Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive349

Open proxies at Bates method

Resolved

Just a heads up, but in the last week or so, a whole lot of identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies; they'll identify and block. As for TORs, I'll check using the infobox in each IP's contribs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, other admins have it. The advice avbout WP:OP applies, however. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Already identified and blocked, half a dozen admins beat me to the punch. east.718 at 05:19, January 2, 2008

Actually, it took me less than a minute to verify all of em, but no one is giving me a chance to block them, so I moved on to crack, instead. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually reported three of them some hours ago, but nothing happened. More to the point, these were a whole lot that all centered on a single article, which was my real cause for concern and something some unovolved and/or tool-bearing admin could look into. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be quick. I got four of them by starting at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates method semi'd for 120 hours. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the page been protected? Proxy paranoia? 87.28.84.44 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to Oxymoron83's page) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop using Tor - open proxies are prohibited on all Wikimedia projects because of abuse. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Um no, this is not the case. There is no prohibition on open proxies. The Foundation doesn't prohibit them, Jimmy Wales doesn't prohibit them, the meta policy doesn't prohibit them, and the policy on this wiki doesn't prohibit them. The policy even says that users are explicitly allowed to use them, "freely" it says. Sure they get abused and blocked from time to time, but they are certainly not prohibited. On the other hand the protection policy allows protection when there is vandalism, and prohibits protection to prevent anonymous editing. Your protection on the grounds of "IP Abuse" is without any foundation in policy, and worse, is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. 80.249.115.147 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) From the Meta policy: Although Meta encourages anyone in the world to contribute, such proxies are often used abusively. Since MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have ocurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns. (emphasis mine) The Wikipedia policy is simply a reiteration of the Meta policy, and both are generally interpreted as prohibitions on using open proxies. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You deliberately missed out the relevant bit of the consensually agreed policy: "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Your protection has no basis in any policy. 64.191.50.123 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is legitimate editing? Mr.Z-man 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This TOR proxy's just playing Harvey Birdman now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Anti-Spam Evangelist I am very worried when anon users try to edit with anonymous proxy IPs, but as a free speech and a human rights advocate I am conserned that some people in some countries may not be able to access WikiPedia for reading the content. Is it possible to allow anonymous proxy users to read the content but block them from editing? Igor Berger (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is always the case for all blocks. Blocks only block an editor from editing Wikipedia but the said person can still read. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP backlog

Somebody want to take a look at WP:OP, which has a big backlog? Which, unfortunately, I'm responsible for, since I started adding candidates 37 hours ago and which no one -- with a couple of exceptions -- has touched since? One of those exceptions is one of the Tor proxies commenting above, which I, in fact, had already flagged 13 hours ago.--Calton | Talk 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a trusted proxy-checker. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft

Resolved

Could an administrator please study all edits made by this person since mid-December? Other relevant pages are User talk:Richard Daft and User talk:88.111.83.82.

Richard Daft's contributions are persistently unconstructive. It seems that he is using WP as a means of mounting personal attacks against a particular individual. Some of his comments amount to abuse. Attempts to reason with him have produced responses that are at best incoherent and at worst potentially threatening. His edits have all been reverted apart from his last one which is still on my talk page.

My recommendation is that this user and IP address are blocked for a suitable cooling off period and that appropriate admin notices are posted on the relevant pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post seems to be a spillover from a very hot content dispute at such places as John Leach (writer). Please supply diffs of any violations of Wikipedia policies that you believe have occurred. A cursory scan of the contributions suggests that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the best option for you to pursue. Though I don't know who should receive credit for the article improvement, the John Leach article looks pretty good right now (improved since November), and this is the period when you suggest the bad actions by Daft occurred. I did not see any vandalism, only good faith edits. Daft has not touched the article since 19 December, while many edits have happened since, so it's surely not an ongoing problem. Some of Daft's messages on your Talk are overheated, and he should moderate his language. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not good enough. Look at the three latest posts by Daft/Asquith and it is clear that he is deliberately conducting a campaign to try and discredit John Leach. I see he is now trying to forge an "alliance" with another member. His statement that the e-mail sent to Mr Wynne-Thomas was "rude and unpleasant" is a pack of lies. The e-mail was posted on a forum and read by perhaps 100 people. It is a polite and arguably humorous response to a book review that Wynne-Thomas had written.

Furthermore, in a previous post to me, Daft closes with a statement that could be construed as a threat: how else can you take being told to shut up or something serious will happen?

Do you want genuine editors to quit WP because of vindictive people like Daft or are you going to do something to prevent Daft from adding to his tally of 30-odd invectives all directed against one person? --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have absolutely had it. I cannot stand this situation any longer and I am resigning from the site. If you are going to do something about Daft then contact User:BlackJack and listen to what he says. Otherwise, let Daft have what he wants and you might as well shut the site down. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The responses to Mr Wynne-Thomas are far from humorous and this can be verified by contacting him at Notts CCC. Mr Leach also sent me a diatribe based on false information(He quotes the ACS minutes - I have them as do a small number of other people, and what he states is not born out by the facts). I have had one intention is starting this debate and it is this - Wikipedia needs, as far as possible to be accurate. Obviously mistakes occur, articles are fattened up over time and blatant errors removed and controversy discussed. In my opinion and that of many acknowledge experts(people used as a source by other well known writers, called on in the media, written prize winning books etc) is that whilst Mr Leach has an excellent knowledge of cricket and especially pre-1800, he is not an expert because his research has been secondary. In other words he has not spent 20, 30 plus years researching newspapers and original artefacts - in this area, neither have I but others have and they have compiled books, reports and articles and made their research available. Mr Leach, legitimately has drawn on this. Was is not legitimate to claim that his work is breaking new ground. It is not. he has found athe odd new score and drawn attention to others. So have I, so have thirty other people(I prefer the period from 1840) he has written an ebook that makes claims, some of them reasonable and some of them not. What is problematic is he has no sources or examples of original research to substantiate these claims. Therefore the crux of the matter is that the original and subsequent revision of his entry are completely misleading. Mr Wright is not a cricket expert and you cannot supervise a site such as this without a high level of knowledge and, it seems to me, a lack of objectivity. I would re-iterate that I was the one who initially publish Mr Leach's match scores list. It is a bit rich for him to say I receive criticism from the ACS committee over articles when his was the one in question. I would reiterate again that he has done an excellent job with the overwhelming majority of his additions to the site. However he has made some which are simply not accepted by anybody but himself. I have just seen Mr Leach's new entry and this surely is a better entry. Concise and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) M Asquith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question placed by the alleged "admin" on AlbertMW's page, someone called Mark Asquith (see above) is operating on here as User:Richard Daft (see above) and nearly every single one of his posts since he first appeared on about the 12th December has consisted of invective and diatribe against one person, as per the incoherent drivel above, which is a typical sample.

Whenever genuine editors have tried to be reasonable with him he becomes abusive, ignores what is said and goes off at a tangent before coming back with yet more of the same unsubstantiated garbage.

What has happened to WP:CIVIL? AlbertMW has specifically complained about a comment like "shut up before something serious happens" and you do nothing about it?

AlbertMW resigned from the site this morning and I am resigning from it this afternoon. If Wikipedia's so-called administrators will stand aside and allow a campaign of vitriol like this to be pursued against one person for over three weeks then the site is not worth supporting.

If you want people on the site who carry on like Asquith is doing then go ahead. You're welcome. I'll find another way to pass the time. Goodbye. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that there are some clear WP:COI questions regarding Richard Daft's involvement in this article, his responses suggest he knows some of the parties off-wiki and is deeply involved in the situation there. If it turns out that that has been his main motivation for editing here, WP:SPA would apply. WP:LEGAL applies to the threat made to AlbertMW if someone can point me to it. Orderinchaos 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely. On review it is certain to me that this person is a classic case of a single-purpose account with an offline conflict of interest on the topic, and has acted belligerently towards other contributors, including two third-person legal threats in comments to others. Per Jimbo's action on Miltopia, we do not need contributors of this type - we can already see it's possibly lead to the departure of two productive Wikipedians. I'd note to BlackJack and others that that doesn't give you a free pass to act equally uncivilly, although I saw no reason to act on that as it was clearly provoked. I have offered unblock to the person on condition that they give up on the John Leach article and operate within the COI and BLP rules. Orderinchaos 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot to note, my review did pick up another potential COI with another editor, who has an article about them on the site, but that editor has not contributed to either the article or talk page, and in the circumstances I commend their restraint. Orderinchaos 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed POV (Resolved)

Resolved

Does anyone agree that the following is POV?

when the author combined his work in quality assurance and quality control points with function deployment used in Value Engineering

Rjsfhl (talk · contribs) has inserted this several times, but insists it is not POV on his talk page. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tales of it, sounds like corporate double speak to me, but it sounds like a content dispute. Maybe try getting more input on the articles talk page. This really isn't the place for content disputes. RxS (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not POV if it's supported by a citable reference. It is saying that the creator of this technique did so by synthesising two existing approaches, and he either did that or he didn't. This would be better at WP:3O, perhaps, as the article's talk page is not overloaded with editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rodhullandemu. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not POV. "A combined X and Y to make Z." I don't understand why anyone would think it *is* POV. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can see it could possibly be read as POV is if someone didn't realise that quality assurance and quality control are two processes used to maintain the quality of a product, and as such the word "quality" is not actually a comment on this person's work. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please halt this (Resolved)

Resolved

Last week I reported massive canvass disrupting a move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß. The proposal was rightfully speedy closed by User:James086, who called for a period of about one month to elapse before a new move proposal could take place (in order to have the canvass die out). However, the same user took the initiative to restart the same move proposal just a few days later, apparently pressed by users unsatisfied with the early closure. I've contacted James about this but received no response. Meanwhile, at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß the second proposal goes on, with the effects of last week's canvass still obviously present. Please analyze this situation that should really be halted. Thanks. Húsönd 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have been closed in favor of the move. I stand mute on whether the closure is proper, but note that the most recent discussion began on 28 December. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are opened for five days or whenever discussion has ended (whichever is greater), and the Strauß/Strauss discussion was on the WP:RM backlog when I closed it - I note 28 December was 7 days ago, and there had been no particularly relevant contributions to the discussion since 31 December. Neıl ☎ 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I specifically highlighted the date. Apart from not waiting a month before opening a new discussion, I saw no other problems with the discussion, which is why I didn't comment on them - nor do I see evidence of canvassing, as was claimed in the previous discussion. It looks like a good close to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I'm not sure how bringing an ongoing move discussion to the attention of interested parties could have been construed as canvassing, providing both "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed. And as for the lack of a month's wait, given a discussion had taken place, at great length and in an admirably scholarly fashion, it would have been very discourteous to dismiss it with a "sorry, you didn't wait long enough" and leave as is. Neıl ☎ 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

providing bot "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed - didn't happen here. Check the first move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß and see what User:Unschool's canvass to 34 users supportive of only one "side" made to that discussion before it was speedy closed. You'll see a handful of those 34 back at the second proposal. By the way, I don't think that informing both sides of a discussion would not be canvass. The only way to make things even is not to tell anyone. Húsönd 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence, other than the way they ultimately voted, for your claim that they were chosen based on what "side" they're on (IIRC the proportions among those who were not canvassed were similarly overwhelmingly in favor of the move, and this was a reason people were dissatisfied with the early closure). It looks to me like you're against the move and, lacking any consensus for your view, you're lobbying against it any way you can. If there were a significant number of people who agreed with you surely they would have spoken up one of the times this came up in this highly visible noticeboard. —Random832 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was against the move and that's a no-brainer because I participated in the first poll as "oppose", shortly before the canvass had taken place. But the far-fetched lobbying accusation I think you should have kept for yourself instead of posting it on "this highly visible noticeboard", because a) you don't have any evidence for that; b) WP:AGF and c) it's rude. Húsönd 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made the accusation (without providing any evidence beyond the way they ultimately did vote, which is insufficient) that the users who were notified were chosen because they were predisposed to vote one way. It doesn't violate AGF to suggest the possibility that you _might_ be forum-shopping, especially since the subject line above clearly indicates (states outright, in fact) that you were fishing for a particular outcome rather than just asking for more eyes on the issue. —Random832 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was "fishing" for this proposal to be halted so that a new one could occur in a month with a greatly reduced suspicion of canvass interference. Where that goes to an agenda for enforcing an outcome I fail to grasp. Again, you should have just assumed good faith, as all users should be required to. Húsönd 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

4 users who contributed to the second poll were notified of the first. So of those canvassed, 4 returned to the second RM (all of which supported the move). Even if they were to be discounted from the second survey, the numbers would be 12-4 in favour, still 75% in favour of a move so I don't think the original canvass has had a large enough effect on the second discussion to mark it void. I began the second move discussion because it was clear that many people did not want to wait a month to have another discussion. During the second dicsussion a note was left at the German Wikiproject informing people of the move request, but per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices it would be acceptable. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They were 5 actually but yes, even disregarding them we would still have a majority calling for the article to be moved. And yet, I still don't trust the outcome of this discussion. Should this have happened a month or so later and everything would look much better for me. Canvass is a powerful disruptor, even off-wiki, and only time can weaken it. Anyway, I'll drop this. Húsönd 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 192.249.47.11

Resolved

This IP address has numerous warnings (including one in the past 30 days) and at least one previous block (see User_talk:192.249.47.11. I have reverted two vandalism edits in the past 24 hours. I'm recommending another block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancookie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked. Thanks, but that shared IP has no warnings after its recent vandalism, and as a matter of practice, we do not block users until after a recent final warning. For future reference, such requests are processed faster at WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability issue at Cayra

Resolved

An editor recently made this post at WP:EAR. The editors there, including myself, are probably able to handle the DR work, however when I was checking the page's history, I noticed a lot of reverting being done, not as vandalism, but removing and replacing a Notability tag there. I wanted to alert the administrators of this little edit war going on. The article does seem to be covered by multiple independent sources, but it does lack in-text refs. As I mentioned previously, we can handle the DR for now, but this situation might require admin intervention. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention against what or whom, specifically? I just see a minor edit war with IPs and new users over cleanup tags. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None right now, I just wanted to put admins on alert, in case page protection or 3RR blocks are needed. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do this again. This page is reserved for incidents requiring actual intervention. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, won't happen again. I'll post if any intervention is required. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user

Resolved

 – IP checked and blocked; sleepers buried. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Another one that needs a block. See the users contribs and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LaruaWA11 for evidence. Also, when blocking, please protect the users' talk page, as when blocked, the user abuses unblock and helpme tags (as evident from the other sockpuppet).

Is there anybody who can further investigate this and perhaps issue an IP block (maybe a range block is needed here, as I guess the autoblock on the other accounts isn't kicking in)? Should I fill out a SSP report? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. As it's pretty obvious socking, go to the IP block section of WP:RFCU and one of the checkusers will take care of it. east.718 at 04:38, January 4, 2008

I'll file the IP sock request. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaand filed. It's in the CUs' hands now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had the check request all done and got the e/c...you're too quick. Thanks for the help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Guettarda violating 3RR, suggesting bad faith

Resolved

no violation was found at AN3. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [1], [2], [3], [4]. The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for the 3RR noticeboard; I see nothing in here that requires special attention beyond that. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User notified of thread. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Golbez, was this the wrong spot? I'll have to move it then? Thanks. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please close this as I moved it to the 3RR noticeboard per above advice. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Table Manners was removing sources as "unnecessary" and then adding {{fact}}, that after complaining that other editors were "anti-Christian". Looked like garden variety disruption/bad faith editing to me. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with personal attack containing possibly confidential information

Resolved

Can someone please delete the following revision: [5]? It contains information that might be used to locate or harass the subject of the attack by the IP vandal. I have reverted the live version of the page, but it is still in the history. Lankiveil (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Deleted. violet/riga (t) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec'd)Beaten to it by User:Violetriga. However, whilst I was there I have also given a strong warning to User:Dlo2012 here Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:71.232.240.3 - time to cut this person off?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the warnings here, and check out the revision history of Oskar Schindler. Is it time to stop AGFing and cut this person off (especially since it appears to be a static IP)? ^Avruchtalk 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

let's see... 4 months of persistent vandalism, no useful contribs, and an apparently static IP... I've blocked it for 1 month. If the IP resumes vandalizing after that, escalating toward 6 months would probably be appropriate IMO. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism

Resolved

 – on its way to WP:OVERSIGHT

Here is vandalism in the edit summary. If feasible, an admin might want to delete and recreate without this entry. Not sure how this should be handled, or if it should just be ignored. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be better handled here Wikipedia:Requests for oversight given the lengthy article history. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to associate my email address with this. If this is a necessary step, I would appreciate it if someone in the know could complete it for me. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. I have a Wikipedia specific e-mail account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted the request as directed at the deletion guidelines for administrators. Now I'm off to deal with the edit summary vandalism at user's talk page, unless it's already been handled by someone else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for handling it. I did not warn him - I wanted to see how to handle it first. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had warned him (retroactively no less--I accidentally dated it 2004), but another admin decided it was reason enough to block. I have no issues with that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism like this happens all the time. I think generally deletion is enough, a request for oversight is not really necessary. PeaceNT (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, administrators are encouraged to avoid deleting pages with a lengthy revision history to do a selective delete-and-restore, because it takes forever and taxes the server. I believe the deletion page suggest contacting oversight as they, I can only assume, have some easier way to deleting specific revisions. Natalie (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor evading an indef block

Resolved

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to evade an indefinite block by ChrisO at the Glenn Greenwald talk page (It's the holidays I guess). Previously posted: IP 71.100.1.7 signs as Raphaelaarchon diff for add to GG article
and earlier diff signing as Raphaelaarchon (diff -same IP)
Today (slightly different IP): link

Some information behind block can be found here: [6]
I think it's obvious, but if others disagree, I'll take it to CU. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a reasonably good match to me. The IP appears fairly static. I've blocked it for 31 hours; if the abuse continues from the same IP, let me know and I'll extend the block. If socks from numerous IP's start showing up, we could semi-protect the talk page temporarily, but I'd prefer not to do that unless it's absolutely necessary since it would shut out all IP editors from commenting on the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not too worried about it. I just want to get fresh input every once in a while before I remove the disruptive comments/personal attacks. R. Baley (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Near-Earth asteroid and Administrator User:WilyD

Resolved

 – Content disputes are better handled on talk pages than ANI, no admin action is needed. 1 != 2 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Respected Sirs/Madams-

In above mentioned article honourable Administrator User:WilyD wrote, "Asteroids with diameters of 5-10m impact the Earth approximately once per year, producing explosions as large as atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, approximately 15 kilotonnes of TNT."

The reference can not be verified as it only show abstract of paper. But whatever may be content of paper, asteroids do not strike earth once per year to produce explosion like atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

For example, where such explosion occured during 2007 or 2006? Why media always ignore these asteroids which has capacity to destroy cities and kill millions of people?

Statement of such enormous magnitude really need reliable sources which reader can verify. I request you to please guide me in this regard. Thanks. NEO (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• You could've asked me. Although Nature is the subject of constant jokes in my workplace over its unreliability, it still easily meets Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Cheers, WilyD 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The citation is most valid, anybody can email me if they have a burning desire for the article itself. east.718 at 19:32, January 4, 2008

I don't think this is really something that needs Admin attention - I have started a discussion on WilyD's talk page. (Though I have to say the citation may be valid but I strongly suspect it fails WP:Sense. Kelpin (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just becuase a source says something does not mean we should accept it. I am pretty sure natural 15 kiloton explosions do not happen every year. I think a claim that bold would need multiple reliable sources. Regardless, this is not an incident needing admin attention, it is a content dispute. 1 != 2 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a concluding note, the statement is correct, and one could easily produce oodles of sources that'd confirm it - seems like a silly waste of time, but -> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ will serve you for all your astronomy sourcing needs. Nature may be silly, but I'm sure you could find the same numbers in Iracus which is tres hot. WilyD 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but possibly misleading. The source refers to total energy carried by the impactor, not to the energy of an explosion at ground level. I think that's clear to someone familiar with the field, but needs clarification in the article. I took a shot at it. --Reuben (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked.

GodBlessUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). New account, few edits. Seems to be single purpose. Rolled back and deleted edits include attacks on Muslims and leaving messages of "88" (apparently a Nazi greeting). Questionable username. I'd also say this fellow is English not American, from his edits, so he's probably just a troll. I'm inclined to block indefinitely but I'm a bit out of touch and I don't have any other admins online on my MSN list to consult with. Indef block now or let him collect warning templates? --kingboyk (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bang! [7] there was no need for hesitation his edit pattern was enough to warrant a block for disruption. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Endorse, thanks, &c. --kingboyk (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he actually already had collected quite a few warning templates, though he'd deleted them from his talk page. I was beaten to the block button by mere seconds. Good block. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton

While reviewing new edits, I noticed an edit that seemed to boarder on WP:AGF. I mentioned this to him / her and immediately received a response: "You would, in fact, be dead wrong. Go away." I shall refrain from responding to kind of comment. Perhaps someone else could remind him / her to be a little more constructive and less hostile. Thank you. 58.88.55.173 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without commenting one way or the other, I have advised Calton of this thread. [8] Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Hirohito page move issue is kind of a heated topic right now, with some discussion here that might help explain Calton's commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Calton was previously blocked in November for "continued incivility and taunting", following a block in September for "persistent incivility and taunting of other users"; in fact, this behavior has been going on throughout Calton's editing career, for about three years. Since returning from his last block, he has engaged in further incivility and generally aggressive editing. I suggest that only a block of quite considerable length may be sufficient to convince Calton to follow our policies concerning interaction with other users. Everyking (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two diffs here, while not commendable, are not in themselves blockworthy. If James (or anyone) has more diffs since the last block we can certainly take a look. Haukur (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another edit of Calton's caught my eye - on 1 January, he blanked another user's userpage here. The user, Sellick666 (talk · contribs), has contributions, but has not edited since 1 November 2007, so I'm not clear on what caused this to become an issue. The userpage didn't have a whole lot of worthwhile material on it, and did have profanity, but the edit summary read "blank non-editor's page". MegaMom reverted the change, and Calton reverted twice as vandalism. MegaMom then left a note on the user's talk page apologizing for the incident here, which Calton then removed as "nonsense" here. Again, I don't know if it's blockworthy, but it's certainly unusual and quite possibly uncivil. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: [9] Everyking (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appericate the above diff being added to this discussion, could we please leave me out of it, as it will get me in much trouble. Thank you...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doon't see how it would, he's clearly baiting you into trouble. Big deal. so long as no one finds a diff where you bothered to respond, you're perfectly in the clear. And block Calton for a long time. ThuranX (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Calton has subsequently blanked that user’s page two more times here and here and placed a warning template on MY talk page entitled “Pointless Stalking” [10] which was removed by another user as “undue harrassment” [11] Please, note that he has referred to my restoration of a user page he BLANKED as belonging to a “non editor” as vandalism (!) That seems pretty uncivil to me. Honestly, I think a lack of civility is only the tip of the iceberg where Calton is concerned and a long block might do him some good. MegaMom (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are nicer ways to deal with people, no matter how difficult.

Without wishing to comment one way or the other on Calton's actions, it should be noted that the other user who reverted his "Pointless Stalking" on MegaMom's talk page with the comment of "undo harassment" is an IP with a grand total of 5 edits, 4 in the last 24 hours, of which one of those was the reversion in question, a second was a reversion of another of Calton's edits to User talk:Gross1952, and a third was a continuation of the edit war on List of fictional ducks, with El C and Calton on one side and a number of IPs on the other. To my mind that doesn't smack of the actions of a wholly impartial user. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand and respect the fact that Neutralhomer wishes to be left out of this, however, it should be noted that although Calton was last blocked for incivility on November 19, his edit history shows that he only returned to editing December 23. (In other words, he’s been back less than two weeks.) One of his first edits on the day he returned included the following edit summary: “Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE?" [12] Followed shortly with : “That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too?” [13] That doesn’t sound to me like someone, who fresh off a block, has learned a lesson or is remorseful for his conduct. MegaMom (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a user's edit history shows no edits before 23 December is not absolute grounds for determining that they have only been back at editing for two weeks since the expiry of their last block. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise that might fly slightly in the face of my comment two paragraphs earlier, as on the surface I'm assuming that the IP editor concerned hasn't made other contributions under a registered username or another IP address, which is entirely possible. I'm pretty certain, however, that Calton wasn't entirely absent between the expiry of his November block and December 23. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely respect NeutralHomer's wish to stay out of this as well, but I think the fact that Calton knew about NeutralHomer's "Twinkle abuse" is a bit stalker-ish of Calton, not NeutralHomer.   jj137 ^♠ 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs)

Pardon my French, but what the hell is going on here? All I saw was East718 (talk · contribs) placing username and indef-block templates on those pages and blocking him. However, he unblocked himself a moment later. Could we find out what exactly is going on? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. A couple of us have already left a note at East718's talk page asking for an explanation of the block. Metros (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what's that about? Is it because 13's an unlucky number? :) Kidding. Probably just a slip of the mouse. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently something to do with user error on a report in IRC (blocked reporter rather than subject of report), but awaiting clarification from East718 himself. AGF on fumble-fingers for now, I assume... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to bet me that it has to do with this? Time is identical to the block time. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess others already figured this out on East's talk page. Thought I was so clever... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted my suspicions on East718's talk page; can't wait to see if they were correct. Миша13 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm male, btw. :) Миша13 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know admins could unblock themselves. Odd how he happened to have been experimenting on that before the block. --Thinboy00 @210, i.e. 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They can, but it's considered very poor form to do so. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, mea culpa... this is the first time in more than two months that I've made a mistake of this nature... and second, Misza13 is the smartest person in the room. east.718 at 04:13, January 4, 2008

Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

restoring past discussion for contextKww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Temple garments, where LDS editors will attempt to strike large sections of text and images on religious grounds. Usually, they give up after a few patient explanations that we don't censor Wikipedia to match any religious groups tastes. One particularly persistent anonymous editor showed up on Nov. 13, 2007, alternately using IP address 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 (its a home and a work account for the same user, as stated on the talk page. This editor claims that it is "excessively detailed", but the section he strikes is exactly the same section stricken as "too sacred" by previous LDS members. I've explained it to him. I've enlisted the help of User:Storm Rider, a long term LDS member. He has explained it to him, and recognised, as I did, that the issue was the "sacredness" of the material, not the detail. Ultimately, Endowment (Latter Day Saints) was semi-protected to put a stop to it. After that, User:Brock Soaring pops up, a single purpose account that makes that edit, and only that edit, repeatedly. The tone and style of his comments make it clear he is the same anonymous editor. Protecting the article doesn't seem to be the answer: blocking Brock Soaring probably is.Kww (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least this user is contributing with the same account now ;). In any case, you're right, this is a single purpose account, and he has been chided by other users, including LDS members, to no avail, and continues to edit war. Will an administrator give this user a short block for edit warring and incivility? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a level four warning to his talk page, but since this has been added to the AN/I, he has not edited. I'll watch the article (which I did in the past for months); if he chooses to ignore the latest round of advice, it will likely result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He only shows up every few days ... one of the behaviour patterns he shares with the anonymous IPs that were making the same edits before. I could take care of it for a long time without hitting 3RR, but I don't want to risk looking like I'm in a slow edit war.Kww (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brock came back today, in the guise of the anonymous IP he used before (12.159.66.24), and deleted the exact same text, despite having received a level 4 warning. Can we please just block all three and be done with it?Kww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Given that this user has a history of persistent, long term disruption, both at the Endowment article and elsewhere (i.e. WP:OWN of RealGM), I'm going to do block all three accounts. The IP pages will have {{anonblock}} added in case there are legit users who get caught up in it. If other admins want to revise this solution, that's fine, but make sure to look through the three contribution histories first to check the extent of the problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do I take this mess?

this user page is the editor's only real work, and it's creepy, if nothing else. I ceratinly don't want to know how he 'scores' it. Is this MfD material? or can an admin just fix it? ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD, IMO. It looks like a record of some sort of contest or game. It doesn't look like an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited in months, so I just blanked it. As Jimbo says, this is a wiki, after all. ;) --B (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy friggin' World Catfight Championships. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is THAT what it was? I sorta was afraid to think into it too deeply. Thanks B. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Debbiesvoucher 3rd request

I'm none too happy about having to go through the archive to find that my complaint was moved there with no action or response taken on it, even after I had to come back to the complaint the second time and ask again for someone to look into it, and then someone else put (needs attention) on the heading. This is the original request:

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that at least SOME administrator would leave, at least, a warning about personal attacks. If no one on this board wants to deal with it, could you at least direct me to someone who will? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the user, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

help sought

A few days ago user:ScienceApologist (a productive editor) was blocked for 72 hours for incivility and related issues. He had had such issues before as well. After considerable discussion, the roots of the problem seem to be that he is trying to ensure balanced and fair handling of scientific topics, but he feels that when faced with unscientific viewpoints, he will be unsupported if he seeks help, and considered uncivil if he tries to deal with it himself.

Whilst there may be many views on this perception, the bottom line is, he has been suggested to use dispute resolution and factual descriptions of editing problems, and use the community to help in such issues, rather than sharp words and uncivil personal views on editors ("calling a spade a spade").

I'd like to ask if a couple of experienced admins who are neutral in science/pseudoscience type issues, possibly with some mediation-type ability, might be willing to offer themselves as people he can contact if he has a problem, for a more immediate response/input/handling? Thus supporting him better, and maybe making it easier to get this kind of problem resolved without wondering how much time or hassle it will take if he can't speak as he's used to :)

Relevant background (shortish): User_talk:ScienceApologist#Handling_problem_editors.

Thanks to anyone able and willing!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The major problem here is that ScienceApologist has enemies, and those enemies know his hot buttons and press them relentlessly. Getting SA out of the way would be a major step forward for those wishing to promote fringe and pseudoscientific views on Wikipedia; he's a standard bearer for scientific rationalism, well educated and articulate. The various arbitration cases surrounding paranormal subjects, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and the non-standard cosmologies case, show how determined the fringe advocates are. I'm trying to help as much as I can. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In part yes, but the issue here and now is, he has made clear he doubts that he will get prompt support and help if he did try a more "DR" type approach. Support may provide either reassurance, or skilled input if a dispute arises. In both cases he may feel if it's in competent hands, or he has competent admins to pass it to who will help resolve it properly, then he may not feel under such pressure personally to act himself, as he has been. If he felt he had support that would act effectively, that could only be good for both him and for the project. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem, of course, which is that in most of these cases the neutral point of view is much closer to the scientific point of view than the paranormal. Which means that the paranormal supporters will not consider the neutral parties to be neutral, and anyone they do consider neutral probably won't be :-/ Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with JzG here. Though, I find a substantial problem with many folks trying simply to insist on use or not use of the word pseudoscience. Even in "mainstream" academia there is plenty of poor (even pseudo) science that has gone on, and is going on. If we keep to clear explainations of sources, and not worry about 'labels' as much, we might keep the heat lower on some of these topics as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are willing to help me with this, please add your names to User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. I really do appreciate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor considers an administrator neutral is one problem. The more immediate one is helping SA to feel he can stand back a bit from the line of direct confrontation, in favor of more dispute-skilled others who can help him better, when an actual problem conduct or dispute is at hand. This will keep disputes down a lot. As a community, we appoint mentors (and admins step in on disputes) every day, routinely. First things first, then deal with any genuine remaining issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will help as much as I can as a user, and I will step in and say that ScienceApologist's experience seems very real to me. There is a problem with admins that misapply NPOV when the article is about scientifically nonsensical subjects. The one and only time I have been blocked was for "edit warring" on What the Bleep Do We Know, and I have had my behaviour reviewed by one other editor and an admin that I have edited controversial articles on Wikipedia with, both of whom were surprised that blocking was considered or done.Kww (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second! For months now I thought that FT2 and NE2 are the same person and only now I, indirectly, learn otherwise. Not a good sign. El_C 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, is ScienceApologist seeking people who can help him be more civil? Or his he seeking people who can be uncivil for him on his behalf? Perhaps one solution would be to split wikipedia into two, and let ScienceApologist edit one half, and the other one could be "wackypedia"?--feline1 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

User:Fasach Nua has made a threat to block me and has accused me of vandalism. I am increasingly concerned about the irratic behaviour of Fasnach. This includes removing opinions from talk pages he disagrees with and he has now resorted to blocking threats. Can anybody tell me if he has any authority to do this. I am a respected editor on Wiki, having contributed hundreds of articles. I do not deserve to be treated like this. If anybody should be blocked it should be him and not me. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Djln, would it be possible to provide examples of this conduct by way of diff's please, thanks, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The conduct Djln is referring to happened on Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), in which Fasach Nua blanked an entire thread without citing a valid reason for doing so. I have left Fasach Nua a message regarding the blanking. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it it looks like User Djln cpoied and pasted an entire threat from talk:Fasach Nua into an article talk page. Fasach removed it Djln edit warred over it and Fasach left a level 4 warning on Djln's talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever call it vandalism but Fasach Nua was rm'ing a very unfriendly and longwinded threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Ioeth's reinsertion, as I'm pretty sure he didn't look into the matter as far back as i did and I'd like to see Djln's explanation for the copy and paste job myself. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Djln, if this is the case I feel I should let you know that the manipulation or movement of other users' talk page messages is generally discouraged. If that thread was initiated on Fasach Nua's talk page, there is no reason to move it en masse to an article talk page. To answer your original quesiton, Fasach Nua is not an administrator, and as such has no power to block any user. However, your edits were improper, so the warning was justified, if a bit harsh. You can of course remove the warning from your talk page, but please remember that this sort of content manipulation is not acceptable. Thanks for fixing that up, Theresa knott! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion at Fasach talk page was relevant to the discussion at at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). Fasnach is a menace who is trying impose his political opinions on pages about a national football team and football players. Wiki needs to reprimand him about his behaviour which is very negative. His is seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki to the point I am considering quitting it all together. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the discussion on Fasach's talk page was relevant to the article; altering other users' talk page messages is inappropriate. If you feel that Fasach is acting inappropriately, please seek try to resolve the situation with that user civilly or seek mediation, as it seems that you two are having a disagreement that can likely be resolved; ANI is not the place for it, though. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Loeth, you have got it completely wrong, I did not alter his talk page in anyway. All I did was transfer a relevant discussion from one talk page to another. How exactly is that inappropriate. Fasnach has only objected because another editor expressed a similar view on his talk page as I did at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA) and he did not like it. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because you moved other users' comments from one talk page to another. The discussion was taking place on Fasach's talk page, and that's where those users left the comments. Moving those comments to another talk page makes it look as though the discussion was taking place there, which it was not. It may not be obvious, but doing that misrepresents those users, which is why copying the thread was inappropriate. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are moving peoples comments from the environent in which they were posted, and in changing context you are possibly changing meaning. I repeatidly invited Padraig to contribute to the Ireland page, and he doesnt want to that is his choice. There is no problem with you copying your own comments between talk pages, but 'only your own comments Fasach Nua (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua, what I have to say is rather trivial since this seems to have been resolved. I think you might have left a disruption warning for Djln instead of a vandalism warning. Clearly Djln should not copied these comments from your talk page, much less without at least mentioning the source in the edit summary. I still don't get how Djln thought this would be helpful, but it wasn't vandalism even though I understand how it felt like that to you. The pith being, calling this vandalism might have distracted others from digging into what was going on (which is to say, since the edit wasn't vandalism, Ioeth restored it without looking further). Happily, Theresa Knott had the patience and care to do this and found it was an unhelpful and misleading copy-paste of comments from a user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right a disruption warning would have been more appropriate, and a vandal template was just laziness on my part. I never thought it was vandalism, but I did think it wasn't far off it (especially as the user had done it for a second time). The warning was given on my part to signify to the user that a line had been crossed in terms of reasonable behaviour, I have since removed the warning. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fasnach, you telling me I have crossed the line, just makes me laugh. Your behaviour over the past month is beyond belief and a disgrace to Wikipedia. You behave like you own the place. I also smiled at the fact you admitted you are lazy. I can tell by your research that this is true. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not Bite each other. And we are not Buzzkilling anyone. Just miscommunication and inapporpriate Netiquettes at worse. Shake hand and make up..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1

Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs) is, despite my repeated attempts to direct him to the guidelines in WP:CAT that indicates that generally, an article should not belong to both a parent category and a subcategory, misstating the situation and making improper claims about my edits. (See Talk:Qilibi Khan.) I'd like for someone else to review the situation and to warn/block him/her as you see fit. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, which does not belong here. Also, see the Blocking Policy, and note that the user hasn't done anything to warrant a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see his latest edits as personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on which edits?--Crossmr (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

There seems to be more drama at this article, with cross-allegations of defamation and possible violations of WP:3RR. I got a message on my talk page at [14]. Could a neutral sysop look at this please? Bearian (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about having personal contact information on user page

A new user placed a lot of personal contact information on their user page, mainly home and mobile phone numbers. I've blanked that from their page, but I'm wondering if the history should be deleted, too? I'd rather not place the diff here, in case I'm just being overly paranoid, but if an admin agrees, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll give you the diff. Thanks. Yngvarr 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user is a minor, delete and explain to them why it's a bad idea, if they are major just blank and tell them, in my opinion. The user might wish not to be anonymous. -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin took care of it, under WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Yngvarr 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

I'll be offline for most of the weekend as usual. I've been keeping an eye on Mark Speight which may become the target for a spate (sorry, couldn't help myself) of vandalism, as he's just become the subject of some lurid and unfortunate news in the UK. As a kids' TV presenter, and a BBC man to boot, this will no doubt attract the Red Tops, so I suspect this will become a very big story.

I've slapped on a current tag but for now there's nothing like enough activity to need protection... but the news is still very fresh. Please can some other admins keep an eye on it for the next couple of days at least. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS The redlink Natasha Collins may well turn blue and require similar watching, although sadly there's no BLP issues there. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Informed of possible sockpuppet

I appreciate that I should be doing this on the sockpuppet reporting page, but I do not know enough about the case to be able to fill it in. Earlier today, I posted a warning on User:82.83.130.148 about assuming good faith. I got the following reply on my talk page:

Thank you for your advice. I did first assume good faith, but the edits of User:Polysynaptic have only the purpose to falsify facts. He not only deletes scholastic sources and ignores them (for example in the articles al-Farabi and Seljuq dynasty), he even creates alternative articles to already existing ones. That's what he did here. Although the article al-Biruni exists and has a very good shape, he created a second one only for the pupose of claiming him Turk. He also falsified the article Ulugh Beg, again claiming that he was a Turk (while Britannica 1911 says something different: [15]). Simply calling Ulugh Beg a "Timurid" (that was the name of his dynasty) is the best and most neutral solution. User:Polysynaptic registered on December 30th, but he is no new user. His edits are extremely biased toward and based Pan-Turkism, he is deleting sources, ignoring scholastic sources, and he falsifies sources. I believe that he is a sockpuppet of some other (banned) user. Maybe of User:Moorudd whose IP was blocked last week because of racist insults against Iranians: [16]. And he is again at it: [17]. Checkuser has confirmed that the IPs are those of User:Moorudd: [18]. The edits of Moorudd and Polysynaptic are very similar: Moorudd vs. Polysynaptic Some admin should help out.

I then (on the anon user's page) posted a request for them to report it to the sockpuppet report page, along with a suggestion that they register. On my page, I received the following response.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I will probably register. But I would appreciate it, if you report him this time so I can learn how to do it. I will be off Wikipedia for a few days, then I will (maybe) register. Thank you very much for your help.

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about sockpuppetry, and so would be useless in investigating the case. Could someone please investigate it? StephenBuxton (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeps posting nonsense editing

Resolved

 – All Quiet on the Western Front

82.29.5.197 keeps posting non factual and is being rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevardonrushes (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he's posting unsouced, that's not the same as unfactual although it is getting to the stage of being a slow burning edit war. Can you provide diffs of him being rude please? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

here are the only things he's said on this IP, which I think are a long way from being actionable beyond WP:CIVIL advice. He's a new editor, so I've left him a "welcome" so he can familiarise himself with our policies. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User Sia34

I seem to be having some difficulties with this user in the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf mediation. While mediation can be difficult at times, I am wondering why this user feels the need to be uncivil, making personal attacks on me simply because I (politely) disagree with his assertions. The user appears to be a SPA based upon his contributions thus far to the community, and thusly, I have tried to point out that we focus on the edits, and not the editors, all without success. The personal attacks (1, 2, 3) seem to be escalationg in both frequency and incivility. Additionally, the user has actively sought out a meatpuppet to support the filing of an RfC, presumably an attempt to eliminate me as a voice of dissent in the Persian Gulf mediation discussion.
Any assistance in helping to calm this user down would be both helpful and instructive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside eyes and admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs)

This is actually more of a plea for help. I previously raised the issue of Strider12 (talk · contribs) at AN/I here. Briefly, this is a single-purpose account with a clear conflict of interest, dedicated to editing the disputed entity of post-abortion syndrome and promoting its main proponent, David Reardon. My previous AN/I post centered on his tendentious editing, canvassing, edit-warring, constant combativeness, etc. There was discussion from outside admins of a topic ban vs. a week's block, but nothing came of it.

Since that time, Strider12's behavior has continued, with the following new wrinkles:

• Proposing a massive rewrite of WP:WEIGHT to serve his needs ([19], [20]), along with forum-shopping his dispute at WT:NPOV ([21])
• Tendentious editing of WP:NPOV itself: [22]
• Turning his usertalk page into a "sandbox" consisting of a POV fork of his "preferred" version of Post-abortion syndrome article. He has helpfully titled his user-talk page version "An Unpurged Work in Progress" and writes: "I do not want any of the POV pushers who are into purging verifiable information to alter this draft. This draft is only for those who truly wish to collaborate on an objective article... I have mostly concentrated to date on inserting missing material rather than cleaning up some of the nonsensical inferences which appear to have been inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns."
• In response to the issue of conflict-of-interest, avoids question and suggests that other editors are paid employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc ([23]).
• Continued edit-warring, most recently resulting in the protection of post-abortion syndrome (which has never before been necessary in the history of this contentious article)
• Continually denigrates the New York Times Magazine and PBS as "clearly pro-choice" and biased ([24]), while simultaneously addding material sourced to priestsforlife.org or other highly partisan pro-life newsletters for "balance" ([25]).
• Outside opinions have been solicited in this RfC; they pointed up Strider12's issues with soapboxing and tendentious editing.

I'm asking for anything here: outside eyes on the affected articles, administrative review, whatever. Personally I feel that this is an editor with a determinedly uncollaborative approach (as evidenced by the usertalk page fork), tendentious habits, a conflict of interest which they are unable to surmount (while describing other editors as sockpuppets or Planned Parenthood interns), disrespect for WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, and violations of WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. The article needs to be improved, but it's impossible with a single-purpose tendentious agenda warrior operating unrestrained. I think that a topic ban is warranted, but at this point I'm mostly tired of banging my head against this particular wall and would welcome any and all outside input. Please. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article draft on his talk page is a definite problem. I've told him that it should be moved to a subpage, and that I'll do it for him if he doesn't know how. (Left implicit is that I'll do it for him if he fails to understand the need.) We should also help this editor with his difficulties understanding WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that's possible. My concern is that he's already had extensive feedback from uninvolved editors, RfC's, and even editors explicitly sympathetic to his POV ([26], [27]) - all to the effect that his tactics are unconstructive. He's ignored all of that feedback, choosing to ascribe it to sockpuppets, Planned Parenthood employees, and the like. I'm not sure what else will get the message across. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(cutting in) Raymond Arritt, I have already told him before how to create a sandbox. Although his response was hostile, he does have a sandbox at his user page. Check his talk page history. миражinred 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for administrative review, outside eyes, ect... However I do so from a different perspective. I feel that there is frustration with one of the particular articles in question David Reardon and that frustration extends to BOTH sides of the dispute. I believe that the article as written is NOT WP:NPOV and there are serious problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BATTLE and I believe that these issues extend to the opposite side of the dispute as Strider12. I believe outside intervention and mediation to develop consensus on the talk page would be a welcome and refreshing at this point. There must be a way to make the article fit with WP:NPOV. The situation as it currently stands is completely unacceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The article certainly needs to be improved. I'm not talking about content per se here. What I'm saying is that it is essentially impossible to make real progress with a heavily tendentious single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the article's subject sitting on it. Mediation only works with good-faith editors whose primary interest is improving the encyclopedia. I don't see how mediation is going to succeed with an editor who, 500 edits and innumerable warnings in, still can't restrain himself from ascribing all opposition he meets to Planned Parenthood employees and "abortionists" dedicated to "purging" the article of his chosen sources. Look at his user talk page - he's created a content fork from which he explicitly disinvites anyone who doesn't share his extreme POV. Mediation is not what's called for. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that the article needs to be improved. I cannot speak for Strider12 here, but I suspect that the frustration felt stems from a perceived bias and violation of WP:NPOV in the current editing. I believe that the user sees the article as slanted from a pro-choice perspective. Much of that is listed on the talk page for the article. Is there not a way to bring independent 3rd party eyes to the article and talk pages and develop consensus? If so, why do we do that? Are you suggesting that the user will not under any circumstances work with independent editors to develop consensus? Why not see if it will work? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

On reviewing the article and talk pages, it's clear that Strider12 doesn't understand WP:SYN, or has chosen to ignore it. The article is supposed to be about Post-abortion syndrome as such. What he's doing is assembling a bunch of journal articles that discuss consequences of abortion for the woman's health -- which do not discuss post-abortion syndrome as such -- and then using those to build a case that the syndrome exists. It's a common mistake of novice editors, and an especially common mistake of novice editors that are on a mission to disseminate The Truth^TM. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(@ Ghostmonkey57) I am saying that Strider12 has made it clear that s/he will not under any circumstances work with editors whose POV disagrees with his/her own ([28]). As to ways to bring in independent eyes, yes - a content RfC was filed on post-abortion syndrome. The responding independent, 3rd party, outside editor came to the conclusion that Strider12 "has a clear POV that you so far have not been able to control. You're not here to improve the quality of the article or work with others towards balancing both sides. You're looking to steer this article in one clear direction in order to make sure your point-of-view is the one most prominently represented." As you're heavily involved in editing these articles, you no doubt saw it. Similarly, User:The Evil Spartan, explicitly sympathetic to Strider12's POV, warned him several times about his tactics to no avail. The question is really how many outside opinions we need to solicit before accepting them. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for the David Reardon article. I've not made a single edit on the post-abortion syndrome article, and I have no plans of editing there. My comments are limited explicitly to the David Reardon article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Contrary to MastCell's assertion, I have repeatedly tried to work with people and have made clear my intent to not blank other peoples' contributions. I also object to many of her characterizations of the issues above. As just one example, she misleads when she says I am pushing a biased source by referencing priestsforlife.org. I wasn't referencing a propaganda page from priests for life or even a commentary. It just happened to be the first site I found that had a copy of Surgeon General Koop's letter and it was linked solely so readers could read Koop's letter. Rather than simply finding a more neutral site with Koop's letter, MastCell supported editors in blanking it so that readers are deprived the chance to easily find what Kooop wrote in it's entirety. Perhaps I erred in not realizing earlier that while pro-choice web site references are allowed, pro-life ones are verbotten, even if they only include the text of a Surgeon General's letter much cited in this article. That is just one example of how MastCell's allegations above are half-truths designed to paint me as the the problem rather than his own POV pushing.

Also, I clearly object to the characterization that I am the source of the problem when MastCell and others continue to delete veriable information simply because it goes against their POV push. Take two clear examples. They correctly cite Stotland as asserting in a commentary that abortion trauma is a myth. A fine quote to underscore the controversy. But they also keep deleting references to Stotland's subsequent article in 1998 in which she describes her own experince with a case of significant delayed post-abortion trauma. Why this objection to balance.

Another example, a chief issue of this article is about PTSD and abortion. And I provided a very recent study from South Africa looking exactly at PTSD scales following abortion. And almost immediately the reference was edited to remove all the information about PTSD and to make it appear that it was only discussing anaesthesia options.

I have repeatedly told MastCell and others that I am open to collaboration, but collaboration means INCLUDING verifiale information that people contribute to an article and INTEGRATING those contributions into a smooth whole. Deleting material in toto is simply not acceptable, nor is the excuse that "my group of experts" reflect the WEIGHT which justifies my deleting your studies and experts acceptable.

The ironic part is that MastCell's weight argument hinges on two articles (Adler & Stotland's) that are over fifteen years old, and these are used to blank out any number of studies and articles published in the last seven years.

Per Raymond's suggestion, I've looked at WP:SYN. I disagree that I am violating the principles described. But it is a principle being violated by many other editors. In fact, I try very hard to comply with the style advocated in the SYN piece in the example of Jones. For example, including Stotland's subsequent opinions, as noted above, is clearly relevent and not a synthesis of new ideas...just a fair reflection of her ideas.

Further, given the hostility of several editors to peer reviewed studies by Reardon, Colemen, Rue, Cougle, Shuping and others (as evidenced in their openly discussed purging of these "unreliable" sources...even though published in peer reviewed journals), I haven't even tried to referance these verifable sources in preference to showing that even self-identified pro-choice experts do not agree with the general denial of post-abortion emotional complications which permeates this article. In other words, I'm trying to demonstrate where the WEIGHT of expert opinion really lies and I've invited MastCell to produce more evidence of the WEIGHT besides her old peer reviewed articles and her three recent popular media articles which are clearly advocacy driven. I've not advocated for the removeal of these sources, even though I think they have little weight. I've only been attempting to include other material that has at least equal, if not more, weight. It is this that MastCell and other appear to oppose. They seem to dislike the fact that there are literally scores of experts, studies, and reviews which prove that the WEIGHT of opinion is not where they have been insisting it lies.--Strider12 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You want more evidence of where mainstream opinion lies, beyond the "old" peer-reviewed articles from Science and JAMA, the position statements of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, and the 3 recent mainstream-media pieces (from the New York Times Magazine, PBS, and Washington Monthly), all of which you dismiss? Do you see the problem here? MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Strider12's comments. Calling other editors "Planned Parenthood interns or high school students" is certainly not an attempt to work with other users constructively, not to mention that responding to another editor with "Thanks for stalking me." certainly goes against WP:CIVIL. [29] миражinred 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider12's behavior is troubling, and the attitude displayed on his/her talkpage and in the article draft does seem to indicate that this user has no real interest in abiding by the various policies governing user behavior. Calling the draft the "unpurged" version, for example, is making quite an insulting statement to anyone who edited the article Strider12 doesn't approve of. Natalie (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Potential Sock...

I'm fairly certain that User:Wahoo4u is a sock of User:Americanconsumer...there's another potential sock being used, but it's only made one edit that doesn't seem that harmful (and for all I know, could be the guy's actual name). It seems like he's pretending to be a third party editor (the American Consumer Institute was created by the admitted president of the company). Within 30 minutes after the president was informed that the page needed to be edited by a neutral editor, Wahoo4u registered an account and appeared with the edit summary "2nd Contributor, revised, and added external links to Fox TV to this article". His "revision" was removing the COI, Unref and Wikify tags on the page, wikilinking a random word (standardized). Today he made this edit to the AfD on the article claiming to be a UVA student who had done a project on this organization and made a little bit of a bad faith accusation "It seems like there is more than careful gatekeeping going on here ...". --Smashville^BONK! 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a sock, definitely registered specifically to !vote in the AfD. You've already tagged with {{spa}} at the AfD; I added the {{afd-anons}} template. I'd suggest waiting for the AfD to close and tagging any more brand-new accounts which show up to !vote. Depending on the outcome, if the apparent sock accounts prove disruptive or abusive after the AfD closes, they can be handled. If the article ends up being deleted, then it may be a non-issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AFD

There seems to be sockpuppetry at this AFD. I think Pennyfan87, Rcartwr and Dharrels are socks of Mhudson3. If so, can someone block all 4 indef and remove their Keeps at the AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked one of the accounts, Pennyfan87 (talk · contribs), as they essentially indicated they were solely here as a meatpuppet for an AfD ([30]). The others also appear to be meatpuppets, but I'm going to leave them unblocked for the moment assuming they don't edit the article disruptively. They are best tagged with {{spa}}, as has been done. The closing admin will take into account their status, but it's not necessary to remove their notes IMO. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gkleinman

• Gkleinman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Commercial username for the founder or owner of the sites he publishes. It is a single-purpose account used to promote himself and his companies. He consistently inserts links and references to his websites into unrelated articles despite repeated warnings to the contrary that it is against WP:SOAP and WP:COI. He also posts under the ip, User:24.21.183.177. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

block and protection needed

In resent days there is attacks to this article. Plesase protect the page from IP-users. --Ilhanli (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make requests for page protection at WP:RFPP. However, even though I am not an administrator, I would say that there isn't enough recent disruption to protect the page. Also, in the last couple days, only 2 different IP's have edited it, and in the last 8 days, there have been 3 different ones. If a user is actively vandalizing, then report them to WP:AIV. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that while the vandalism is unfortunate (btw this edit might be vandalism too), I don't think there is enough vandalism to warrant disallowing new and unregistered users to contribute. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical administrative question, and request for advise/action

If a user opens an account, but then edits without logging in, and violates several Wikipedia's rules for which the IP address gets block, can he then log back in to his previous account and continue to edit, or will the blockage of an IP prevent him/her of logging in to the account created prior to the blockage?

I am asking this because 201.218.79.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making spurious claims that Argentina is a developed nation rivaling European countries, after being reverted, violated WP:3RR (he has reverted by three users, but he kept on reverting 8 times); developed a theory by engaging in WP:OR at Talk:Argentina#Developed country, was warned by three users to stop, and his account was blocked for a 24-hour period. A few hours later Cocoliras (talk · contribs), using the same arguments (and even claiming that the ideas of "dual economies", originally pushed by the anon user, were his ideas), reverted the article once again. Not only has he used the same arguments, but he has the exact same history of edits (focused on Argentina, North America and Panama City. (Please review their history of contributions). The anon user also engaged in an edit war and violated 3RR in North America, and Cololiras is repeating the same pattern of behavior there too.

I was considering making a notice of possible sock puppetry, but I wanted to make sure that technically it is possible to log in to a previously opened account before the blockage of the IP. (Although it is also possible that the user is logging in from different location; the pattern of behavior is strikingly identical). He has been continuously reverting a perfectly sourced statement, and inserting his own OR and claims without proof, even after being asked by three users to stop reverting. Please advise. --the Dúnadan 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the block on the IP is "Anonymous only", the registered account can edit. Little trick: You can put a full block and see if the account (or someone else) complains ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator in the English Wikipedia, so I cannot put a full block. Did you review their identical pattern of edits? Should I open a case of WP:SOCK, or is their pattern evident enough to see that Cocolira logged in to circumvent the block and continue reverting and POV-pushing? --the Dúnadan 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reisio

This user is continuously refusing to accept the consensus established against the inclusion of his own Pantone-based version of the Flag of Italy (see Talk:Flag of Italy for details), featuring gray-white instead of bright white, despite he is the sole supporter of its inclusion and many other users made him note Pantone colours are for textile flags, and not computer-based depictions, thus disrupting Wikipedia to "illustrate" his point. I tried to deal with him with words and even protecting the article, which I just unprotected after I was sure a consensus was reached, but all I obtained was an ArbCom threat for mine. Can some other admin please deal with him? Thanks in advance. --Angelo (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem; Commons has its own episodes. More discourse and name calling exist. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:55, 05 January 2008 (GMT)

User:Lopakhin and the Jewish Encyclopedia

Lopakhin (talk · contribs) has created a number of articles that are almost verbatim copies of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia. See for instance Barthold Dowe Burmania‎ and [31], Seligman Baer Bamberger and [32], Davicion Bally and [33], etcetera. The Jewish Encyclopedia says on the bottom of each article: "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." Are these articles violations of the copyrights of the Jewish Encyclopedia, or do we have an agreement with the Jewish Encyclopedia about the use of their content? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: the articles appear to have been created in accordance with Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely republishing a public-domain work with a copyright notice does not take it out of the public domain. They specifically state the contents are unedited, therefore they probably cannot claim copyright. The copyright notice is probably only intended to apply to the website layout etc, not the article contents. I've sent them an e-mail asking for clarification. —Random832 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This totally sucks. No, it can hardly be copyvio, but we should NOT be using the Jewish Encyclopaedia as a source anymore, no more than we should Britannica 1911 nor the Catholic Encyclopaedia 1913. Outdated and partisan sources like this are not good enough for Wikipedia any more. We've outgrown them. Come on, we can surely do better than this. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'm personally glad we did use those Brittanica dumps as a starting point - in my opinion they helped us grow faster - but nowadays there's no excuse for relying on 70+-year-old material just because it's out of copyright. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thats an opinion I've expressed before in specific instances of JE references. Its hopelessly partisan and out of date, and while references can't be removed they should be inserted with extreme attention to the lack of quality often displayed in these articles. Avruchtalk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this about using the JE as a source for article text or as a reference in any shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I think that Lopakhin has been doing a good job in creating these articles, and I hope that the work rate keeps going. I think the problem is that the guidelines on externally present articles are not at all clear. I would suggest that there are two alternatives:

(1) To text dump the articles into a sandbox and only to release the articles after they meet (a) NPOV criteria, (b) have up to date language and (c) remove outdated references (eg 1908 population statistics), or

(2) Create a one line summary article which asserts notability and includes a link to the old encyclopedia to meet WP:V and have either a talk page tag or (less preferably) an external list of the "expandable articles".

JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is in Public Domain, and therefore copying text from there to Wikipedia is not a copyvio. The quality and today's relevance of the articles there differ dramatically - it would be absolutely wrong to claim that that every article is "hopelessly partisan and out of date". There are plenty of articles which are as up-to-date today as they were a century ago. If anyone feels that particular text copied from JE doesn't meet the Wikipedia quality standards, it should be dealt on per article basis. I am sure user Lopakhin used his best judgment when picking the articles. Wikiolap (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Wikiolap. The Jewish Encyclopedia can reasonably be used, to some extent, for purposes such as biographies of persons from the 19th century and earlier. If there are problems with particular articles, they can be dealt with specifically. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Special purpose Twin Paradox account TwPx

Resolved

 – TwPx blocked for one week Coredesat 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This user TwPx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to insert what amounts to an unsourced originally researched essay ([34], [35], [36])into the Twin paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article.

See also [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Can something be done about this whithout risking a WP:3RR offence? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll place a test1 warning on the user's talk page. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - I love your cat :-), DVdm (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• TwPx is at it again. Left warning on talk page. 5th removal. DVdm (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• TwPx now used his IP-address to re-insert the essay. See evidence (and this) for fact that TwPx = 67.189.222.137. Essay was reverted (6th time) by User:Lumpy27. Looks like refusal to conform to Wikipedia policies (and perhaps even disruption). DVdm (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• TwPx (aka 67.189.222.137) inserted essay for the 7th time. Can this be somehow stopped? TIA, DVdm (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  I blocked him for a week. --Coredesat 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  A tough one. Thx, DVdm (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:R. fiend using his admin privileges questionably

Resolved

 – an RfC/U has now been filed here - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Nothing more to be said here and it is in danger of dredging up further editing history of this user - it's been agreed to take it to RfC, so either someone initiates that or the matter is dropped. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This article is protected yet User:R. fiend is using his admin privilages to continue editing he has been warned before about doing this when he is involved in a content dispute on the article. This is not the first time he has done this and has done on other articles as well, and been warned before for doing so.--Padraig (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user R. fiends was involved in some edit warring (on the same article) back at the end of December. I don't think it is acceptable for admins to edit a page freely, if it is fully protected, unless they visit the talk page and reach consensus for changes they wish to make; just like the rest of us. Also, User:R. fiend has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend definitely is an involved user, if the edit at 21:38, 19 December 2007 and his edit summary of "restoring FASCIST CENSORSHIP or REFERENCED MATERIAL. This has a FOOTNOTE. Therefore it CANNIT be removed or altered by ANYONE, ever. To do so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!111!!11oneone1!!!" is any indication. He shouldn't be acting as an admin here at all and should revert himself back. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow is right. Somehow I didn't even notice that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear R. Fiend's side of the story here as well before coming to any conclusions. 1 != 2 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, it was an error. Admin priviledges shouldn't be used here. Lawrence Cohen 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can everyone please bear in mind that the article was actually broken in the protected state and that no one (including Pádraig) objected to a message in the talk section by an uninvolved editor that it needed fixing whatever. Aatomic1 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't see the comment on the talk page your refering, care to provide a link to the dif. --Padraig (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I bear some culpability here for making this edit requesting what I assumed (wrongly, it now turns out) would be an uncontroversial edit (primarily involving a spelling mistake and a breach of WP:MOS guidance as to piping external links in inline text citations).

Nobody, including Padraig, bothered to reply and User:R. fiend might justifiably have assumed that my title of "Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected" might have been accurate. Sorry for that!

Thanks are due to Rjd0060 for raising an alert on User Talk:R. fiend that his conduct is being discussed here and I apologise that I only notice this when editing the "Unblock of Callmebc" section above or I would have set the record straight earlier. Alice^✉ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was a totally trivial edit, but it still ought to have been done by another admin, so as to not enflame a situation by someone on one side of a dispute doing it. Lawrence Cohen 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• (2 edit conflicts) What?...Errrr, if changes "needed" to be made, they should have been discussed first. Thats why the big template says "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". I agree though, maybe it was just an error. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 20

It was just a minor edit, totally harmless. John Reaves 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a trivial edit (thanks, Lawrence, I was looking for the right word to use), and it was requested at Talk:Easter Rising#Uncontroversial (?) copyedit while page is protected. R.fiend made a less controversial edit than what was requested there by leaving in that the historian was noted. I don't see a problem with this edit. WODUP 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If anything, R. fiend should be commended for making the edit to make the article more presentable in the short term, and leaving in the content that xe disputed because the page is protected and the issue is being discussed. WODUP 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would second both that factual analysis and your opinion, WODUP. Alice^✉ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got R. Fiend's response to this[42]. 1 != 2 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh..- Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely !! - You you all want to be useful please consider Domer's spamming of the talk pages on that articleAatomic1 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Aatomic this has nothing to do with Domers request for sources in this dispute, because you have had disputes before with Domer don't try and bring that dispute into this.--Padraig (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The edit summary and reaction to the AN/I thread are inappropriate for an administrator. Even if the edit was discussed between some editors, it was also (clearly) disputed by at least one and there is no reason not to have used the editprotected template for it. These issues keep coming back to AN/I, and its because folks keep thinking that if they think an edit is no big deal, they can make it through protection even if they are involved.^Avruchtalk 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Are there any admins prepared to act on this obvious abuse of editing tools? DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with having someone remove the text from those embedded links? Please forgive me if I'm a little dense right now, but this doesn't seem to me to be an obvious abuse of editing tools. The only issue that I can see is that R. fiend edited a page on which xe had a dispute while it was protected. That's really where the problem ends because xe didn't edit anything with regard to the dispute. Xe fixed two embedded links that displayed text and corrected a typo. WODUP 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. R. fiend's edit was appropriate, moderate and correct - the only problem was that he did not aks another admin to make the edit. I am at fault for not using a template to request an uninvolved admin to make the technical edit to a protected page. Alice^✉ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - R. fiend is a "he". ^Avruchtalk 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask who this User:xe was. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I see an issue. He is an involved editor on a protected page, and made an edit himself using his status as an admin. He put in a wildly inappropriate edit summary, and then ignored the AN/I thread as an 'inanity.' So, problem piles atop problem and the mole hill of the edit in normal circumstances becomes a problem warranting an AN/I thread and criticism of R. fiends judgment in this case. ^Avruchtalk 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he really shouldn't have made that edit; he was involved in the article and just used his administrative rights to edit. It wouldn't have been a big deal if he had at least discussed it on the talk page before just going and making the edit. Seriously, I think we should have protection levels such as [edit=bureaucrat: move=bureaucrat] or [edit=steward: move=steward]. That way maybe we can avoid problems like this.   jj137 ^♠ 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy certainly seems to have a bit of an issue regarding civility, judging from his talk page. Admin or no, editors should treat each other (and the community) with a little more respect than that. The guy's been here long enough now without the need to have WP:CIVIL spelled out for him - Alison ^❤ 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:CIVIL didn't apply to admins. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake, sorry. Carry on ... - Alison ^❤ 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was also the matter of this controversial revert war on a similar article, Kevin Barry, which resulted in R. fiend reverting to his version and immediately fully protecting the article. As I recall, this went to ANI and another admin stepped in to review and ultimately unprotect the page - Alison ^❤ 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison I knew had used his admin rights before whilst involved in edit disputes.--Padraig (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As far as Duncan's question: Is an admin going to do something? I don't know that there is anything to be done. Unprotect the article, possibly? Revert the edit? Its an invitation to wheel war. The method of review for administrator actions if an admin refuses to participate in good faith is ArbCom. Perhaps an RfC would be a better first step, but it doesn't require an admin. ^Avruchtalk 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Especially since now it looks like R. fiend is refusing to discuss his actions, I think it's time for a RfC (my choice) or ArbCom. I would think ArbCom would want an RfC first, but the fact that R. fiend is refusing to discuss such "inanities" as possible misuse of his administrator rights probably would satisfy the "Attempt to resolve dispute beforehand", especially since we have been here before! SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think as well it may be time for an RfC. This guy is refusing to comment on his discussions, and I think referring to this as "inanities" is simply unacceptable.   jj137 ^♠ 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, indeed, a questionable use of admin powers. I will certify such an RfC if it starts; but I'm definitely not in favor of bringing this to the AC unless that has been attempted. — Coren ^(talk) 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly ready to get involved in an RfC regarding this administrator. It's this kind of behaviour that gives us all a bad name - Alison ^❤ 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Alison; this is why people have problems with admins. I think an RFC is the best way to go from here, and I'll be there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is inane, very much so. Someone pointed out a typo and an improperly formatted inline citation (please, if there is a word "sprit" that is not preceded by "bow" or suffixed by "sail" or an historian named "RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson" do let me know). No one objected to fixing them (for very obvious reasons), but (surprise surprise) no one actually fixed them either. So I did. And, as one of Wikipedia's sensible editors, WODUP, pointed out, I did not change the contentious part (though I would certainly be in favor of that edit). Sure, I could have gone around to a bunch of talk pages and tried to get someone else to do it, but, really, why bother? I could do something myself in 3 seconds or spend minutes trying to get someone else to do it for me. As for my edit summary, which someone had an issue with, well, it was done automatically so if you have an issue, it's with the software. And now people are wasting a hell of a lot of time discussing two of the most trivial edits ever made. Did someone say a potential course of action would be to revert the edits, reinserting a typo? I'm sorry if it strikes people as incivil, but that's inane, if not downright stupid, and the very worst from of wikilawyering. Oh, and making the edit myself had another advantage, it let me know whether people were interesting in correcting mistakes in an article or whining. I guess I got my answer. -R. fiend (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary we were referring to was not that one, but this.   jj137 ^♠ 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the edits were rather minor, but the point was that you were involved in the article and edited it while it was full protected for edit warring (using your admin rights to do so). Any regular user wouldn't have been able to do that.   jj137 ^♠ 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, you're being rude, arrogant and dismissive all over again here, just like earlier. This isn't about fixing typos, it's about your repeated misuse of your admin tools on articles with which you are in dispute. When told this was on ANI, you brush it off with a smart comment. Only when people start making RfC noises, do you bother to even show up here, thus showing huge disrespect for the community. I saw the Kevin Barry stuff going down last month, but I kinda let it slide - see this thread in my talk page archives for all the details. Now, I'm not so sure. I do know this; It's exactly this kind of attitude that other editors so often complain about when it comes to admins. And this looks like an exemplary case. If this happens to go to RfC, I'll certainly weigh in on the matter - Alison ^❤ 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And not only that, there was yet another example of this behaviour from last July in which you shut out an anon editor from yet another "Troubles" article (I'm beginning to see a common theme here) in which you were editing. I only discovered this on my WP:RPP patrolling. Rather than undo your prot, I brought it to your talk page first & as did another RPP admin at the time. One of your revert comments, "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", speaks volumes, I feel. That's three times in a short period - Alison ^❤ 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do your homework. That comment wasn't even from me. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - you're right and I've struck that comment. However, the protect; as the log shows, User:Steel359 ended up reverting the protect with "Inappropriate use of semi-protection" as you chose to ignore both our questions on your talk page. Steel commented at the time, "[...] it would still be inappropriate for you to protect it yourself given you are in that dispute". Care to discuss this now, seeing as you have an established, regular habit of misusing your admin tools on articles you're in a dispute on? - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Not really, as I don't remember the details and don't have the desire to go back reading old diffs, but I sort of recall this basic scenario: an anon with an axe to grind who has clearly not read the talk page or looked over the article history decides unilaterally to make a bunch of edits of the sort that have been gone over a whole bunch of times before, probably about how there's no way Pearse could have possibly been gay therefore even addressing it in the article (even if only to largely dismiss it) is the most horrible thing ever. A mini-edit war ensues and I semi-protect the article to put a stop to consistent reversions and force the anon to actually try to discuss changes on the talk page if they want to make significant controversial alterations to the article (while still allowing normal editing of the article to proceed as usual). I think after that the person went away and everything was solved. As I said, I don't remember the details. -R. fiend (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, apology accepted for misquoting me. There is little quite as annoying as having words you never said attributed to you, knowing full well others would believe the accusations without checking for themselves. I was understandably a bit irritated by that. I realize it was unintentional on your part, so I don't hold it against you. -R. fiend (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, You blocked User:Ed Poor for no reason last October, with absolutely no edit summary. When you were asked by a number of admins to explain, you said Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done" - and that was all you said. When User:WJBscribe suggested you apologise ... well, you didn't bother. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ended up unblocking with, "until blocking admin can give reason for original block" - which was never forthcoming. And on it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, (as I have not investigated the thread of conflict and edits) I would like to point out that completely non-controversial, janitorial-type edits made by admins on protected articles are allowed. Even if the admin is involved, if the edit is a maintenance-type edit (not adding new information, even if uncontroversial) that is not considered an abuse of privileges, as one of the responsibilities of sysops is to perform these janitorial functions on protected articles. Yes, regular users cannot edit protected articles, so admins should not add information to an article (outside of responding to a reasonable {{editprotected}} request that has consensus on the talk page). But fixing the article (gross mispelling, broken link, etc.) is something sysops are supposed to do to protected articles. It does behoove the admin, any admin, to use a very clear edit summary stating that the edit was a maintenance-type, though. -- Avi (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's late here and I need to go. If this issue has not been resolved by tomorrow and if someone else has not already filed an RfC, I intend to file one myself - Alison ^❤ 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested R. fiend exercise extreme care in this area. I'm disappointed he doesn't seem to have gone for my suggestion elsewhere of letting a neutral admin make any edits to the article while it was protected. Having said that, I do think that R. fiend's actual edit was fairly harmless; whether his behaviour taken as a whole merits further action would be for the community to decide. I would personally characterise R. fiend's intervention here as having been well-intentioned, and its conclusion here as being a result of his continually failing to communicate civilly with those he is in dispute with or to properly separate admin from non-admin roles (always a tricky one to call, that one; I should know, I later reverted a change I thought unhelpful and then added a citation tag to it, though not while it was protected...), combined with the highly-charged atmosphere regrettably ever-present on Ireland-related articles these days. I suggest R. fiend learn from the criticism here, indicate such learning has taken place, and we can all get on with life. There is work to be done and I don't think Wikipedia will benefit from further magnifying this drama, if all are agreeable to such a conclusion. --John (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John's analysis seems moderate and appropriate. I would only add the rider that R. fiend might well have been frustrated that some of the editors on that article have such a pronounced point of view that they wish to advance that no amount of rational argument would have persuaded them that one amateur writer's original research was not enough to overturn the combined weight of prvious historical analysis.

I think it might be wise to form a cadre of obviously uninvolved admins for these nationally and religiously controversial articles in future. Perhaps Hong Kong and Thai admins can patrol Irish articles and Irish and British editors can patrol Singapore and Thai articles? Alice^✉ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I want to apologise for the revert on the article; I hadn't studied the history or I would have seen there was an edit-war going on. At the time I was just being BRD about it, and working from the talk page discussion. I now see there seems to have been a lot of edit-warring back and forth on the article; maybe some of the remedies from the recent Arbcom need to be invoked on some of the edit-warriors? --John (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is in order here. Looking over this section I'd say R. fiend's behavior and attitude, even in this thread, leaves something to be desired. More discussion and less snark would be good for starters. RxS (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I'm sure several others do as well. RfC seems to be the best way to go from this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User talk:Voxveritatis

Can an adminstrator please review this user and his defamatory comments about me, continous accusations of libeling him. His comments on the discussion pages, including another wikipeia user User talk:Slp1 are becoming almost harassment. No one has reprimanded him or given him any warnings for continued rule breaking. He claims to be the subject in question (Greg Felton) and is only using wikipedia to edit the page according to his pleasing. I really need help with this user as his actions are becoming disturbing.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: Eternalsleeper is a troublemaker whose hypocrisy is beyond description. His claims against me are groundless and deliberately provocative. His talk page reads like a rap sheet of reprimands and warnings against rule-breaking.

This whole issue began when he repeated a second-hand libel about me and complained when other editors and I took action. SLP1, for example, is an excellent editor who is well aware of eternalsleeper's misconduct. The claim of harassment is preposterous and inflamatory, and designed to make the accuser appear to be a victim. I ask that you give no notice to this vexatious individual, who is not worth your time.

Thank you. Voxveritatis (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As you can see from his above posting, you will see what I am referring to.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of seeing for yourself, please note the following time index from the the history page of "Greg Felton": "21:52, 3 January 2008 Eternalsleeper (Talk | contribs) m (14,359 bytes)" What eternalsleeper calls a minor edit was in fact a wholesale gutting of several paragraphs of hyperionsteel's contibutions. Eternalsleeper has a history of unethical conduct (see his talk page), and so I ask that you take this latest act as typical of his behaviour. Voxveritatis (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:DrVonDre

This user has constantly been violating he rules of Wikipedia and the Dragon Ball project. All his contributions are towards an article speculating a sequel to Dragon Ball GT, called Dragon Ball FO. The article is up for deletion and he has been warned many times, but he still is editing DBZ related articles and giving misleading info. I suggest putting a temporary ban on him to refrain him from vandalizing. Thank you. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we not wait a few days first so that the AFD debate can complete? He's not that high volume. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The debate is obviously going in one direction, and besides. All he is doing is spreading false information and speculation. And this is against Wikipedia policy. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But why rush? He may well be speculating but we don't know if the information is false, perhasps someone will come up with a source then the deletion debate may reverse. I don't think is very likely but I don't see any urgency needed to block him yet either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He also vandalized the AfD, removing multiple remarks and replacing them with his own. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you hate me? Dont be racists, everyone are humans. And I like Dragonball, so I share my knowledge. -DrVonDre

Please assume good faith. Attributing this to hate or racism is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. You appear to be repeatedly ignoring it by adding unverified information to multiple articles. We don't need to be the first website to report anything. The information can be added when we have reliable sources to use as sources for the additions. --Onorem♠Dil 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

His source "Yamada Tarou" is the Japanese equivalent of John Doe. So this is officially a hoax. JuJube (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked this user indefinitely as a vandal only account. All of his edits have been to expound upon the Dragon Ball FO show that was determined in the AFD to be a Hoax. Everything cited above appears to be true. He did vandalize the AfD by replacing delete votes with keep votes. Yamada Taro is the Japanese equivalent to Jon Doe. He claims to be the victim of racism, but that's just silly. He failed to provide any solid reason to be accepted---and tons of reason not to.Balloonman (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zello555 - serious vandalism problem with quattro (four wheel drive system)

I have placed a warning request in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, but I feel something needs attending to as a matter of urgency.

Either the above user needs blocking, or the page in question needs some kind of restricted editing status, as I have had probably three days work completely trashed by User:Zello555 - who never actually responds to any questions of fact. Regards -- Teutonic Tamer 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't think this is vandalism per se but a content dispute. That said, YouTube is pretty clearly not a reliable source here, and I left a message to that effect on the article talk page and restored the older version of the article. Let's see if Zello555 is willing to work on finding better sources. I don't see a need for blocks, protection, or other administrative action at present. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . I would say it is vandalism, but I'll bow to your better judgement. The reason for my particular stance is that I questioned Zello on the validity of internet forums and similar sources. I've already mentioned that I am a highly qualified Motor Vehicle Engineering Technician, and have spent my entire life working on four wheel drive vehicles. Furthermore, I quoted a specific text book, complete with ISBN number, which clearly confirms my stance. Zello repeatedly ignores my request for him to examine said text book, and instead, waits 'til I work on other stuff to repeated post factually incorrect information. The quattro article in question is absolutely based on engineering fact, and has no place for hearsay or mis-information. If mis-information is allowed, then it simply reduces the efficay of the encyclopaedic nature of this site! Rgds, -- Teutonic Tamer 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think you're correct on content/sourcing. The vandalism thing is largely semantic in this particular context. If he edit-wars to reinsert the poorly sourced material, that would conceivably be a case for administrative action. Otherwise, it may be more effective to have other interested editors weigh in on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done some more searching into this. Firstly, I stand by my claim that Zello is vandalising. Having re-read the Wiki article on vandalism, it is perfectly clear that he is vandaising by repeatedly re-inserts un-cited and inappropriate material when he has previously been requested to do so. Quoting directly from the Wiki vandalism page, I state the following areas for consideration:

• Silly vandalism - creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic edits - a reference to "off-roading" in Audis, when the vast majority are clearly road-only cars; also, a reference to "raising a wheel in the air", when again, road cars including Audi quattros are specifically designed to operate with all four wheels on the tarmac,
• Self-promotion - he is using Wikipedia for a mirror to his own site (see below for more detail)
• Adding known inaccuracies - by sneakily using his own website to back up untrue statements
• Userspace vandalism and/or Personal attack - I could potentially cite this, but as I have previously admitted to "having a thick skin", I can't really moan about it, however, others may consider it differently, this definately is a personal attack [43].

He repeatedly refuses to accept that YouTube and internet forums are NOT accepted as reliable sources, and continues (or attempts to continue Talk:Quattro_(four_wheel_drive_system)#undoing_quattro_IV_and_V_off-road_behaviour, Talk:Quattro_(four_wheel_drive_system)#torsen.2Fhaldex_comparison_dispute, and User_talk:Teutonic_Tamer#Haldex_all_wheel_drive_torque_transfer) to quote such sources. He is also trying to cite his own original research (by creating his own video to upload to YouTube).

More seriously, Zello is effectively plagiarising from Wikipedia, and using Wikipedia as a mirror site for his own personal website, and attempting to "own" the Wikipedia quattro page. This is the 'trail' of evidence to support my theory: [44] > 11:52, 20 March 2006 > Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-03-20 > Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-03-20#Quattro_Generations > (dead link ommitted) > [45]. This then links to: [46], and some other pages which have content of dubious copyright status.

Furthermore, having established that Zellos own website is clearly aimed at "Off-road" vehicles with four wheel drive. The quattro system on Audis, whilst it may have initially been developed for rally cars, that was 30 years ago. The vast majority of modern Audis are clearly "road-only" cars, and their own official literature clearly states this. So to repeatedly try to include "off-road" characteristics in the quattro page is clearly wrong.

Finally, I fully agree that other editors could/should add to the article, or discuss on the talk page. However, this is a specialist engineering and physics subject, which requires a notable degree of Automobile Engineering technical expertise, but which few people have the inclination to specialise in. So, unless we have any College/University lecturers or professors, or someone who works (or previously worked) in Audi R&D - then it will be difficult to attract suitably "equipped" editors to this subject!

BTW, thanks for your time in reading and trying to resolve this issue, it's much appreciated, kind regards - -- Teutonic Tamer 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

87.158.121.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made five edits in his first day here. They're not necessarily inaccurate (well, the one to Antisemitism is), but they fit the description of what I think people used to call Jew-baiting. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can provide him with an appropriate warning (see WP:TT) and report him to WP:AIV if this keeps up even after a final warning. Sandstein (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Save Us 229

Resolved

 – Admin attention isn't necessary here.

I suspect this user of being a sockpuppet master. Having followed correct procedure and placed a template on his Talk page, he subsequently removed it. MegX (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And then what?....I think they are allowed to remove those notices. You've done everything right: Made a SSP report and notified the user. No admin attention is needed here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please AGF until a checkuser is completed. Your comment on the mailing list about this wasn't really appropriate IMO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, per WP:UP, I can remove any content I like from my userspace. And I'll tell you something else, I only use one account, please someone run a checkuser if they see appropriate. — Save_Us_229 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You added a "resolve" template without no public discussion with the admins. MegX (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing for the admins to do here. This will be resolved someplace else: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Save Us 229. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any CU's - it's User:Moe Epsilon - he's quite clearly stated that many times before, and given he's also stated he no longer users the account, there's no sock issues here. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've closed the SSP. There was no real evidence, just some dubious, circumstantial evidence based on editing times and dissimilar edits to a few pages. Mr.Z-man 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice for MfD

(general comment) There is a discussion at MfD relevant to this topic for those who care to weigh in link. R. Baley (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding the administrator, R. fiend

Per the discussion yesterday here at Wikipedia:ANI#User:R. fiend using his admin privileges questionably, please note that a Request for Comment has now been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend regarding the alleged misuse of this editor's administrative tools. Anyone is welcome to comment there - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Address 212.51.199.173

212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This person is constantly editing sections of the Republic of China article that have a notice saying that those sections are not to be edited without a consensus on the talk page. His edits have been undone by other editors at least 4 times. Can he be banned or blocked or something (as he/she seems to be keen enough to avoid 3RR)? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, you should try actually talking to him first. Leaving him vandal templates is only going to confuse a user who's apparently acting in good faith. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ONGOING SOCKPUPPETRY CASE - IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED

There is an ongoing sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345. This request for verification involves the account of User:AL2TB as the suspected sockpuppet. There have been previous disruptive edits by this user, and now the user is attempting to game the system by having the puppetmaster account, User:artisol2345, deleted. As a last-ditch effort, user AL2TB has replaced the deletion tag, after it was removed upon guidance from the tag its self, and from another admin by myself. Please see the following diffs for the progress of events: DELETION TAG REMOVED, DELETION TAG REPLACED, AND BACKDATED. This user is now circumventing policy to meet their own agenda. The case, and this incident in particular, needs your immediate attention. Thank you. Edit Centric (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at the very least, realize that deleting a userpage does not delete the account itself. The contribs will still be very visible. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the contribs that need to be preserved at this point, it's the evidentiary content of the userpage and talk page, in direct relation to the SOCKS case. Edit Centric (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And even if the user page were deleted, any admin that is reviewing the SSP case can view the deleted page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Any any event can be undone, so there's never reason to panic. If you do start panicking, it can be a good idea to step back and think about something else for a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the user page will not effect the SSP report in any way. I've left User:AL2TB a note about re-adding PROD tags though. Thats a no-no. Other than that, I don't see where administrator action is needed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the puppetmaster is kind of dangerous, if not even delussional, be careful and keep an eye out, can be a stalker. Igor Berger (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool beans. But just for reference, how much longer until the SOCKS case gets tended to? It's been sitting stale a few days, with no apparent actions taken... Edit Centric (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It varies. I see it's been nearly a week. I'd guess it will be soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From all appearances, Artisol2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) stopped editing on October 25, and then was accused of using a sockpuppet on November 13 and blocked for a week. (I have no idea who the sockpuppet was or what he was doing, though. That's where it would help to have some warnings in the record. Maybe the sockpuppet was an IP address.) AL2TB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editing on December 4. For the life of me, I can't see what is disruptive about what AL2TB is doing. I can see some friction between him and some of the editors in the highways project, but the highways project has always had a lot of friction between its editors. I can't figure out why you're looking for immediate attention from administrators when it isn't exactly obvious what behavior is being disruptive. "Friction and conflicts with other highway project editors" doesn't equate to "abusive sockpuppetry" unless you spell out exactly what the connection is. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Artisol2345 last edit was October 26 - verified. Per userpage, at the top there is a link to the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets. Recently, AL2TB has jumped into the midst of an edit war that WAS part of the whole Highways project deal. (Yes, I'm also keeping a weather eye on that situation too, as I'm also a USRD and CASH editor, on hiatus from editing those articles until the current RFAR is settled.) There have been other issues with AL2TB, some that have caused a few of our eyes to be raised. I examined the similarities between accounts, and those results are posted in the SOCKS case. The immediate attention was requested solely to address the replacement of the PROD tag. I should have been more specific, and I apologise for not being so. Edit Centric (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Something strange happened to the database lock notice

I got:

{| style="background: none;" |- | valign="top" | Database locked | The Wikipedia database is temporarily in read-only mode for the following reason: The database has been automatically locked while the slave database servers catch up to the master This is probably due to routine maintenance; if so, you will be able to edit again within a few minutes. We apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. You can continue to browse Wikipedia articles while the database is locked. For further information, you can visit the #wikipedia channel on the freenode IRC network. |}

on Ilia II for no reason. I don't mind maintenance locks, but someone should check whatever MediaWiki: page is responsible for that message and correct the box formatting. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. The page for it is MediaWiki:Readonlytext, which hasn't been edited in over a year. Anyway, this is the sort of question for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Very odd. I didn't have that problem, and saw that page quite a few times within the last 10 minutes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

98.202.12.152

The IP address 98.202.12.152 has only ever made 2 changes to wikipedia:

• adding a link to "libertybankstory.com" (6 times, various articles, on Aug 28)
• adding a link to "tumbleweedsforsale.com" (3 times, various articles, on Dec 9)

After the first incident, this user was warned. While admittedly not the most egregious offender, I suggest that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to allow this person to edit wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.164.107 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's far too trival to warrent a block IMO. This sort of thing can easily dealt with by reverting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency

Resolved

 – Registered users, please log in and all will be well

Grateful for some eyes over the recent activities by Travb, here. Seems like a wholesale destruction spree on some recent work improving the CIA article, removing or improving some of the conspiracy theory stuff and improving the coverage using a portfolio of articles. In particular his response to my cleanup here suggesting that it is POV vandalism.

Given previous experience it would be useful to have some independent views of the activities.

ALR (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• First, this is clearly a content dispute and as such it doesn't belong on AN/I. Second, just on the face of it it makes sense to me to keep treatment of the CIA on the CIA article. Your diff, as you didn't note, is actually to the article CIA activities in Africa. Unless you intend to create a CIA infobox with links to all of the various CIA sub-articles, then I think an AfD is warranted (rather than a redirect). ^Avruchtalk 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However my previous experience is that Travb does not discuss content and given the wilful removal of material across a portfolio of articles it needs some eyes-on to identify the best way to deal with it. Nonetheless, thankyou for your comments.

ALR (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree its content based. I created a nav-box at the bottom, and I've been working with the editor who created most of the sub-articles to tailor his controbutions to our style. We've made progress and survivied an AfD on one of the articles. Some re-namings are probably in order, but I don't think deletion via redirect is the right way to handle things. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 68.89.131.187 (talk · contribs) for impersonating Travb (talk · contribs) on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency. Review and eyes on the article are welcome, given the extent of this IP's participation under a false signature and their edits to the main article. I'm holding off on reverts to see if Travb logs in under his account. Acroterion _(talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And now Travb's logged in. I'm done for the evening, and will look in in the morning. Acroterion _(talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please unblock IP 68.89.131.187?

Acroterion is involved in this content dispute, and commented on the talk page against my edits. The rules state that an admin should not block other editors who he/she is involved with in a content dispute. Acroterion demanded that I log in, which I did. Acroterion knew that I was back online as travb but retained the block.

I have no delusions that Acroterion will be repremanded for abuse of his administrative powers.

The other comments are irrelevant here on WP:AN/I. The main editor and I are working it out ammitably and calmly on the talk page. The main editor of CIA seems like a really nice guy. Trav (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the "admin abuse" business, since there is movement toward consensus, or at least discussion of consensus, which was the point of my comments. I blocked the IP (anon only) solely because it was signing as a registered user - Travb was free to log in and edit under his username, as he should have all along. The IP is unblocked: it was 00:00 local time, and knowing that Travb could edit, I went to bed. Acroterion _(talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Wall Street Spin

Resolved

 – Article is now in careful hands

I reverted some external links on this page and the user has expressed concern on Talk:Wall Street Spin regarding their copyright over this boardgame. Would someone competent with copyrights help this user please or let me know where to direct them. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are notability issues as well, and I have made a start. Meanwhile, I have left a note on the user (actually owners of this game) on their talk page re spam & COI, and will get back to this later. There is no need for admin action at present, copyright issue is not pressing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone would take a look here and tell me if I've overstepped the mark. The owners of this game are concerned and I have tried to be as fair as I can; but a third opinion would be welcome, and since this thread started here, despite that it's off-topic, I don't see much point in moving it elsewhere at present. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR help needed

Resolved

 – Any legitimate problems here should go to WP:AN3. GlassCobra 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone have a look at the history of Talk:James I of England and help User:Law Lord understand why we use section breaks on talk pages when dealing with very long discussions? I can't seem to get him to understand and he keeps removing the section break six. -- ALLSTARecho 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously edit warring over the position of an arbitrary section break on a talk page? You both need to stop. Mr.Z-man 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And why this needs "3RR help" remains a mystery for the ages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a new rule. Do not abuse 3RR. Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring or reverting vandalism? Indeed, a mystery. -- ALLSTARecho 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean that this issue sounds like it belongs more at WP:AIV or WP:AN/3RR, but thats just my random guess. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I couldn't tell through all of the sarcasm. Thanks. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Suedois and talk page issues with removing comments

Resolved

 – As requested by User:Charles. GlassCobra 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated two articles for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Gustav II Adolf. Suedois voted "oppose" for both, but in two separate votes. Since I had never seen this done, I moved them both to the same place and with the bolding so the clarity of Suedois' comments was not lost. Suedois has reverted, taking out some of my comments in the process. Apparently, it is okay to remove my comments, but not to simply move Suedois' (where no one else has replied to complicate the matter of moving them). The onus, according to this user, is on me to restore my comments, yet I was "warned" for editing the opinions of others (which I did not do) while Suedois has, intentionally or unintentionally, censored mine. I feel that this may also be a civility issue, judging from a previous discussion on my talk page[47] where I was accused of a "deletionist spree". I have tried to initiate conversion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Gustav II Adolf and have also welcomed civil discussion at my page (which was not followed through with).

I also find the following comment to be very uncivil and not in good faith at all: [48]. Currently, the talk page for the article is now a mess, because of the user's insistence on having his/her comments separated. I am also being indirectly accused of anglocentrism, which is laughable because I have even edited articles on British royals to remove anglocentric specialist WikiProject guidelines. The user in question is Swedish and I believe it may be a factor in his/her misguided stress and anger. I am not attack Swedish articles at all; indeed, I have noted a good Swedish article in the Afd which can be reworked to be more encyclopedic. Charles 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles made persistent edit of my opinions, wanting to bundle them, simultaneously apparently writing his own comment. Such edit in an edit history disturbs greatly possiblities to esily track provenance of those comments and opinions. Suedois (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The page history shows no such thing until it came to the removal of my comments. In fact, the exact text is shown to have not changed. Charles 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles has not shown any such relatedness between the two articles which would entitle to bundle them into one delete proposal. Such bundles are frequently done by bad faith deletionisdts who want to get rid of some articles, without having a proper discussion about it individually, and by biasing the discussion with inclusion of the other matter. Suedois (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will allow an administrator to judge the civility of the above comment. I have extended civility but have not been greeted with it, as noted in my initial report. Charles 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since AfD isn't a vote and Suedois clearly stated which article he was discussing each time, I don't see a problem. He does have a point in that combining the articles into one discussion probably wasn't a good idea, you might be nominating both for the same reason, but that's the only similarity I see between the two. Shell ^babelfish 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as an opinion on one matter but there is also the matter of continued incivility. Charles 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The following diff shows what happens to warnings in talk page of User:Charles. The lengthy record of negative things he has done, is thus not easily visible. I rather keep discussion on pages where he has no privilege of manipulation. Suedois (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote part of my talk page: I have found hostility, incivility and rudeness at certain times within the community. It is usually one person at any given time, referring back to disputes with others, acting in some sort of (royal?) succession. If this describes you, smarten up! Help make Wikipedia a better place to edit and read. Note also, lots of past disputes have involved people behaving exactly like you, reverting to leaving unfounded warnings as a follow-up to a disagreement. It speaks nothing of my character but volumes of others. I don't remove legitimate warnings and the like, just the unfounded, spiteful ones. Charles 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the two of you avoid each other. Shell ^babelfish 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I would very much like that, but I truly did not have Suedois in mind when bringing the articles up for AfD. Given the evidence of uncivil behaviour, I ask that this be dealt with, at least a formal warning to the user about the matter. I shouldn't have to abandon a legitimate Afd if it fails on the basis of the articles being dissimilar because this probably will happen again if I start an Afd, with accusation of being a Anglocentic, uncivil deletionist on a spree. Charles 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not behaving in a much better manner. Any editor can give warnings, not just administrators. Its been talked about here and he's seen it; move on. Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I would like to see it (the uncivil behaviour(. It's fine for any editor to give warnings (I did not question that at all) just as it is fine for me to remove them. But, as I noted, if it is going to be used in an uncivil manner and also to discredit me, I'm going to set the matter straight. Please close this as "resolved", I think it's done. Charles 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine 4th request for help on this

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely, by Coredesat (talk · contribs). Anthøny 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(reposting in hopes on getting some help on this; User apparently not taking much of this seriously and has started targeting my talk page as well)

Could someone please check out this and this which both seem to be personal attacks generalized towards the LGBT editors and calling me a "pseudo-writer to invent this artificial term" when I had just asked for him to provide a source that we could use to correct what he felt was a mis-characterization. This user has been given many many last warnings and only recently (as far as I can tell) been getting blocked for his continual and, by all accounts, unrepentant and uncivil behavior. Quite a few editors have been patiently working to build consensus and keeping both this editor and socks (both pro and con) at bay. But this editor has continued to be incredibly disruptive and insulting to fellow editors. Benjiboi 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back from ban and back at it Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez again (which includes statement that WP:AIV report is on hold until the board decides)

Also note: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluemarine Benjiboi 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing, he had a final warning and has continued to be incivil, so he should be blocked. I'm not sure how long, though I think a solid week would suffice. He just came off a 48hr block for the same thing. --Coredesat 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinite. He has a history of using sexual epithets. Would he still be here if he were using racial slurs, which are just as bad? Lawrence Cohen 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. The only reason I didn't suggest indef was because I'm unfamiliar with the complete history of this problem. I have noticed that a couple of indef blocks have been undone for different reasons, though. --Coredesat 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thread here on Matt Sanchez, same problems. That is three threads initiated by three people in almost zero time. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also move to block indefinitely. There appears to be consensus here for the block, and this guy needs to be stopped: no benefit is coming out of his contributions. Anthøny 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:James I of England and User:24.255.11.149

Resolved

 – Blocked by Sandstein; 1 month duration. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly attacked editors most of the day. Many editors have removed his attacks and he has reverted them. I just removed a slew of them and he reverted me. I have removed them again and he has reverted again with a summary of "rvv". He's been warned numerous times (see his talk page history as he's removed them from his page). He was blocked on December 24th for the same issues and his talk page was protected because he continued the tirade and personal attacks there. -- ALLSTARecho 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Untrue; only his confederates have removed my comments, which address the infamy of the article because of his and his confederates' actions. I could have filed several RFCs and AN/Is, but I have chosen time after time to try communicating directly to the culprits about what is completely inappropriate about their activities that damage the viability and professional respectability of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am Fidei Defensor with Wikipedia here. Just because his friends have a mob mentality to push their POV and I don't work in concert with others who share my view, doesn't make his any more credible. Remember what WP:NOT. Oh and who's this sockpuppet? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but memetic libel doesn't do any damned thing. Besides, the editor here is purposefully throwing you a red herring straw man combo. He is the one you should look out for. I'm not going to tell you how, or to condemn him. I just want reform. He is as nasty as ever to the opposing party, just check the talk page. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User has also broken 3RR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit the damn articles! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3rr applies anywhere, including talk pages. Lawrence Cohen 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked three times by three admins for 3rr violations and harassment before. Lawrence Cohen 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of wind. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The block logging for attacking other editors is a lot of wind? Lawrence Cohen 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IP clearly has no understanding of WP:CIVIL and has violated the 3 revert rule several times. Should be blocked. Gromlakh (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do all of it in a vacuum? No inciting attitudes of the very same vein from others? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What, because I never file formal complaints, but try to settle it "out of court", nobody here will listen to me? I the initial plaintiff become officially the defendent? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Making personal attacks, repeatedly, and violating other policies such as 3RR will get you nowhere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive single purpose editor. IP blocked for a month, up from a week last time. Sandstein (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Allstarecho (talk · contribs) by WjBscribe (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – WjBscribe self-reverted. Nothing to see here. HiDrNick

Administrator WjBscribe has blocked Allstarecho for 48 hours for "breach of fundamental policies of this website", steming from Allstarecho's edits to Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I believe this block to be ill-advised, and invite further community review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe has already lifted this block. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Milomolaria

Resolved

Would somebody just please permablock Milomolaria (talk · contribs) account creation prohibited and protect her Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Unblock LaruaWW11 (or whatever) and make her an admin"... I laughed. JuJube (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• LaraLove blocked her, I turned the user talk into a protected redirect to the user page. --Coredesat 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN/monobook.js

User:TTN is using Twinkle to make large number of high speed controversial edits. Would someone be good enough to remove his access please?Geni 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Avruchtalk 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Diff's would help. Resolute 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have had discussions similar to this before. TTN is always making high-speed merges without really getting a consensus, and it seems he can now do it even faster with Twinkle. I'll alert TTN of this discussion, by the way.   jj137 ^♠ 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that has already been done --  jj137 ^♠ 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I used TW with recently were ones that underwent discussion, but were brought back anyways without as much of a peep on a talk page. I don't really see that as contraversial. TTN (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide some diffs. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60].   jj137 ^♠ 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like User:Catchpole needs a severe talking to.Kww (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I started boldy restoring content due to the response at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. Many editors have complained about the WP:EPISODE on that guidelines talk-page. I then saw similar insstances where TV shows had been merged and redirected without a consensus and so similary restored the content. Catchpole (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I cry "foul"! If TTN is using Twinkle to do his work, the Twinkle developers should consider optimising it to do whatever it is he needs done. Making his task harder by preventing him from using tools isn't reasonable.Kww (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(To initiator of this thread and in general) I thought the first step would have been to discuss this directly with the user first, before deciding its needs admin attention. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't there an ArbCom decision admonishing TTN regarding these types of actions? Can someone post the relevant text? Thanks! ^Avruchtalk 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN went through all the necessary steps for a merger this time round, short of flashing neon signs on the main page. Catchpole isn't even attempting to discuss. Will ^(talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did TTN discuss this on the target merger page? Where was this discussed and supported? I couldn't find anything. Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no arbcom decision against him. The arbitrators split, and could not manage to pass any motion admonishing TTN. He has a lot of fans, because he is doing a good job of a necessary task.Kww (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Final decision here, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Final_decision. TTN was not admonished. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Still it was stated that the editors involved should seek consensus on the issue. I don't see TTN seeking consensus at all, rather he keeps up doing what he has been doing in the past - rapid, semi-automated editing, mass "mergers" and down talking to editors. CharonX/talk 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• His edit summaries are saying to refer to talk on Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, but there appears to be no comments from him there? Is he just redirecting entire seasons of TV shows and changing all those articles to be redirects? If there is objection to this activity, wouldn't it require consensus to proceed? What user name discussed doing this? Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#SG-1 Episode notability. The project agreed that some articles failed the guideline. Will ^(talk) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Must be a small project then, there is hardly any discussion. Shouldn't something like this be mentioned on the target page, rather than some out of the way corner of Wikipedia that most editors may not be watching? TTN just swooped in based on that? I don't see him participating. Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of the people that participated in that discussion have made the necessary redirects, and not TTN? It looks to me like he just "swooped in".   jj137 ^♠ 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some controversy about use of TW by editors lately. See here for a recent example. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was talked about they seem to be in the process of transwiki, this is no big deal and not the type of thing that took him to ARBCOM. Seems like every time he performs a redirect people are going to jump all over him. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit histories for those articles, you'll see that the merger/redirects were originally performed by sgeureka (talk), reverted by Catchpole (talk), and redone by TTN, probably by just hitting the undo or revert button, which is what made it possible to do them so fast. They were discussed by Sgeureka on the project talk page in advance, with a reference to the discussion on the episode list article with no objections or comment by Catchpole. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

three editors is not wide enough participation for something of this magnitude. TTN is violating the spirit fo the arbcom decision--it was that census was required, and it was up to us editing here to find it. They were right about that, and continued edits without substantial consensus might be good grounds for reopening. One is supposed to learn something from an arb com. Many of us hoped they would say something one way or the other giving more direct guidance, but if they think we can deal with it ourselves, they deserve that we give it a good try in good faith--not try to see how much one can get away with. Transwiki to Wikia is not a reason for unilateral action--its not a wmf project like Wiktionary. Anyone who performs mass actions in controversial matters, damn right people are going to complain about it. Now its up to us to follow through on those complaints. DGG (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was not a single complaint (rather the opposite) in the last five or six weeks about the transwiki I (in this case not TTN) was doing. Catchpole did not leave a comment at the LoE talk page, my talkpage, or the WikiProject talk page, all of which I have watchlisted, so I had no idea that he resurrected the episode articles despite the (my) last edit summary Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article. The only controversial thing here are Catchpole's may-I-say-sneaky actions, which TTN promptly undid. TTN had and still has unglorious moments, but this is clearly not one of them. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky? I didn't realise I was required to fill out multiple forms to edit the encyclopedia. Whatever happened to being bold? Catchpole (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, these redirects have been discussed at length at the appropriate forums, and the edit summary was quite clear what to do (and what not to do). As you ignored both consensus and failed to leave a note *somewhere* so that others would notice, despite you being an established wikipedian who should know better, I can only call such an action "sneaky" (for lack of a better word). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ruled collaboration. TTN is just merely continuing his edit behaviour and I see no evidence of collaboration on his part. Had there truly been a consensus no one would be revert waring or even reverting. A non-controversial edit would be trivial stuff like double redirect fixing. Something is controversial by nature if it is disputed. -- Cat ^chi? 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if no-one complains to a proposal where there'd be the most views for six weeks, it's not controversial. Will ^(talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words I can nominate the Main Page for deletion and get it deleted if no one notices. If there are no views aside from the nominator that is by default a failed proposal as it received no discussion. Articles do not need to have watchdogs. Also how is someone writing Fire and Water (Stargate SG-1) article supposed to be aware of such a proposal? Do not expect or require to watch articles they have no edits on. There is a reason for {{merge}} though whats been done is not a merge. People are tired of the non-stop merge discussion involving thousands of articles. The speed of merge/blanking means no one has actually read these. Articles are either Good Articles or redirects. Nothing is in between. -- Cat ^chi? 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This thread is about TTN's monobook. If you see objectionable actions concerning Stargate articles (with which TTN has nothing to do other then reverting undiscussed reverts), please let your concerns be heard at the LoE or WP:STARGATE. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick look through this thread, it appears to boil down to one question: whether TTN having access to the Twinkle resource is actively damaging the encyclopedia. Immediately, and in the short-term, the answer appears to be no: Twinkle has only been utilised, upon examining the range of diff. links provided, in page moves that are in accordance with policy. Granted, I may be incorrect in my analysis, but my initial thoughts are that any revoking of Twinkle access would be unjustified as an emergency, administrator action. Of course, I say this without prejudice to consensus-seeking discussion amongst the community (perhaps at Requests for Comment?), but that's not what we're commenting on. I move to direct this dispute to another forum. Anthøny 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

An editor in need of a bit of attention, I think. Single-purpose account pushing Turk nationalist POV only (anti-Kurd, anti-Armenian, this being a good example), see in particular edits to Armenian Genocide and Talk:Armenian Genocide. His talk page looks innocuous but check its history - a lot has been removed, including the whole discussion concerning his block for edit warring. Any ideas as to what to do? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly up to no good - and his English frankly doesn't make the grade for editing here either. --Folantin (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We ought to look at damage-limitation here. From memory alone, the only RfArb case related to this article is Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, from which there are no remedies which allows administrators to ban disruptive parties from the article, so an Arbitration-endorsed remedy is out of the question. That leaves a block or a warning. Should we look at one of these measures to be made on Qwl, in order to prevent further damage to that already-disrupted article? Anthøny 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

AnteaterZot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been discussed at the village pump before for drive-by tagging. [61]. Initially he was using RS tags to "experiment" to see if he can change wikipedia editor behavior (his words). Now he's moved on to prod and merge tags. His methodology is to simply leave the tag and move on, no discussion on the talk page, etc. The high volume of tagging vs actual editing coupled with the lack of productive edits seems to have moved this into the disruptive behavior category. Drive-by tagging with RS tags is annoying, doing it with prod and merge tags seems to me to be worse. Comments? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like awfully pointy behavior to me. — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like? That's pretty much the _definition_ of WP:POINT - wikipedia is not for breaching experiments. —Random832 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I was going to say that; there are better ways of "changing editor behaviour", consensus being the obvious route. I don't think WP is meant to be a Social Psychology lab. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I suppose some articles should be merged, some reliable sources needed, and some non-controversial articles PRODDED, and I don't think we should tell him to stop editing like this and make more constructive edits, but tagging all of those articles in such a short time is a bit disruptive. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might help if others let him know that they think this behavior needs to be improved. If you're going to tag an article for PROD or merge, it's best to give a reason. The tag itself suggests that a discussion has been left on the talk page. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My current tagging operation is largely to apply merge-school suggestion tags to elementary and middle schools. The merge tag leads people to the WP:School project, with guidelines on how to merge. In the edit summary and the the tag it says the merge is suggested. As for the Prod tags, I only tag listing-type entries of clearly non-notable schools. I put my reason in the tag. What exactly is wrong with what I am doing? AnteaterZot (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags point other editors to the talk page, but I can't see that you ever leave any comments explaining why you put the tags. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I go into detail here, in the other forum you opened at the same time. In that forum, I responded by saying that the tags themselves are more than clear about what they are asking for, and adding text to a talk page would be redundant. Furthermore, you suggest there that I do research before placing a Prod tag, which is the policy for AfD, not Proposed Deletion. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the tags are not clear, they're very generic. The give a list of possible problems rather than an actual problem. That can be very daunting for an inexperienced editor such as those often found on school articles. Why not opt on the side of courtesy and cooperation? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Even if were true, it is the way the tag is set up: boilerplate text surrounding a place to explain, in bold, what is wrong with the article. The tag itself says, "remove me if you want the article to survive". Have any of my prod tags been inappropriate? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as seen in the Schools discussion.[62] I checked two of your tags today, both were inappropriate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they both weren't. I explain why there. Why on Earth did you open two forums at the same time? Why would the Schools WikiProject create the Merge-Schools tag if they didn't want it used to suggest the merger of schools? Why would the Proposed Deletion tag and system be set up the way it is if it wasn't expected that is would "prod" editors into improving the articles? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you are using a merge tag saying "merge to the appropriate locality article". You can at least take the trouble to find the appropriate article, or to create it if it doesnt exist. This template should probably go to mfd--a proposed merge has to actually propose something to merge to. I've started a discussion on that at Template talk:Merge-school DGG (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was unaware that I could insert the target in the tag. I will do so in the future. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely trying to make a point [63] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which is what? Is my point "these articles should be merged" or "this article seems to be eligible for deletion?" How many of my tags are inappropriate? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are so many of them that it will take a ton of time for someone to go through them. Not to mention that what you're doing goes against the guidelines at the schools project "Avoid bulk additions. The bulk automated entry of schools is strongly discouraged, as is the bulk adding of schools to the Articles for deletion page. As a general rule of thumb, only add schools that you are willing to do significant research on." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors are under no obligation to pay attention to the Schools project (WP:OWN). The fact is that there are many completely unsourced articles on schools with no claims made re notability; and a bot could be trained to place many of these notices. AnteaterZot merely seems to be drawing attention to this deficiency. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Due diligence

A general question as well. AnteaterZot seems to be implying above that the due diligence for placing a PROD tag is somehow less than if you use AfD. "you suggest there that I do research before placing a Prod tag, which is the policy for AfD, not Proposed Deletion" WP:DELETE seems to indicate otherwise. I'd be interested to hear what others think of that. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that AnteaterZot has refused to do due diligence. What are possible remedies to this situation? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see where in WP:DELETE that I am required to do "due diligence" before applying a prod tag to an article like John Read Middle School. Even if the article was deleted, and turned out to have been on a notable school (which is debatable), the article is so short it could be recreated in a minute or two. Why should I have to abide by a rule nobody else does? Furthermore, User:AliveFreeHappy has this same debate running at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, where none of the regular editors have yet to agree with him. He is moving the goalposts, since he started out complaining about merge tags. I have no assurance that the goalposts will not be moved again. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DELETE says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. " which seems to direct editors to do due diligence. As another example, re sources, it does not list lack of sources as a reason for deletion, rather it says "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", so it's saying we should attempt to find sources before starting a deletion process. Re "moving goalposts" My initial statement here mentions both prod and merge tags - you can read it above. Re "no editors agree" see [64] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking that diff. That editor in supports me as much as he criticizes me. This is why opening two forums at the same time is bad. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree. I believe that Prod tags, since they can be removed without any comment, and cannot be replaced, are not subject to the same rules as AfD. My edits are in good faith. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod tags are in some sense MORE dangerous than Afd, since they don't have the same notification going on, and have an almost auto-pilot delete as their conclusion. Using a prod tag is the beginning of a deletion process, and therefore should comply with WP:DELETE, which says at the top "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" - IE perform due diligence. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that why you removed an AfD in progress tag[65]? Editing too fast, perhaps? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As for this "dangerous" argument, you act like I'm bulldozing the school. These articles are one sentence long, fer crizzakes. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are, and some of them are not. That's the problem. Hitting the wrong ones causes disruption. All I'm asking is that before you do a prod, take a quite minute to perform some checking and see if it's likely that references exist. If not, prod away. For merges, I think we've solved the issue since you've learned about the proper parameters for the tag. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Prodded scores of articles, and stand by the majority of them. I may have made mistakes, as did you, by removing an AfD tag. It happens. I'm going to keep prodding short, no-context articles on typically non-notable subjects as I see fit. I will not do due diligence, thanks for baiting me on that. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes. That's my point. I have corrected several prods today that you did, simply by doing a quick check of references. Can you explain what your aversion is to fact checking before prodding? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps those schools were notable, but perhaps not. It's the imposition of such a new rule on me and everybody else who uses Prod tags as they were intended that I have an aversion to. AnteaterZot (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of attacks by ASALA

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

---

Referred to ArbCom

---

I am growing tired of this. The article documents list of attacks by ASALA. I have worked on it in peace for the past 1 year in a rather slow pace.

Very recently User:VartanM showed up to remove sources. This so far had been his entire contribution. User:Andranikpasha, the person VartanM mentors, had showed up roughly the same time Penwhale placed VartanM on A-A 2's restriction which he later explained as "this". Andranikpasha was placed under a 6 month revert parole by Thatcher.

User:Folantin and User:Meowy also very recently appeared out of nowhere on the talk page to support the removal of these sources. They do not appear to be outside parties based on their other contribution.

These 4 people mentioned here are insisting that I cannot use Turkish Governmental sources to cover the content in the article - yet they are refusing to cite a single source to the contrary nor are they disputing any of the actual content. They seem to be complaining for the purpose of complaining which constitutes as a WP:POINT violation. People seem to be trying to game the system from time to time as well. For example these diffs [66] [67] [68] imply that these people try to drag people under Armenia-Azerbaijan restrictions by gaming the system.

Issue has been to /Arbitration enforcement before. But they seem to be unable to address the issue as their maneuverability is quite limited with the two arbcom hearings. Also any discussion there at /Arbitration enforcement on this matter almost instantly turns into an irrelevant flame war. This also seems to be a method to game the system.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not "appear out of nowhere" on that page. I had it watchlisted from March 2007 when I and other editors struggled to make you comply with Wikipedia's policies on WP:RS and WP:EL. You were quite happy to source material from a well-known hate site TallArmenianTale as the talk page archive shows (the very archive which you yourself created only a few days ago). --Folantin (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat's talking bollocks. His behaviour on this article has been most unsatisfactory - he will not accept that some anti-Armenian bile-filled websites are not reliable sources and should ergo not be linked to. It's time to ban him from all articles relating to Armenia, loosely defined. He's got a long history of POV-pushing in this area: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and in particular this finding. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I am pov pushing for listing attacks commited by ASALA? No one is disputing these attacks had happened. The source is well within WP:RS. It is a governmental source for crying out loud.

The quoted arbcom case has expired some 1.5 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on the case here. If I cannot even use governmental sources on ASALAs attacks no one is disputing, what can I use?

Ban me? For WHAT? What have I done constituting a ban? Had I added propoganda? No. Not by a long shot. Had I removed other peoples comments on talk pages? Not at all. Had I revert wared on multiple articles for the purpose of revert waring? No. That is the behaviour committed by some parties involved who only received a warning. Some did not even receive such a warning. I had not had any real edits to Armenia related articles for the past 1.5 years (or more). Even this article isn't Armenia related. It is merely the list of attacks by ASALA no soul is disputing.

User:Andranikpasha and User:VartanMs entire contribution to the article is revert warring and the removal of sources.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Even when the "sources" are part of highly offensive, genocide-denying hate sites? Come off it. Your contributions to anything Armenia-related have been consistently awful. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How is the Armenian Genocide thing even relevant to ASALA attacks which had taken place well over 5 decades later? Sorry, I do not see a connection. -- Cat ^chi? 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Even this list isn't Armenia related"? A list of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia? --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, once when I was a newbie I added a problem to ANI and ArbEnforcement pages at the same time. You deleted my double adding and blocked me indef. for "nationalist editwarring". Are you going to do the same thing with White cat now? Sorry but see all my answers at ArbEnforcement. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Except you weren't a real newbie, I think. The past is now irrelevant, anyway. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again double standards? what you mean by "you weren't a real newbie"?? and if cat is surely not a real (?) newbie so what's the reason you dont stop him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andranikpasha (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you think I'm trying to do? Have you not read my comments above? As regards the rest, see [69]. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on "rest":) It seems to be a different case. i dont know if anyone says I wasnt a newbie at English Wiki... so lets be more civil while sharing our personal opinion, ok? thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat's gone forum-shopping and is now trying to start Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom 3 - and all because he can't be bothered to go down the library and find some reliable, scholarly sources. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that! Going to arbitrators, our most trusted users, to "forum shop" aka violate policy... This is gaming the system. Really. -- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are gaming the system. You couldn't get consensus to use a dubious source so you went forum-shopping. You did exactly the same back in March when editors wouldn't let you use a racist hate site as a "reliable source" for the very same page [70]. --Folantin (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

White Cat has a long history of vexatious editing on Armenia-related articles, usually pushing an Armenian Genocide denying agenda. See the lengthy tales of this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. Recently he went back to Talk:Armenian Genocide with more tendentious time-wasting, before the thread was moved to Talk:Armenian-Turkish relations. On this list in question he's edit-warred against consensus, and comments from User:Picaroon and myself, to keep links to sites that include bile-filled material (see here, the current talk page threads, and for a specimen of the material in question, see...well...any of the links from here). White Cat has deliberately tried to stir up trouble: he's gone back and forth from ANI to AE (and IRC) canvassing for his viewpoint purely to piss off the Armenian users involved (even without his attempts at aggravation, said links are not reliable sources). His disruptive editing on articles relating to Armenia has gone on for too long. A topic-ban is necessary. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorsed given White Cat's long and tendentious history of edit-warring over Armenian topics. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be endorsing something when you are an involved party? Over what edits am I banned for? For using governmental sources? This has gone beyond ridiculous. -- Cat ^chi? 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a thought. Perhaps we could permit editing with certain restrictions on what can be linked, perhaps a mentor could vet links, and maybe civility parole or something of that nature. Something a step down from a topic ban. Can mentorship as a community placed remedy be useful here? Thoughts? M-ercury at 18:49, January 4, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions are over which edits? -- Cat ^chi? 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat didn't know who to turn to since VartanM hadn't told him that he was Andranikpasha's mentor and the mentorship wasn't logged anywhere for White Cat to see. How exactly are people supposed to react when they discover that the mentor was the person edit warring right next to Andranikpasha? I think White Cat's concerns about unfair play here are somewhat warranted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, EconomicsGuy, VartanM ended to be my mentor earlier, in November 22, 2007, after an admin removed my name from the list of users "placed under supervised editing" [71]. The other info about me represented by White Cat is also not correct, for example I wasnt placed under revert parole by Thatcher, its not true! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from your block log is that mentorship was the condition for your unblock. Your initial block was for being a disruptive SPA. The community (not ArbCom) agreed to an unblock conditional on this mentorship. VartanM confirmed on WP:AE that he was your mentor when he was confronted with this just a few days ago. He subsequently noted that the mentorship had ended then on the list of imposed restrictions (VartanM deserves credit for doing that). Also, it still doesn't explain how mentorship can possibly have worked when the mentor and the person being mentored edit wars side by side. I think White Cat has a valid point about that, regardless of the content dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what means "your understanding" (sorry, I prefer Wiki rules) but I know better what means "be removed from the list of users placed under supervised editing". So lets to not change the topic which is not related to my "mentorship" but radical POV-pushing by Cat. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I prefer Wiki rules So do I. Rule number 1: Do not edit war and then complain about another editor's alleged POV pushing. Read WP:KETTLE, you might learn why I have a hard time taking a complaint about POV pushing from an edit warrior seriously. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"alleged POV pushing." Its not alleged but confirmed even by admin Picaroon and many other users included me at the talk. A deletion of extremal hate-site on Armenian Genocide denial propagand is not a editwarring. And please, lets discuss anything related to me not here (this chapter is dedicated to Cat), but here [72]. I think I already answered to your questions there. Thanks in advance, Andranikpasha (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to. Your rethoric and the fact that you are hiding behind an admin comment in what you claim to be a content dispute illustrates perfectly what the problem here is and why it is a good thing that ArbCom plans to review all these cases. Good luck when the time comes for that, I'm sure you'll need plenty of it by then. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know evidence from 2005[73] is irrelevant, but its interesting that after 3 years White Cat is still pushing the same POV. Only this time around his not a newbie anymore. VartanM (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What POV would that be? Can you show a diff? -- Cat ^chi? 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, is it really?

Here I am using Turkish government as a source for attacks on Turkish government employees (diplomatic personnel) by ASALA. The information provided is not disputed by anyone involved. Because of the age of the attacks linking to Newspapers of the era and such is very difficult. For that I am been proposed a topic ban.

Imagine using US sources (media, government, non-profit organizations such as MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base) to cover the activity of Al-Quida or other organizations US sees as "terrorist". Now "terrorist" is a word to avoid on Wikipedia but not on the sources we use. US is of course very biased towards Al-Quida but that does not disqualify them as a source.

I really think Turkish government is more than an acceptable, reliable, and verifiable source. If the validity of the information is in dispute, that should be complimented by reliable sources. No one has done this.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Turkish government is not, to put it gently, considered a reliable source on matters of Armenian history. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Under WP:NPOV that is. How is this not systematic bias? -- Cat ^chi? 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so disingenuous, White Cat. Some of us weren't born yesterday. --Folantin (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a synonym for "White Cat, shut up". It's getting tedious. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about using KGB as a source for Soviet Union?Igor Berger (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or quoting Hitler as a reliable source on the Jewish Question. --Jack Merridew 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see Goodwin's law being proven again here. Could an uninvolved admin please close this as it is being dealt with elsewhere and is clearly generating more heat than light now? EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. In this case, however, I think the parallel is valid. Hitler did refer to the Armenians as a precedent; American Indians, too. --Jack Merridew 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"[74] --Jack Merridew 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The text above is the English version of the German document handed to Louis P. Lochner in Berlin. It first appeared in Lochner's What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), pp. 1-4. The Nuremberg Tribunal later identified the document as L-3 or Exhibit USA-28. Two other versions of the same document appear in Appendices II and III. For the German original cf. Akten zur Deutschen Auswartigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie D, Band VII, (Baden-Baden, 1956), pp. 171-172. --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we are going to quote Hitler to justify that a Turkish website anno 2008 isn't a reliable source for things that already appear in undisputed sources? And we are going to do this using a pro-Armenian website? How can you not see how that just generates more heat? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Site may be Pro-Armenian, but the source they give isn't (I added it above). I have not followed the specific sources and overall dispute. Here's a suggestion: if you have neutral sources for stuff, use them instead of non-neutral ones. And keep biased editors at a good distance. Isn't that the real issue here? --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust clearly have absolutely nothing in common. --Folantin (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said - more heat than light. As for your sarcastic comment I don't think you want to go down that road. The Holocaust has absolutely nothing to do with this and bringing it in to this discussion serves no purpose whatsoever other than to inflame the discussion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I could care less when you were born.

Moreschi you can't shut me up. No one can. You do not run this show unlike what you claimed on IRC. This isn't your dictatorship and HELL if I submit to your threats. You'll bring in Elagirl? Go right ahead! You will sanction me? Be my guest. See how well any of such actions sticks. You are not a fraction as uninvolved as you claim to be.

Igorberger, imagine using official KGB documents on Soviet Union article. Last thing we want is official sources for data. You imply as if the CIA is any more reliable on the Soviet Union. Really, CIA agents were wild goose chasing half of the time. But hey, this isn't even a dispute on the cold war!

Why the heck are you here Jack Merridew? This isn't an episode article dispute. Lets not have a rehash of Ned Scott RfC. I CAN'T believe people are allowed to compare Turkish government to the Nazi Germany government. Inflammatory posts are supposed to be discouraged, no they must be out-right banned. Not encouraged. This is at least the third time I see this.

You know this thread demonstrates why arbitration enforcement can't work.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The last few months I've gotten in the habit of reading the AN/I and RfAr pages. Damned interesting reading, too. --Jack Merridew 15:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

see also: http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/answers.html --Jack Merridew 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That explains why you are reading this, not why you are joining it. Seems like you will support anything against me. That site really is irrelevant here. -- Cat ^chi? 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AGF; the link is relevant to comments I made a bit above here. --Jack Merridew 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One of White Cat's stated reasons for using these dodgy extra sources is that the main, fairly reliable source MIPT "is rather incomplete for [ASALA attacks] 1975 and prior" [75]. Hmm, could it possibly be because the ASALA didn't exist before 1975? Might explain why the list is a little spartan in that period. And this comment comes from the very same editor who was recently warring to have the statement that the "ASALA were founded on January 20, 1975" included on the page [76]. Although he previously fought to include attacks from 1968 [77]. Hilarious, but an utter waste of everybody's time. Wikipedia may be "the encylopaedia anybody can edit" but aren't you at least supposed to know a bare minimum about the subject in hand? And possibly have mastered the elements of chronology, i.e. time goes forwards not backwards...--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are amused, I certainly am not. THIS IS SPARTAAAAA!!!! -- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How old are you? Five? That would explain a lot of things. --Folantin (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal insults won't hurt me. Now sticks and stones or perhaps a Katana might. -- Cat ^chi? 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You know you bring up an interesting point. I stated that ASALA was founded in 20 January 1975. Which you removed stating that ASALA must have been founded prior. Now you are saying it was founded in 1975. Aren't you actually gaming the system? MIPT database on anything in 1975 and prior is incomplete. There is a very simple logical reason for that. 1975 was the date the personal computers started being popular and affordable. It is much easier for MIPT to process digital data than stuff written on paper. Even then only two of the attacks are not shown on MIPT. Which does not mean they did not happen. Which is why I was using the other sources. -- Cat ^chi? 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I said the ASALA must have been founded prior to January 20, 1975. You were adamant that it was founded on that very date. Hence it's very odd to find you looking for ASALA attacks before then. --Folantin (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When was the time I was adding attacks prior to January 20th 1975? -- Cat ^chi? 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already given a link for when you were insisting we started the page at 1968 (back in March 2007, when you were "peacefully" editing the list). Here's my reply to you: "I can't believe I actually have to explain this to anyone, but let's see. The statement I removed read: 'Since 1968, a total of 84 incidents have been recorded and as a result 299 people were injured and 46 people killed'. The source you give for this says the ASALA was not founded until 1975. In other words, this is like having a "List of World War One Battles" which starts in 1907. Further investigation revealed the source of this absurdity. The site you used as a reference [MIPT, I presume] has a incident template which reads "1968-Present". As far as I can see, it does this for every terrorist group regardless of its inception date or whether it is long defunct. Take the Abu Sayyaf Group for example. Same template 'Incidents 1968-Present' - yet the group itself was not founded until 1991. Why this source has an obsession with the year 1968, I have no idea, but we are under no obligation to follow them. This is basic common sense". --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The scope of the article changed. [78]. It used to be a mere "Turkish Diplomats Assassinated by Armenian Terrorists". Had the scope of this article did not change, that wouldn't be an issue. The page was AFDed the day I started editing it. Guess who were voting on it? Oh look you, Fadix, VartanM. Not really strangers... Certainly not random uninvolved parties. -- Cat ^chi? 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(to White Cat)For heaven's sake, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia is very clear about this: organisation begins operating in 1975. Do you not get the difference between begins operating and is founded? Or are you just after another reason to use your Armenian-bashing sources via original synthesis? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh not at all. Many organizations unofficially start existing and only after lots of preparations do they start existing officially. This applies to both legal and illegal organizations. I have no say on when ASALA was founded as an editor. But do get a say based on sources. MIPT states founding date as 1975. Tr.Gov is more specific by giving the date 20 January which MIPT states to be the first activity of ASALA. Surprise surprise... This is how you write a quality article, with sources. -- Cat ^chi? 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't close a discussion when it becomes inconvenient. -- Cat ^chi? 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reinstate the close tags. This is over. This discussion is absolutely pointless. --Folantin (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Someone is breaking rules here

User ColdFusion650 and I have gotten into a bit of an edit war and after I asked him to take this to his talk page, he started posting out conversation on the articles' talk page and posting what I already posted on his talk page.

Also, he's using his PPOV to revert what he feels is not relevant. I would like the assistance of an admin in order to settle this.

Duhman0009 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A little bit more could help. Rgoodermote  22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I read the discussion, cold did not break any of the "Guidelines" he suggested that you talk on the article talk page and was very civil in explaining everything. By the way edit wars only take place when editing the article and they involve multiple reverts (3 reverts max) of the article the breach is called a 3RR breach. Neither of you breached 3RR when editing the article. Rgoodermote  22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not for him to move my sayings to another page. If he would have asked, I would have done so myself, but he has NO right to do this himself. Also, as for the topic itself, I never said anything about the 3 revert rules. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No 3RR breaches are needed for it to be an edit war. An edit war is any back-and-forth editing/reverting in the context of a dispute that reaches a level of disruption. They can be quite "slow", actually. - Revolving Bugbear 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be different for everyone, the edits did not seem disruptive and Cold seemed very civil and as seen here requesting the user talk it out on the article talk page. Rgoodermote  23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you an admin? Duhman0009 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate the user has every right to move your comments to a different page. It helps other users understand a situation. Because the conversation spilled to the talk page of the article the comments left on your and his talk page should be included at the talk page of the article. By the way no but I am an experienced user. I do know that it was taken from an edit summery but the talk page was the best I could think of. Rgoodermote  23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to wait for an admin's opinion on the matter. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

None taken, but I need you to know that the admin are just experienced users who are given mops. Rgoodermote  00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but if they give me the wrong info, at lease I can just say "Well, an admin told me it was OK". Duhman0009 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have super powers of authority, we're just like you and every other user except with a few extra buttons. Or we're supposed to be. Yeah, moving the comments was probably ok, although I would have left the originals (copied, rather than moved). It's no big deal. Neıl ☎ 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So I can quote you on that if I ever decide to do something similar in the future? Now for the topic itself, keep your eye open on that one, if my experience thought me anything, might get ugly. Duhman0009 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... moving a discussion from one's own user talk page to a more appropriate venue, such as the talk page of the relevant article, is perfectly acceptable under our talk page guidelines, provided that no misrepresentation occurs. The only fault I can find in this case is that ColdFusion650 should perhaps have made it even clearer that he, not you, was the one who copied the comment to the article talk page. Since that fact has already become clear from your subsequent comments in the discussion (which you could've made just as well without accusations of malice), I see no further need to do anything about it except to advise you to calm down and, in the future, make more effort to assume good faith. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a link the the rule itself, this will come in handy. As for "Good Faith" comment, remember, that works both ways, I could easily say that you have no good faith by saying that I have no good faith. But then, you could say that I don't have good faith by accusing you of not having good faith. It's a matter of opinion which I would suggest not getting into since it's also a vicious circle. Duhman0009 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If continuity is not broken, moving the discussion is just as harmless as linking to it - it's all public. the_undertow ^talk 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the diffs to see if anyone's broken 3RR, but ColdFusion650 does seem to be getting pretty aggressive on the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles article. Looking through some past edits, he seems to be cutting down the sourcing and length of critical reviews. I'd like more eyes on this. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to say anything, but since someone brought it up, I do feel like ColdFusion650 thinks that this page belongs to him. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added some sourced content to the article he didn't like and ColdFusion is attempting to revert-war with me. Very WP:OWNy. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also was deeply unimpressed by the behaviour of ColdFusion650 who is trigger happy with the delete button. No request for citation or rephrase was made. My contribution was knee-jerk deleted. This kind of unhelpful behaviour turns people off from contributing. -- Horkana (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)