justa Punk, not me, and I hope that my credibility isn't damaged in your eyes by that. Anyway, embargo is an exaggeration. We're talking 4 days here. We're asking to wait 4 days in order to avoid an exodus of editors, and putting a filter on new editors, thus damaging these very tender articles, which have bad dits made to them on a level that would mean semiprotection for any other article. It takes a lot of editors to keep these articles from becoming cruft-filled, so spoilers are not the main issue. The side effects of adding them are the main issue. Surely waiting 4 days is not unreasonable, or unacceptable. The Hybrid T/C 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue that arises is when something big happens at the events, not each event week by week, as all that happens is that the pages become an edit war for four days between spoiler posters and spoiler removers with edit summaries of "NO SPOILERS". This has happened repeatedly for years and there has never been a mass exodus, or anything resembling it, because they were posted. They are a fact of life and the idea that the editing of the articles will crash to a halt because of this is an extreme worst case scenerio that is pretty much unlikely to happen. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but the problems arise when the governments acknowledge it as legitimate. There hasn't been a problem because they can be removed, so there is a better chance of avoiding the spoilers than if they are simply added. Also, "edit war" is a serious exaggeration. There is maybe two edits on a few of the pages in those 4 days on average. If they are accepted, however, then articles containing spoilers will become the standard, and that's where problems will arise. The Hybrid T/C 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what your homosexuality analogy is meant to be implying. As for my "serious exaggeration" on the number of edits the pages receive in regards to spoiler edit warring I count a fair few more than two edits on those four days. Articles containing spoilers are the standard on wikipedia, not the exception. We are not an exception either and claims otherwise are simply based off, well, morals. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The homosexuality analogy was meant to imply that the general public, in this case WP:PW, only become violently upset about something they are opposed to when those who are in power over them violate what they believe in. In this case, WP:PW is willing to live with the current spoiler situation because they can do something about it. If they are told that they can't anymore, then they will become truly upset. Also, while you link to 4 histories, you know as well as I do that is actually just one example, as it was all about the same title change. Also, as anyone who edits wrestling articles knows, title changes are the exception to every rule. People go crazy when a title changes hands. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW is not the general public, in fact if we want to consider wikipedia as a society it is WP:PW that are a minority fringe. "WP:PW is willing to live with the current spoiler situation because they can do something about it." You again speak for the 'silent majority' which ignores that the issue is not the existing consensus of WP:PW but the consensus of wikipedia as a whole, and the comments by the neutral parties here are illustrative that the current situation should not have occurred in the first place and trying to maintain a position which is wrong on its basis simply by the argument that it was the position means that we can not repair mistakes if they occur. As for your comment about the four articles the reason I linked to four instead of one was because this one event caused an edit war across FOUR pages over an issue that should not have become a "policy" of a wikiproject to overrule wikipedias own policies and guidelines. Nothing you have argued so far, when broken down, comes up again as much more than "spoilers are bad, don't you see that?" which isn't an argument at all. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

loosely calling WWE a sporting event its normal for the results of such event to be added to an article after the event has occured even though the information doesnt immediately have written sources to support it. Additionally referring to an TV series episode event, again its common to see the episode information added before there is print media information. Yes I realise that alot of this is primary sourcing something that many TV shows suffer from, but the articles are retained anyway. IMHO to removal information until its broadcast in the US is clear WP:BIAS. The use of a spoiler for the same reason is also Systemic Bias. As for the template the TfD should be allowed to run its course without venue shopping. Gnangarra 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about the spoilers for US audiences, it is about the detrimental effect they will have on the articles. Don't ignore that. The Hybrid T/C 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They won't have a detrimental effect on the articles, everyone who currently "monitors" spoilers reads them and then removes them. They've never quit wikipedia in the past for having to read a spoiler. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the only people who work to remove the spoilers are those who don't care if they see them, but do care if unverified (which they are 99% of the time) information is added to the articles under their scope. If it became the standard, then the only option for those who don't want to read them would be to stop editing the articles entirely. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a large overlap between people who claim spoilers are "unverified information" and those who claim spoilers, in general, are bad. As previously commented upon, repeatedly by numerous editors, these are verifiable and your last line that once again implies that editors will exodus if spoilers become the norm is still baseless. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must we wait 4 days? Why not put the information up when it is available? To wait would be to give in to the systemic bias, which isn't a good thing in the long run. Will American Whovians, or whatever the Dr. Who fans call are themselves, start make similar demands citing the "exception" that WP:PW was granted on match results? And what about the Olympics? Clearly Wikiproject Olimpics will form and demand that results should be published on Wikipedia until after NBC airs them in the US. After all, they are only asking for a few hours there.

This "editors will live if spoilers are posted" line also doesn't hold up under scrutiny. As Lid already stated, editors who regularly edit the articles are going to see the "spoilers" regardless, so you are really not "protecting" them at all. --Farix (Talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lid was wrong; those who don't want to see spoilers are able to actively avoid them if they make a effort; there was something that I didn't want spoiled a couple weeks back, and I was able to pull it off. If it had been made the standard for wrestling articles, then that would have been impossible. The reason this is a big deal, which is what I'm trying to get across to you as I admit it doesn't sound like one, is because people are threatening to retire over it, and it will also place a filter on the new users that join. Wrestling fans are just about neurotic when it comes to spoilers if they don't want to read them, far more so than Who fans. This will be incredibly detrimental in the long run do to the simply massive amount of cruft added to wrestling articles on a daily basis. I don't think that you understand just how large the scale is we're talking about. Neither Dr. Who, nor the Olympics can even come close to this. For a visual comparison, those would be measured in millimeters, while wrestling articles would be measured in kilometers. That is not, I repeat not an exaggeration. The wrestling articles being of any quality whatsoever, and not completely consumed with unverified and irrelevant information is a very recent development, and if the experienced users, who are looked to as the de facto leaders of the project begin retiring, then things will probably revert back to the way they were before within a few months, as the remnant won't be able to keep that many articles clean. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does updating wrestlers' pages when they win titles on taped shows mean kilometers of useless cruft will be added and we will be powerless to stop it? Even if it did, correlation does not imply causation. The issues would be, and are, entirely distinct. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person I see threatening to retire over it re yourself and some other editors that perceive spoilers as bad, this may seem shocking but when spoilers were accepted as part of wikipedia some users retired in protest. The policy remained Why? Because it was the policy and the small number of editors against it can not stonewall a policy they don't like by threatening departure if consensus does not go their way. This is the same situation as to what is happening here, except it has taken a lot longer for it to be brought up that when this was passed it was simply ignored by a group then called "consensus". You stated that I was wrong but have yet to entertain the idea that maybe the original decision reached by WP:PW was entirely wrong from its start and that longevity is not an argument for maintaining the status quo if the status quo is fundamentally incorrect.

Every television show on wikipedia includes spoilers, has that caused their articles to suffer from a lack of editors refusing to edit the articles because they contained spoilers? No. The articles continue to be edited every single day by hundreds of people who may or may not like spoilers but it is irreverent, they are allowed.

Your line of "de facto leaders" is especially troublesome as it implies that both the WP:PW has a power brokering system between a select few, and also glosses over the fact I am an experienced editor in professional wrestling, not some admin who blew in on a high horse on a little fringe topic I know nothing about to plant my views upon. I have watched, editted and commented for a long time on professional wrestling on wikipedia and then to claim that the "leaders" of WP:PW will depart if spoilers are finally allowed into the garden is truly ridiculous. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I think this is missing the point spoilers serve a purpose in that they warn others that information they may not want to know has been included in the article. This works well for things like books and movies.
For TV shows I think this isnt warranted because at what point do they get removed, and what audience is the spoiler for hence if its because the show hasnt be aired in the US then thats Bias, as it would be if the show hasnt been aired in Australia, or Europe. We are building an encyclopedia that contains information about a subject when that information alters then the article should be also be altered, as wiki that means that when an editor is able to provide a source and do the edit, we shouldnt be waiting days for a show to be aired everywhere. Also we work by developing consensus not by stonewalling until your POV is the result, these comments make it difficult for editors to assume good faith and it also creates bad feelings in discussions making people reluctant to even consider your POV. Gnangarra 05:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And just to clarify I have, not once, stated that spoilers are to be used for "week by week" article cruft. Non-notable incidents are still non-notable incidents and would be, in all likelihood, still removed as such by editors keeping the articles clean. The idea the articles will explode in cruft if spoilers are allowed is truly groundless and a complete misinterpretation of what this debate is about. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be time to open up an RFC on the matter and bring in a wider range of opinion, or it may just demonstrate that a minority opinion is a minority opinion. But I don't think we should get bent out of shape or make changes to policies to appease editors who threaten to leave if they don't get their way. We are and encyclopedia and not a fansite. --Farix (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that a RFC is the way forward - let's put this one to bed or it's going to go around and around and around. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Farix (Talk) 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you think it's appropriate to announce the RfC at the Village Pump, WP:RS, and other high traffic areas, then go ahead. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA 's anti-Semitism again

Once again, an editor calling himself Hans Rosenthal - ROHA - is posting insulting and offensive comments. Please see this recent discussion, in particular the comments by User: Nemissimo. Strill asking for a range block - or do we just keep accepting his years of harassment? Tvoz |talk 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of spewing anti-semitic vitriol and general disruption. Unfortunately he is coming in from a broad range of IPs (see here). To catch them all we'd need to block 84.148.0.0/17, which is not likely to fly. Instead I propose that we put a de facto ban on ROHA such that any editor may revert him on sight. Such reversions would be treated like any other reversions of a banned editor; namely, the person reverting would not need to take into account 3RR or other restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried contacting his ISP? --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle that could work, but in practice we may as well beat our monitors with colored pencils. Especially in this case, where the ISP is Sprint. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about what Nemissimo says about how .de handles him: here? And has anyone talked to Foundation legal-types about situations like this? Tvoz |talk 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Range block. Anti-Semitism, or anti-any religion is a great way to invite a smack on Wikipedia's face in court. We should nip prejudice in the bud.Bakaman 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, it's a big range. It's a /17, which works out to over 32,000 IP addresses. I'd rather semi-protect the articles until he gets bored and slinks away. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to try that approach, but note that he's been at it here since at least 2005. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA attempted to post to this thread. I deleted it. He's deliberately using an IP so we can't block him, so I'm taking a novel approach of declaring a "virtual indef block": his edits should be deleted on sight by any editor who encounters them. This "virtual block" may of course be challenged or undone by another admin, just like normal blocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I need help

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required. east.718 at 02:21, November 20, 2007

I am trying to understand Why certain info in Texas Transportation Museum is bieing called "unencyclopedic". After the Below content was added the info was deleted again.

Article cleanup Several editors have removed the unencyclopedic opening hours, ticket prices etc. info from the article per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:IINFO (As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.). Museum of Modern Art is a good example of an article to emulate in building a good museum article. feydey 06:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact only two people have commented or edited the article for the purpose of deleting "unencyclopedic" info User:Feydey And User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

I deleted the Ticket prices. On the others I belive it is a mater of opinion because nither of the WPs you sited say anything more than: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.".

Amreatsf4620 07:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Texas_Transportation_Museum"

So again I would like some admin help with this.

Thanks, John "Amreatsf4620 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"

This is a content dispute, and you should seek dispute resolution. This does not require admin attention; indeed, admins are not in any way special in this respect. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know it wouldn't have hurt you just to point out to this user, that they are in fact mistaken, the things they are adding (opening times/schedules) aren't disputable, they are clear policy violations, per NOT#DIR. Just because this board isn't meant for dispute resolution, doesn't mean you can't correct a mistaken belief, which is always a lot more concrete coming from an admin--Jac16888 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins have any special position to be correcting people's beliefs on content issues, nor do I believe I should comment on content disputes which I have not taken the time to review properly. I also don't want to encourage people to treat this board as some kind of forum for "authoritative" or "concrete" opinions on content disputes and I believe letting people use it instead of dispute resolution does exactly that. --Haemo (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)