Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive344

A Heads up
I do not wish to get involved with what is a somewhat unstable user, but indef blocked and banned appears to have returned as. The editing pattern could not be more consistent, and BBhounder is obviously familiar with wiki syntax, code etc.
 * Jeeny has also been editing from her IP

The above IP is now going about removing sock templates and trying to remove this notice here at ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.45.183 (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're both now on 4 reverts to this page and this is going only one place. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 06:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * may be related per edits at Negro.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets reporting possible sockpuppets? Interesting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A special request for page protection
I know this normally would be brought up with WP:RFPP, but there are a whole bunch of articles here that need protection due to the stated request for vandals to vandalise the pages. I believe that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has gotten some but not all of this, but is it possible to protect the rest? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles listed there had been protected after similar problems last month; I'm semi-protecting the rest for a week. If a week isn't long enough, feel free to adjust. --Coredesat 07:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ungurul
User Ungurul has unilaterlally moved a number of pages, for example Balti steppe to Balti depression. For this page, for example, the term balti depression exists nowhere in science or literature, it is a merely invented term by the user User:Dc76. The User Ungurul has never justified or intervened before on the Balti steppe talk page to explain whatsoever. I am also afraid this user is related to User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1 or simply the famous sock pupetter User:Bonaparte in other words. On the newly created page Balti depression, User Ungurul has also lied ont he problem of copyright. Namely the source indicated (www.beltsy.md) is not used, all other sources are clearly indicated, both on the very same page, as well as on my page, as there was a previous discussion on this very subject and sources on discussion page of Balti (as referred to city in Moldova)--Moldopodo (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Moldopodo a well known troll, disruptive and edit warrior and his war against official name of one city
(I have reformatted header so it is a sub section of the one above.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

was blocked before and was unblocked with condition he will not revert Romanian/Moldovan articles. See his block log long history of POV-pushing. Instead, he broke the rules and now he's engaged in revert wars. What is astonishing is that he's not accepting the official name of the city, instead he's pushing his POV again and again.--Ungurul (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, even on French Wikipedia he was blocked :) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that Moldopodo has already complained about Ungurul above. Does this constitute a content dispute? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also this Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. looks like a content dispute to me.--Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request to block longer Moldopodo, continuous edit warring after numerous warrnings
Please somebody stop User:Dc76, aka User:Bonaparte, aka User:William Pedros at French Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros ), aka newly registered User:Ungurul. I can't even work on the article Balti steppe (translating and editing, as well as adding pics) as the article is being deleted every other 2 minutes...--Moldopodo (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
 * Well, is not true. This vandal Moldpodo was blocked here and also on French wikipedia. This is not a joke, he constantly pushes POV and is disruptive. No wonder he got blocked so many times and on different wikipedias as well. See French wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo He can't fool anybody. --Ungurul (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The two of you are having a content dispute, over whether this article should be named Balti steppe or Bălţi depression. The administrators' noticeboard does not make judgements in content disputes; there are a number of suggestions at dispute resolution which I advise you to try.  Remember that, whether you are right or wrong, edit-warring is prohibited at Wikipedia.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He was unblocked with condition he will avoid Romanian articles. He did not follow the rule! Ungurul (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After a closer look, I see that both of you are in violation of 3RR, so I've blocked you both. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Knataka
The following message has been copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive342 - the bot put it there before it was resolved! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has persistently spammed and vandalized articles in Wikipedia. This user has also received warnings regarding these (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knataka&oldid=178845574), as well as a warning by an administrator for edit warring (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnataka&diff=178887030&oldid=178845574). In addition to this, this user may need to be monitored, as there is a strong possibility of sharing of accounts or sock-puppetry as suggested by the administrator here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=prev&oldid=179128524. There is no doubt that one of this user's sockpuppets/accounts/IPs include 76.212.8.87, and it is very possible that there are others as the user continually suggests on the user's talk page. I request the user (and sockpuppets etc.) be blocked to prevent any further disruptive edits. I also request that this user be monitored thereafter so to ensure there is no other suspicious activity thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this, the user has continued disruptive edits and edit warring as can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179326314, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179677425 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179756004. This continual vandalism, lack of npov, edit warring and the potential threat of sock-puppetry and so on has unfortunately continued. Please block the user ASAP so that this does not continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Complaints4U
I recently saw this edit posted about me on another user's page: 'I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User:Iamandrewrice. I can see that you are clearly on the right side of the debate - but both you and User:Iamandrewrice are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care. If you were to avoid breaking that rule - then asking one of the admins to put a block onto User:Iamandrewrice for breaking the rule would be reasonable. I'd be inclined to do so myself because this is an especially annoying person - but since you are also (currently) breaking the rule, that would likely get you in trouble too and I'd prefer that didn't happen. I'll paste a similar complaint on Iamandrewrice's talk page. Either way, the warring has to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)'

I would like to have an explanation of this, as I find it all very very insulting, very. He says how he doubts I would care about anything... and that im an annoying person, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! What is going on here? What am I supposed to have done? And what has happened to my account? I havn't logged on in a while, so I havn't really kept up with what people have replied to me. What is this about me being a stockpuppet? Huh?! What the HELL?! And my name is ANDREW! NOT AMANDA! NOT ANNABELLA! NOT BEN! OR GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE YOU BOTHERED CALLING ME??? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM?! OH MY GOD. OH MY F'ING GOD, HAS BENNN LAVENDER LOGGED ONTO MY F'ING ACCOUNT? OMG IM GOING TO F'ING KILL HIM. I SWEAR... F'!

BUT IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, YOU BLOCKED ME FROM LOGGING ON! I HAD TO BLOODY MAKE A NEW ACCOUNT! PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I'M NOT STUPID! ImAJewWhatAreYou? (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. It makes things so much easier when socks out themselves.  BLACK KITE  12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's even more fun when they take the time to use ALL CAPS to make sure we don't miss their rant on ANI. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Range block?
If somebody can take a look at this: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650. This user comes back almost every day with a different IP. Most recently, this morning/last night (see above threads here and here). Can a range block be issued to stop the constant harassment from the banned User:Hayden5650? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have used two, seperate small-ish range blocks to knock out most of the IPs. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hope that takes care of it.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Truther truther
I'm beginning to be worried abou that user; after a fairly long a protracted dispute on Joseph Schlessinger where I and DGG did our best to avoid BLP concerns, this user (one of the editors involved) has taken to post the material that was excluded from the article to his user page.

Given that I was involved in the dispute while trying to settle things down, I was hoping some other admin could step in? &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed, and a polite note left pointing the editor towards userpage policy.  BLACK KITE  16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Bill edmond
is a continually disruptive-presence on Nigeria-related articles, such as Imo State and Igbo people. He was previously, who also used socks and  to make it seem like his position had more support (see Special:Undelete/Imo State, which I had to delete because of a copyvio he introduced). He received several blocks on the Igbigbo account due to his disruption and his use IPs and socks to continue revert-warring on Imo State while blocked.

As his reappearance with the Bill edmond account shows, he still refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy. He is using to revert in tandem with his latest account, and has gone far over three reverts in a day on Igbo people. Worse of all, he absolutely refuses to respond to the requests and warnings from me and others. I request this user be blocked, as he is clearly unwilling to adhere to Verifiability and External links (failure to adhere to those being the reason I'm reverting him on Imo State), and Sock puppetry, which he has consistently violated to evade blocks and make his position seem to have more support. Picaroon (t) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:38.100.43.50
Refuses to gain concensus on the Campus Watch article, goes around deleting "neoconservative from organizations tagged as such, has been warned to knock it off, and is being uncivil, as shown from the refusal to discuss the issue, not to mention accusing me as a vandal. I've been watching the Campus Watch article for a while.  Removing this:   repeatedly.  Every other diff is the same. DodgerOfZion (talk) Not to mention the 3RR vio's. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with warnings, he's not stopping. DodgerOfZion (talk)
 * User making disruptive edits, after warnings, considered vandalism, and reported to AIV. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours.  BLACK KITE  16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, why 31? Not that I'm weighing in on the specific block, I've just seen 31 in a lot of vandal's block logs and wondered why it's 31, not 24, 36, or some other nice even multiple of 12. J- ſtan  ContribsUser page 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is exactly why: it is not a multiple of twelve. I believe the theory is that since it is an odd number, it helps "break the pattern" of abuse.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, being "more than 24" helps make the block stick (since it will properly cover "tomorrow at the same time") without encouraging cycles. As for why 31 specifically, it's just one of the values in the default drop down menu.  Convenient.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks! J- ſtan  ContribsUser page 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't mind a 55 hour option for a 2 day and a bit tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Who would you ask for that? J- ſtan ContribsUser page 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably one of the MediaWiki pages. I looked, but couldn't find anything relevent. I never knew quite the best way to look for stuff in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Mediawiki:Ipboptions - and, I've found Special:Allmessages is a good way to find those pages (since it'll even find the ones that don't currently exist, but could be set to depart from the default) —Random832 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann thinks it is worth the full weight of his adminship to push his personal point of view to full protect Indo-European languages:. Remind: "Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism"The pretext is "edit war", still the only "edit war" I can see is his fanatism to revert without giving details. See history:. How much of an "edit war" is evident with this history? He did not even bother to TALK before I reverted his unaccounted edits. Instead of supplying a justification to his previous edits, he rather had the page protected. Of course after having his personal edits restored first. A clear case of admin abuse to me. By the way, the protection was not requested according to the procedure to protect a page. Rokus01 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was protected by Angr. I have refactored the title of this section. Mathsci (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rokus01 is forum shopping with his "evidence". Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected" Please refrain from your mercenary attitude to jump into the fire for defending the undefendable, and come up with loose accusations that only show how involved you are in soapboxing that won't help your friend at all. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that he asked Angr to protect the page and you have made no attempt to produce any. Please provide diffs. I could only find this communication to you from Angr, confirming my statement.  Your other very odd comments above smack of conspiracy theory. On the other hand you have actively encouraged another editor to find fault with and report Dbachmann whenever possible. : « If you see any evidence of his violations against WP:NPOV (especially where he tries to smother multiple views) or WP:OR (making unsourced claimes), outright violations of WP:CIVIL or anything else of the kind, I urge you to help making Wikipedia a better place and denounce this behaviour asap at Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. » Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note this occurred 4 days ago and the parties have been discussing in the talk page in between. Gnangarra 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as resolved matter at arbcom and incident 4 days old, contact the arbitratories for any intervention. Gnangarra 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

this Rokus character keeps pestering me on my talkpage about this protection, with which I had nothing to do, 15 hours after he had been told as much. Anyone care to hold his hand and explain the situation to him in a soothing tone? Or, alternatively, wave about the old baton a little to make him behave? dab (𒁳) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

malicious tagging for deletion of Joan Perez de Lazarraga
This is a pretty low-temperature incident, but it struck me as pretty malicious, so I'm reporting it.

I translated the Basque Wikipedia page on a major Basque writer, and it was tagged for deletion because it supposedly didn't indicate why the subject was important. This is completely unjustifiable if you read the article, which explicitly states the notability of the subject.

Article: Joan Perez de Lazarraga

User who tagged it: User talk:I love entei

His/her reasoning for the tag was that the article was "poor," had broken links, and other things having nothing to do with the notability of the subject. See my and his/her talk pages for the discussion. (He/she even went so far as accusing me of copying and pasting the text from a website.) He/she removed the tag, but if I hadn't been around to contest the tag, the page might've been deleted.

I'd like an administrator or someone with authority to give User talk:I love entei a stern talking-to, because unjustifiable taggings for deletion are arguably more malicious than ordinary vandalism. Vandalism is easily reverted. It's not so easy to revert a page's deletion.  Madler  05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These type of edits are what I cringe at. Tagged with CSD A7 _one minute_ after the article was completed, giving no time or notice that the page needs to be revised. Instead of offering helpful suggestions or tips, a label is slapped in the hope that the article can never be improved nor modified to meet a sort of minimum standard. It's the lazy way out of editing, in my opinion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not consider I love entei's edits malicious, but I would consider them inappropriate, for the reasons Seicer mentions and also the fact that the article did assert notability. --Iamunknown 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering why he feels the need to have his user page semi-protected, as it's never been vandalised. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to engage in idle speculation, but he/she created a two-sentence article earlier the same day (Dec 22) that got tagged for deletion: Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. Anyway, I just want someone to tell this guy/gal that what he/she did wasn't right. He/she's acting okay now.  Madler  06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting this drop, since they guy/gal seems to be playing nice now.  Madler  04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting 2 range blocks
There is an IP out there that has been massively sockpuppeting in the past few days across two large ranges, and one small one. This has involved massive userpage vandalism and user talk page vandalism (see    ). The ranges are as follows: Due to constant harassment for literally days, I believe it is well time to throw a range block up on these IPs. I realize this is a last resort measure, but there has been constant harassment from the IPs on userpages and user talk pages for days, and most range blocks are thrown up for far less. I thank you ahead of time for your action. Autoblock disabled would obviously be a good idea, but admin's judgment on whether to allow account creation, given that user has created accounts before, and it is clearly keeping a list (i.e., is knowledgeable), is open. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 220.255.4.128/27: 220.255.4.133, 220.255.4.135.
 * 116.14.0.0/16: 116.14.26.88, 116.14.19.34, 116.14.112.226, 116.14.31.80, 116.14.86.42, 116.14.64.101
 * 121.7.0.0/17 (may also be /16, don't know yet): 121.7.197.88, 121.7.200.93, 121.7.203.74, 121.7.207.139.
 * At least one known registered troll sock: Jimbo da Whale. Also possibly Youdontwannaknowmeordoyou.
 * All IP's have a whois trace back to Singapore.
 * Just to be clear, you are requesting an indef tariff? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. I was going for 1 month would be good. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay... Would it be best if it was for a week in the first instance? It could always be extended, but even one week will cover the Christmas/New Year period for a location with a significant Christian population. I've not done a range block before, so I want to be sure that collateral damage is limited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One week would be good. I leave it up to you to decide if it should be anonymous only, or if account creation should be blocked. For the former, there would be little collateral damage; the latter would expierience more, but would not block registered users, and users could still register, though they'd need to wait some time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will do anon only, and for one week. If any other admin comes across this discussion and decided to vary the block then I will be happy with whatever they decide. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The 116.14.xxx range was already blocked for a month since two days ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, a month-long /16 block sounds awfully scary. Do we typically do that?  Could protection be used instead?  I fear shutting off huge chunks of Singapore.  Also, the 121.7.0.0/17 block won't even cover the range listed above.  You're looking for 121.7.128.0/17, although 121.7.192.0/18 or smaller would still cover the ones listed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The month long block was already in place when I attempted a week tariff, so you might wish to speak to the admin who placed it. As for the correct range numbers, please amend as you see fit - this was my first set of range blocks and I am happy for them to be corrected as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due repsect, Wknight, this user has been harassing us for days, and protecting several people's talk pages, over a dozen user pages and another dozen talk pages, etc. for a week seems less respectable. Yes, we do range blocks all the time, and precisely for this kind of thing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll raise the other issue - about the month-long block - with the admin directly, or maybe at WP:AN. Just thought maybe you'd have insight about a precedent for a range block of that size for that long.  I've done range blocks but only for very short times.  As for the more recent blocks, I'll correct those as far as I can.  If protection can be done instead, that's always preferable to a range block.  There was a good-faith user once who hated anonymous users and would intentionally vandalize anonymously to get us to shut down those addresses.  I think they were from the same region of the world too (southeast Asia).  I worry this is the same case (although the name doesn't come to mind).  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Should this be here or after the next?) Theres got to be a valid reason for those. You guys can band together, circlejerk, etc, block for all eternity but users of IPs change all the time. So its gonna get worse. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Hildanknight is what you're looking for. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cush
Could someone please try to persuade to lay off the personal attacks?

I am concerned that the latest outburst may mark a resumption of the situation a few months ago, when Cush mounted a series of personal attacks on me (see e.g. ) because Cush thinks that fiction should be exempt from notability/verifiability guidelines, and I had tagged some articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've issued a standard "no personal attacks" warning, in case the user has not seen it before. If the attacks persist, well, I guess you know the drill. Sandstein (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandstein. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistant harassment
Apologies up front for not having the time to compose an aesthetically pleasing report endlessly full of supporting links; I simply don't have the time at this moment and no longer feel this can/should wait... USER:RYNORT (self-identified as 16) was recently blocked for going on a vandalism rampage (some examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and leaving blatantly inappropriate attacks on other editors and other immature comments (see edits here, here) after Wikipedia editors rebuffed his political agenda. The blocking admin (in an extraordinary application of good faith), after apprently receiving an email in which the user said his account was compromised, unblocked him with words of warning regarding conduct and safeguarding his account.

I've been out of pocket for a few weeks, and have had limited time online. However, I've recently had a barrage of attacks directed at me (some directly from this user, some from an IP I suspect to be controlled by the same user). Some examples:
 * Conspiring to game the system
 * Attack & stalking threats ("you are now on watch")
 * Accusations of "paranoia"
 * More rambling ("your sole intention for being at wikipedia is so you can form a LYNCH MOB")
 * Another rant ("McCarthyite tactics", "Are you a fan of J Edgar Hoover? He tried to arrest twelve thousand Americans for 'subversion.' Would you like to round up all the conservative editors at wikipedia and put them in a 'holding tank' too?")
 * What is a Lunjio?
 * "Wikipedia is a waste" (again) - What is a Knol?
 * More made up warnings
 * Long attack ("utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos")
 * SSP - notice the idiosyncratic "lol", often done by USER:RYNORT. Also, for more SSP evidence, notice the consistant misapplication of headers (using only one =) when posting new sections by both the IP and by the account RYNORT in diffs here, here, here, and here.  Good evidence that it's all the same kid.

There's plenty more evidence and other melodrama on the talk pages of articles and in the contribution history of the IP and user account. I don't really have time to formally initiate WP:SSP and WP:RFC proceedings right now (happy holidays!) but hopefully ANI admins will take more immediate (even if temporary) action to stop the harassment and disrutpive behavior. Your time in reviewing this is appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User blocked. Would have done it for a week but the user was previously indeffed and promised to behave, evidently he did not learn from that incident. I've done my own review of the user's contribs and did not see any positive contribution (but plenty of the above). The fact a political agenda is being pushed is mostly irrelevant, it's actually more the egregious examples of bad behaviour which stand out in this user's case. Orderinchaos 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:SamEV
Refuses to use reach a consensus on the talk page and does wholesale deletions on number of sections and if or when they are reverted refuses to go to the talk section in violation of Wiki:Be Bold as can be seen here  Placed in edit's and calls them copyedit but in reality some of it is near vandalism  with "Yet the decades that followed were filled with tyranny, factionalism, economic difficulties, rapid changes of government, and exile for political opponents" and " after forcibly silencing or exiling many of his opponents and mainly due to political and economic reasons" as well as a comment that is near vandalism and violates NPOV with edits that included "Dishonest to the core, he was a master manipulator". UnclePaco (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For content disputes, you want to use dispute resolution; this doesn't require administrator help. Shell babelfish 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Static IP spammer

 * 100% link spam since August. Not current. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Coredesat 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:James Emtage
Hi, I'm not quite sure to do about the above user. He went thorugh a period of "experimenting" with certain pages, and now is convinced about removing discussion content. I asked an administrator and they said that talk should, as i thought, not be removed. I have since warned him (twice, once in September) only to find him removing the warnings User talk:James Emtage. I hope someone can help.

Cheers Thenthornthing (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an administrator by the way, I just want to say that a user has the right to remove what they please from their talk page it is a sign that the warning was read. Also it is still in the history. Rgoodermote  23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but from another article I was told not. Thenthornthing (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You said the last warning was in September right, well that would give a reasonable time frame for the user to remove the warnings from the talk page. Rgoodermote  23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User page says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So basically, I should just leave him, but what if he removed content from the articles talk page again, shall i warn him again via his talk page? Thenthornthing (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the user removes it from a talk page and it does not belong to him (this means an article's talk page or if it was not his comment) then you are entitled to warn the user. Rgoodermote  23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You should politely ask him not to remove content from article talk pages, without a big red warning sign, and point him to the relevant guideline. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Right ya, I id try politeness but it didn't wotk so i thought i'd be more stricter. Anyway, any more future incidents and i know what to do then. Cheers guys Thenthornthing (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requsting block of Lynx515
I am requesting is blocked for breaching WP:NPA, and placing bad faith warnings on his own user page. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's blocked as a vandalism account only . It could have went to WP:AIV.-- Sandahl 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis sockuppet
Community-banned user appears to be back using, which is similar to ip addresses he has used before (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ceraurus). See also Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella. Can we get a block on this please? I"m going to go revert his edits. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quickly revert the edits, and from now on, have the socks blocked on sight, so he can stop. You can also create a log of him on your userspace. &mdash;Bo L  @  23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm here for: requesting that the ip be blocked. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems extremely unlikely that this is anyone other than banned user Arthur Ellis. Blocked for 72 hours, post here again if he shows up again. Picaroon (t) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Racist POV additions at White flight
Please check the history of White flight. There are currently a couple of IPs, and some registered users attempting to insert racist material into the body of the article. Not sure if this qualifies for RFPP, so I brought it here. Thanks, Mr Which ??? 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is not quite needed yet. It's still manageable right now. Come back here or go to RFPP if it gets out of hand. — Kurykh  00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave vandalism warnings to both IPs and have watchlisted the page. If it continues then protection can be considered then.  BLACK KITE  00:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was quite ready for RFPP. I just felt that admin warnings might carry a bit more weight than one coming from me, especially as a contributor to the article. Mr Which ??? 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, new IP arrived, idiocy added again. Reverted+blocked the IP and semi'd the page for 48 hours. Even trolls have to take time off for Christmas, surely...Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really don't like having to chase around bad faith contributors like that. Appreciate the help. Mr Which ??? 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Block on Giano lifted, but autoblock remains
Could an admin take care of this? Somehow, though the block has been properly reversed on User:Giano II, the autoblock remains. Mr Which ??? 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Check Giano's user talk page. ElinorD found the autoblock and resolved it. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

POV pusing at Greg Williams (radio personality)
An anon IP has been pushing an angry, POV edit here, and then reinserting it after I removed it. Mr Which ??? 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That IP has made two edits, ever. Mr Which, please don't post every single problem edit you happen to encounter here - this page is for serious matters that you've failed to find a resolution for after a number of attempts in other, more informal venues. Please exhaust all reasonable venues before posting here-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, should I simply continue to revert him, and then post it here, and be accused of 3RR as I have been in the past? If you didn't want to do anything about it, why even respond? This was an "incident", where an anon IP posted vile, disgusting edits to an article about a living person. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP, which I understand is a core policy. If your brusque response was intended to have a chilling effect on editors reporting problems to AN/I, consider it done. Mr Which ??? 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should follow policy. You should discuss problematic edits with users, and on the article's talk page; you only did that after you posted here, and haven't given it any reasonable time to work. You should use the comprehensive dispute resolution procedure; you've not done so.  You should post vandalism concerns on Administrator intervention against vandalism; you've not done so.  You should post BLP concerns on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you've not done so.  If you feel less inclined to post to this board then good, that was my intention.  This board is for serious entrenched matters requiring urgent administrator intention. Your complaint is none of those things - it's everyday POV pushing that's reverted hundreds or thousands of times by dozens of editors, admins and not, every single day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finlay, whilst I agree with the principle that this board is meant for "serious entrenched matters", I do not think it is in our best interest to discourage editors from posting here or to respond to good-faith requests with the tone with which you have responded to MrWhich's request. Please consider responding in a more constructive manner in the future; MrWhich, please do not be discouraged from reporting here, but do also note that there is WP:AIV which might have been a better venue for this incident.  :)  Cheers, Iamunknown 04:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People are fond of posting here because they can't be bothered with the hard work of negotiating with other users. It's difficult, often annoying, to deal with people who don't seem willing to behave rationally. But that's how Wikipedia works. Administrators solve very little; asking them to solve a problem is like asking the air force to open a jar for you - they can get it done, but the collateral damage is often high. The false idea that administrators are special is rife on this page; that only administrators can solve your problem; that if you see something bad happening then you need to call 911 and report it here.  That's a deeply flawed approach, one that does the whole Wikipedia great disservice. Everyone is equally responsible for fixing things, and there is such an overwhelming volume of low-level abusive edits that essentially almost everything has to be solved by ordinary individual contributors acting alone, with no magic powers or booming authority.  This page should be, must be, the last resort people come to when all the other stuff has failed.  Every time someone posts stuff here when there are better venues, everytime a pointless discussion wages here, every time someone tries to make policy here when they should use the proper pages, it fills this channel with noise and obscures the important work this board is intended for. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finlay, I don't think that we disagree. I would suggest, however, that in addition to attempting to influence how this board is used, we also change our attitude to those who may not be as familiar with its function.  Your comments unfortunately do seem to have a chilling force behind them.  We should not respond to good-faith requests of good-faith editors in a manner that will discourage them from future such comments.  This could have been accomplished in far less words with a simple statement like, "Account blocked; in the future, please consider reporting incidents of blatant vandalism to Administrator intervention against vandalism".  --Iamunknown 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now with assumptions of bad faith ("can't be bothered"?!?)? I reverted the edits once. He reinserted, and I left a message at his talk and posted it here. You treated my like I did something wrong. And these are not "low-level abusive edits." As for posting to the "proper venue", some of us clearly aren't as familiar with all the "venues" as you are. Treating us with disrespect hen we make a good-faith report is certainly unbecoming of an administrator. I'll repeat: if you didn't want to deal with it, just ignore the problem, and let other admins deal with the problem. Don't insult the editor trying to solve the problem. Mr Which ??? 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you don't feel like dealing with the problem (a WP:BLP concern), then please feel free not to respond. It's not just simple "POV pushing." But as I said, if you intended your post to have a chilling effect on posting real concerns here, consider it done. And feel free not to respond to this note. Mr Which ??? 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both edits are essentially vandalism, but the editor hasn't re-inserted since your warning on their talkpage. Proper procedure is to warn on the talkpage, as you did, then escalate through warnings and if s/he re-inserts after BV or level 4, take it to WP:AIV. Anchoress (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I considered it more serious because of the WP:BLP concerns. Mr Which ??? 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel the edit is libellous or offensive enough to require oversight, you can email requesting oversight or post to the BLP noticeboard. Anchoress (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The reason I posted it here is because this board is very active, and I felt that we needed immediate admin attention on the page. Check out the anon IP' post on the talk page accusing me of vandalism. Clearly not a guy who is planning on stopping his insertion of this material. Mr Which ??? 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Racist comment on discussion page
I removed this comment (including "This article seems to establish that the only thing being niggardly has to do with being black is being an ignorant nigger! Haw haw haw.") from the Talk:Controversies about the word "niggardly" page with the edit summary "remove obviously offensive comment". The editor who wrote it has now restored the comment. I don't think there's any question that the comment has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. I'm not going to deal with it any more. Perhaps someone else will. Noroton (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave him a first-and-only warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A conflict between user GoWest8 and admin IrishGuy
Please pay attention to the dispute between me, GoWest8, and administrator IrishGuy. On 20 December there was a conflict of edits in Garry Kasparov article between me and user Miyokan. I have argued my actions and have invited the other side to search for some compromise repeatedly User_talk:GoWest8 User_talk:Irishguy. Then I have tried to explain clearly that there's no any sources for information which I had removed from the article (look User_talk:GoWest8 comment IrishGuy 19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC) then GoWest8 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC); also another my comment GoWest8 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)). But I had not received any response to my arguments and was banned by this admin twice for "Vandalism" and "Disruptive editing". It's an obvious absurdity for me, taking into account that I had motivated and explained my actions and didn't get any answer. I think his opinion and his actions in the discussion are very biassed. GoWest8 2 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I've blocked the account indef for block evasion. <font color="#151B8D">Knowledge <font color="#6D7B8D">Of <font color="#461B7E">Self  | <font color="#461B7E">talk  04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why never evade bans, even if it's a dispute. Happy Holidays from  &mdash;Bo L  05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:UP1340
Taken from UP1340's userpage: Some of you may have noticed UP1340 editing articles having to do with trains. He's my younger brother and has PDD; he just happens to have an obsession with all things train-related. I only recently caught him editing Wikipedia articles and would prefer that he be banned from editing, but I'm having trouble finding where you can nominate your OWN account for being blocked. If someone more knowledgeable about wikipedia could nominate him for being banned from editing, with this message in mind, it would be great. As for now I've changed his PW and deleted his email address from his account settings so hopefully he won't be able to log in. I'm really sorry for the trouble he's caused--he means no harm, but can't really understand why what he's doing is 'bad.' He thinks he's helping. Message was added by user.

Nominating user for block as requested. I'm a bit confused about the process myself. If this needs to be moved, feel free to do so. Hellbus (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can look at it two ways, assume good faith and block as per the request of an older family member of an underage user, or assume its a compromised account which would also warrant a block until such time that it was assured the original owner had control of it again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gp75motorsports
user promised to focus more on mainspace

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do with ? His "ChampionMart" has been nominated for deletion which makes about the 5th MFD he's had on his user space creations. See Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gp75motorsports for the list of MFDs, which have all taken place in the last few months. There seems to be a large disparity between his user and Wikipedia space edits against his mainspace edits. Does anyone have an idea about how to convince this user to stop creating these subpages that don't meet Wikipedia standards? Perhaps some probation could be put in place? Obviously, this can't keep going on. Metros (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I've read BURO THREE TIMES and I've tried to organize all my projects to meet BURO standards. I set the project up, go over BURO and slowly reconstruct the project over a period of weeks and when the project finally begins to adhere to standards, I open it. Unfortunately people like you come along and make damned sure this process doesn't get completed. Just give me another six weeks to smooth it out and if it still doesn't adhere, nom it again. All I need is time. -- Gp 75 motorsports  <sup style="color:#800000;">REV LIMITER  14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gp75motorsports, you've been doing the same thing over and over again. The community's patience has been clearly exhausted for this kind of behaviour, and I've blocked you for a month to prevent this kind of stuff. I sincerely hope that you will contribute purposefully after the block has expired. -- Maxim (talk)  15:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've declined the unblock request for that reason. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This was a completely inappropriate and manifestly excessive block. He is a good-faith contributor who has made genuine contributions to articles. While his projects are not necessarily helpful, they are not deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. I am going to reduce the block length to 48 hours accordingly; if anyone disagrees, we can discuss it here. WaltonOne 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the reduced block either, but I think you're minimizing the problem a bit. Those projects may not have been deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, but his unwillingness to listen when people kept telling him they were unhelpful and possibly disruptive is where the problem lie. At any rate, he now seems willing to restrict himself from making more of those in the future, and that's good enough for me.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is whether that could have been achieved by a strong warning instead of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a legitimate and interesting question, but now completely academic. I think everyone here now agree that the reduced block is adequate, and whether it was necessary or superfluous is a moot point given the desirable result that GP75 will make some effort to avoid such disruptive projects in the future.  Shall we stop beating the dead horse and call the incident closed?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly those who blocked and endorsed the block might want to state how they would handle similar incidents in the future. That would actually improve things going forward, and then we really could close the incident. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would have given one last stern warning, and probably only blocked for a week at first. But I don't think I would endorse the block differently than I have now, even in retrospect.  As a rule, I will abide by the judgment of my colleagues, and not reverse or reduce a block unless the unblock provides me with a very compelling reason, or if there was misconduct by the blocking admin (which was emphatically not the case here&mdash; I may not agree with the duration, but I don't doubt the blocking admin honestly felt that duration was appropriate). Note that I'm all in favor of lifting or shortening a block when the blocked editor provides credible reassurances that the reason why they were blocked will be fixed, or no longer applies.  This was not, in this case, apparent:  GP75 requested unblock mostly (IMO) on wikilawyering around WP:BURO rather than acknowledge he should desist entirely (has he has afterwards).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the block reduction to 48 hours. I'm also not entirely convinced that a block was the best way to deal with this. A strongly worded warning that a block would be the next step would have been better. Don't assume that people know that "numerous MfDs of their user subpages and ANI threads about them" = "previous warning and license for the first admin to lose patience to block them". I certainly have never thought that. And in any case, blocking for inappropriate use of userspace is a tricky one at the best of times. Discussion (as happened at the MfDs), followed by escalating warnings, should precede any block for borderline inappropriate userspace use (stuff that can be speedied is generally clearcut userspace abuse - stuff that needs to go to MfD is more debatable). Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This block seems a little much to be honest. He's creating the subpages in good faith, even if we do keep having MfD's over them. It's not clear cut userspace abuse - he's trying to help other users (even though I personally think there's better ways to do this). A block like this has the potential to alienate good faith users and chase them away from the project. A warning is all that was needed in this case, then blocks could have been discussed. Gp75motorsports isn't the most disruptive user we have here by far, and I'm sure he'd have listened to concerns. This seems more like a punishment than a protective measure.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, hence why I reduced the block length. As I said on Maxim's talk page, this block was manifestly excessive. WaltonOne 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacking clear consensus that this user's activities are against policy, which you don't have, this block was an abuse of admin powers.

Blocking someone for a month for activities confined to their own userspace subpages which are intended to foster community? Maybe misguided, and maybe we shouldn't have them here, but what happened to AGF?

Manifestly bad judgement here. I am unblocking. Please do not do this again. If you want to create consensus and policy against doing this, do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad judgement indeed. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As GWH unblocked with reference to this discussion, if we WP:AGF regarding GWH's actions, there was no wheel-warring. I agree that a block was unwarranted, although the situation was approaching the point where it might have been needed.  The editor needs to understand that his efforts are ill-conceived: even if these ideas are open for discussion, his implementations of them have a long record of failing badly.  I favor a stern warning, and I believe the aborted block serves this purpose. Xoloz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, whether the block was entirely warranted at this point is disputable, but simply reverting another admin's block without discussion with them is never a good thing. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GWH complied with the policy you've cited. Xoloz (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes discussion like this can bypass the need to discuss. WP:WHEEL and WP:BLOCK are not a license for an admin to defend their blocks in the face of clear disagreement. Sometimes it is better to admit to error, rather than try and defend it. Also, it is direct clashes like this between admins over interpretation of blocking policy that leads to swift acceptance of arbitration cases. Regardless of the need to block at all, an immediate block of one month on Maxim's part seems to indicate a preference for immediate, lengthy blocks, rather than warnings, discussions, and shorter blocks. Tough admins versus soft admins, if you like. This is something that should be addressed to avoid any increasing divergence and inconsistencies in block lengths (the length of a block someone receives shouldn't be dependent on which admin they get). I've tried to raise general discussions before on what sort of things are appropriate for 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour, 1 week, 1 month and longer (up to indefinite) blocks, but standards seems to vary wildly and not bear much relation to WP:BLOCK. What is the best way to tackle this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is possible to fix this in general. Divergence between the "tougher" admins and the more "lenient" ones is unavoidable, unless we agree to mire ourselves into the complicated bureaucracy and politics of a written codification of blocks, or bind ourselves to precedent law.  Outside of egregious abuse, I think we simply need to accept that blocks et al. will depend on which admin you stumble on.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Coren) No, we don't need to accept anything of the sort. A more specific blocking policy would not necessarily entail a growth in bureaucracy and politics; indeed, if well-drafted, it could be very simple, and would protect users from being driven away by the excesses of overzealous admins. I propose something like the following:
 * The account of an established user in good standing (i.e. not a "throwaway" vandal account) may be blocked only if any of the following apply:
 * S/he has violated the three-revert rule and has continued reverting after warnings.
 * S/he is deliberately and repeatedly damaging the quality of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content in some way, and has continued to do so after being warned.
 * S/he is harassing or attacking other users, or in any way impeding other users from improving the quality of the encyclopedia.
 * Administrators should always ensure that such a user has been given multiple warnings and a fair chance to change their behaviour, before issuing a block. The block should not be for an excessive length of time considering the gravity of the offence. The user should also be told exactly why they have been blocked, and (unless there are supervening privacy concerns) the block should be discussed at WP:ANI. WaltonOne 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're stuck having to agree to disagree there, because each of those suggestions appear like Bad Ideas to me. We're already giving way too much leeway to trolls, provided they either skirt the rules or contribute some fraction of constructive edits.  You're suggesting making blocks even harder in those cases. Wikipedia's biggest problem right now aren't the throwaway vandals&mdash; those are trivial to deal with and cause nothing but easily fixed short-term disruption.  The problem is the persistently problematic editors who manage to avoid community wrath by either skirting the rules (keeping just under 3RR, remaining superficially polite) while still causing vast amounts of stress and aggravation to the real good editors who eventually just walk out in disgust because we don't do anything about them. Oh, and for the record, I don't think GP75 is one of those trolls I talk about. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you distinguish between one of these problematic editors you talk about, and a relatively new, inexperienced, but still bold and brash editor, who hasn't quite understood how things work around here yet? Not all "real good editors" sprout fully formed upon the plains of Wikipedia. Some take a while to grow and learn. There are also many good and productive editors who (much like Jekyll and Hyde) have moments when they are disruptive and unproductive (for varying reasons). The point is that such decisions and judgments are difficult to make. You can't judge at RfA whether someone will be good at making these judgments. That is why we have ANI, AN and ArbCom, so longer discussions can get better results than single admins (or small groups of admins) getting it wrong sometimes. For the record, I agree with Walton. Established users that were previously in good standing (and may still be) should always get a warning and the chance to defend themselves. And emergency blocks in such cases need only be short one, rather than indefinite. And the lifting of a block should come with an apology if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth's summarised pretty much what I was going to say. There is no clear, objective definition of a "problematic editor". Vandals, as you say, are easy to identify and deal with, as are the blatant POV-pushers and trolls. But I've seen plenty of established editors who make copious beneficial contributions to the encyclopedia, but have a problem with civility or are unnecessarily combative or prone to edit-warring. Such people often end up being labelled "trolls" or "disruptive users" but they should not be described as such, and should only be blocked as a very, very last resort. From both a pragmatic perspective (since we need to recruit and retain contributors) and a moral perspective, a user who makes contributions in good faith to the encyclopedia earns certain privileges which we do not grant to vandals: they should be given as many chances as possible before being blocked, they should be fairly and adequately warned if their conduct violates policy, and, if they are blocked, they should be informed precisely which policy they have violated and how they can alter their conduct in order to conform to community standards. Blocks should not be issued according to the arbitrary caprice of individual admins. Otherwise we cease to be, in any meaningful sense, a community. WaltonOne 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on ANI (note above thread)
and are currently revert warring on this page, 65 accusing 222 of being a reincarnation of banned, and 222 accusing 65 of being a reincarnation of banned. 65 is an IP formerly used by Jeeny, and 222 is a spa. Beyond that, I can't tell what is what. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reported both to AIV for the editwarring; 222.155 was blocked 31 hours as a result, 65.27 apparently not noted by the admin on AIV. Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I didn't check 65.27's talkpage and see the same block issued, just took AIVHelperBot's word for it. Whoops!  Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650, 222.155.45.183 is most likely an IP of Hayden5650. Mr.  Z- man  06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto on   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection of ANI
I have semi-protected ANI for 1 hour due to the two IPs listed above continually reverting one another. Unfortunately, I have to run in a minute, so I'm not sure that I'll have time to figure out who's the sock, and who's not. If any admin thinks this action is excessive, feel free to revert. However, it seems that the disruption is worth 1 hour of semi-protection. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * since the two accounts have been blocked, I'll unprotect (but maintain move protection. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever IPs in the 222.155.0.0/16 and 222.153.0.0/16 are acting up, please block those ranges (anon. only, account creation blocked) for a few days. 222.155.45.183 and 222.155.43.145 were unquestionably Hayden5650. 65.27.201.206 was very likely Jeeny. Picaroon (t) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I remember handling Hayden's case for a time while he was still posting under that account. I'm honestly not surprised about recent developments. Orderinchaos 08:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalker
User:Bramlet Abercrombie appears to be stalking me and undoing all my edits, all he ever does nowadays is undo my edits, no constructive contributions. Appears to be an SPA with a massive grudge against the foundation but that is not what concerns me, what concerns is his single minded stalking of my edits and reverting them time and again. he has been blocked a few days ago for edit warring and since then has dedicated himself solely to this pursuit, making the hard work that I am doing feeling like it is a waste of time. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatant stalking and reverting - given previous block, I have blocked for 72 hours. Input appreciated as to whether this is reasonable, or should be longer given editor's obvious SP.  BLACK KITE  19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support indef-block; classic wikistalking and shit stirring. Reminds me of the Manchester POV pusher, to be honest. Will (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, now appears to be more content dispute. Have told user I will unblock if he desists.  BLACK KITE  19:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A content dispute moves into wikistalking after about thirty or forty "Undid revision by User" summaries. Will (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You could (though I wouldn't) argue that there wasn't consensus for the original edits. I have unblocked, with the proviso this goes to talk before *any* more edit-warring takes place.  BLACK KITE  20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly think the user's editing in good faith; The userpage gives away the "Wikipedia Badman" belief he seems to be devoting his edits to. Will (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, did that editor have a get out of jail free card up his sleeve? I looked through his history and it looked like nothing but stalking to me. Jeffpw (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has agreed to stop.  IF he doesn't stick to that promise, then he will be blocked again.  BLACK KITE  20:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at his userpage? Can you honestly say you think he is here to contribute in good faith, in order to improve this project? There's a fine line between WP:AGF and outright naiveté. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Admins aren't infalliable.  Let's hope my AGF proves to be right.  If it doesn't, there are options.  BLACK KITE  20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with the notion of "last chance" unblocks, although I think they need to be scrupulously enforced. That being said they should only be used when we have a commitment from the user to improve. If we don't, and this level of stalking and bad behaviour is apparent, we should block. Orderinchaos 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The overstock trolling on his talk page is pretty blatant. Mind, I'm not a great fan of persistent abusers like Bagley who blame Wikipedia for the collateral damage caused by preventing their abuse. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I also agree this user can't possibly be here to contribute constructively. I would indef. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Has anyone actually checked Bramlet Abercrombie's edits, SqueakBox's edits and the Talk:Larry Sanger talk page?  Consensus is against SqueakBox's opinion, and now he is going across the wiki editing with his POV.  --Iamunknown 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to say the same thing. SqueakBox's edits seem to be totally inappropriate here.  Metros (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see what you mean now. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 23:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sides have a point. Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate as far as the co-founder issue is concerned. But Bramlet just arbitrarily reverted every single edit Squeakbox made, including edits that had nothing to do with the co-founder issue, such as here and here, regardless of the merits of those edits.--Atlan (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted all of SB's against consensus (and verifiability) edits regarding the "co-" issue. I was careful to revert only those edits that pertained directly to that discussion. But SB was point-making with the initial edits, and making such mass-edits, without consensus, was out of line, in my view. For the record, I don't have any axe to grind in the Sanger thing. I just wasn't willing to let a particular POV be mass-edited across the project without consensus. Mr Which ??? 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, no objections from the guy who reverted back to SB - I reverted only the "undo" edits due to the pretense of Wikistalking. Will (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you reverted back to SB's point-y mass-edits?!? If what Bramlet did was "stalking" SB, does that mean you were "stalking" me? (Note: I don't believe this, I'm just pointing out the specious nature of SB's initial complaint.) Mr Which ??? 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvass at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß
During the discussion of a move proposal at the bottom of this talk page, User:Unschool canvassed 34 users, many of whom then joined the discussion and sided with him. Upon discovery of the canvass by Haukur, Unschool admitted that he was not aware that canvass is to be avoided. I believe it was indeed an honest mistake. Still, it's done and it can't be fixed. The discussion was disrupted to a point where no consensus could ever be determined, so I ask for it to be speedy closed by an uninvolved admin. I also strongly recommend that a period of time may be established until a new discussion may take place at this talk page, as there's no point in starting a new discussion right away and have all the canvassed users return. On a related note, I am disturbed that none of the canvassed users (some of whom very experienced users) seems to have denounced the canvass. Instead they welcomed it and promptly adhered to its purpose. Hús ö  nd  04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Husond's characterization of events is largely accurate, with one critical distinction. Events were as follows:
 * Yes, I did contact 34 editors. My actual post to the user talk pages, for 32 of the 34, was as follows: Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourteen of the 34 editors did weigh in on the talk page for Franz Josef Strauß, supporting the proposal. One voted against the proposal, and nineteen did not post to the talk page at all.
 * However, after learning of the deprication of canvassing (which is apparently somewhat subjective; some editors implied that they felt that what I did did not constitute canvassing—I wouldn't really know), on the talk page, I separated the votes from those who had received my post on their talk page from those who had just found the vote on their own (most of whom posted to the talk page before I contacted any editors). These editors—who had not been contacted by me—voted 10-2 to support the proposal. This is a critical distinction that I think should be recognized.


 * Nullifying the vote under these circumstances would be grossly unfair to the persons who put forward the proposal. Perhaps one could argue that some type of sanction be placed against me (my reading of the guideline would indicate that a warning would be the most severe thing imaginable in this case, but of course I defer to others), but to claim that this discussion was disrupted by what occurred requires an almost willful misreading of the history of the matter.  I have no reason to doubt Husond's sincerity in this request, but at the same time, it must be noted that he was one of the only two votes against this proposal.


 * I strongly urge whoever takes on this matter (and I trust, for sake of avoiding the appearance of COI, it will be someone who has not previously been engaged in the heated discussions revolving the use of ß and þ in en.wikipedia), to not just read the discussion page as it stands now, but to review the evolving history over the past five days or so. Some of my good-faith measures have been deleted, and I would want the arbiter of this matter to see how things evolved.  Also, please review my postings to the other editors.  I have learned something here about procedure, and am glad for it.  But I will be less glad if the result of my error is the unjust punishment of others.  Unschool (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is clear and unchanged even if all comments from users who were notified of the discussion by Unschool are completely disregarded. It would be a silly outcome and perhaps a case of wiki-lawyering for a clear consensus to be disregarded because of procedural missteps that don't affect the result.  --Reuben (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How did you choose who to contact? This is important in whether or not this should be considered disruptive canvassing. —Random832 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is most certainly not "resolved". Attention of the ANI should have fairly been mentioned on the talk page to give the opportunities of those whose votes were thrown out to speak. Please see the article talk page. Even if our votes were still unfairly discounted, consensus was for a move. Charles 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of Shelby, Mississippi
Since the beginning of December there has been a concerted effort by four editors,, , and  as well as  and  to disrupt the notable people section of Shelby, Mississippi by adding a non-notable (and possibly made-up) entry for 'Alvis Brooks' (usually as a local farm mechanic but also on occasion as the brother of Mel Brooks)               and also by removing the entry for Erma Franklin   who according to her own article was indeed born in Shelby.

A number of editors, including myself have attempted to enter dialogue on the various editors' talk pages - particularly on User talk:M.D Lawes and User talk:Robert Johnston - to no avail & in the case of comments left by Qmwne235 just resulted in personal attacks on him/her being made in mainspace.

I would have taken this to WP:RFPP however as a standalone remedy only full protection would have made any difference and I feel that to be a little excessive so I am coming here to ask for a two pronged approach - blocks on the users concerned together with a short period of semi-page protection on Shelby, Mississippi to prevent a new account being able to continue the disruption. Thanks in advance, kind regards, <font color="#FF6600">nancy   (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, protected. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Porn site adder
I encountered this user at Big Beautiful Woman. He keeps replacing the related magazine links with a link to a breast-focused porn site.

As I go through this editors contributions (they are a new editor) I also see porn movie cover images added to articles.

Spammer, or over-active hormones looking for some expression?

EIther way, would someone else (3rd party request) please check this out. - jc37 11:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed his link and gave him a warning, however I suggest you to discuss external links from this article at WT:WPSPAM to analyze their compliance with WP:EL, that's why I didn't restore the links he removed. Max S em(Han shot first!) 11:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

David Miller (Canadian politician)
There's a rolling edit war taking place between an administrator (User:CJCurrie) and an editor (User:GoldDragon) who has an ongoing record of WP:NPOV issues and who appears in this case to be insisting on full and precise quotation of several other politicians' anti-Miller rhetoric, rather than an entirely accurate but much shorter (and therefore less Miller-bludgeoning) summary. By my reading of the situation, CJCurrie is in the right on this one, but the problem is that GoldDragon regards me as a biased party because I didn't take his side the last time I stepped into a dispute between them, so he'd be unlikely to either view me as a neutral mediator or to respect any input I offered. So could I potentially ask for another administrator who doesn't have a prior history with their disputes to take a look at this situation? Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:James I of England
Would an admin please have a look at the talk page history of this article. An anon has decided to write a book this morning blasting gay people and Wikiproject LGBT regarding this article. Calling people names and such. Someone other than us involved in the article needs to step in and calm this anon down. Thanks. -- <strong style="color:#fff;background:#DC143C;border:1px solid #000">ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 14:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone was blocked on that article a month ago for the same; a checkuser may be in order. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * strong warning left at the talk page. I note however that the anon does have some appropriate things to say about the possibly inappropriate use use of a category. Maybe if he had been listened to more carefully on the merits he wouldnt have gone off the deep end. DGG (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He may have some appropriate things to say about the possibly inappropriate use of a category but it's how he's saying those things that is inappropriate. Rather than having a discussion about the issue, he resorted via a long diatribe to calling people names and attacking Wikiproject LGBT. -- <strong style="color:#fff;background:#DC143C;border:1px solid #000">ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This FA was carefully restored by qp10qp, but when editing turned uncivil and heated in mid-November, several editors (e.g.; me) unwatched. The sockpuppetry is discussed here; I still wonder if a checkuser is in order.  The people who were listening and engaging in reasoned discussion mostly gave up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandy and Guy, the category was left with consensus, including that of qp10qp. That's clearly noted on the talk page. I have a strong feeling that this is that sock again, determined to cause trouble. I agree a check user is in order. Jeffpw (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm calling out others on their cramming of POV into the article, against the unanimous consent of interested editors, now mostly scared off. Jeffpw is taking advantage of his slippery slope to try and pin it on other people.  I saw the other editor's userpages, but I don't look like that guy in the slightest.  Keep blaming others for their troubles.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was following the article, I noticed that AllStarEcho wasn't helping lower the temperature on the talk page; doesn't excuse possible sockpuppetry from the other side, but contributed to a messy enough situation that it wasn't worth getting involved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Back in November, I didn't call people names. I discussed the removal of valid and sourced content. What this anon is doing is totally malicious and unacceptable. However, because of the nature of the November discussion, I brought it here and plainly said up above omeone other than us involved in the article. -- <strong style="color:#fff;background:#DC143C;border:1px solid #000">ALLSTAR <strong style="color:#FFF;background:#0F4D92;border:1px solid #000"> echo 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon has once again inserted his homophobic attack, after I removed it. I think a block is in order, as he has already been warned over this. diff. Jeffpw (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just semi-protected the article talk page for 24 hours,which should prevent a repeat. DGG (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. There's a previous block for 3RR in the block log and the personal attacks here were not terribly nice. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This anon left me (and others) talk page messages, so he obviously was willing to discuss things, and did raise some good points, but not in a very calm manner (the argument that some of the characterisation of James was overdone, came after he died, and was done by his enemies, has been pointed out by historians). I think a block for 3RR on the talk page was impending or deserved, but the edits were to article talk pages and Wikipedia space. Pedantically, that means "72 hours for disruptive editing, personal attacks and talkpage disruption." is not quite correct. The last two are correct, but there was no disruptive editing of any actual articles (which was implied by the later specification of talk page disruption). For the record, I too have reservations about the attitude with which WikiProject LGBT studies members approach some articles (especially the historical ones), but that discussion is best left for the WikiProject talk page and another day (I really don't have the energy to have that discussion now, so just noting it for the record - one possible solution is to have the historical LBGT articles covered by different categories and a different WikiProject). The talk page should probably be unprotected, as a block and protection are not necessary - one or the other, not both, though semi-protection for a day won't break the bank either. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash drei
Yesterday, I posted on Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl that I would remove any attempts by to restart the JRPG/RPG debate there as disruptive. Earlier today, he restarted it, and after it went on for a while, I removed it, as I had indicated I would. Since then, he has kept it up, even going so far as to create a page specifically to create faux support for his side, Flying Pig (Deleted currently; admins can still see history). I'm nearing the end of my rope here. At this point, I am more concerned about stopping V-Dash from resurrecting the already-flogged-to-the-ground debate (which ended in concensus against him) than any 3RR block. Some assistance, please? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: [[Wikipedia:Flying pig above should be Flying Pig (note capitalization). Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank'ee, Raymond. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 02:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's why I couldn't see the deletion statement. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And he's planning to make Flaming pit to discredit me now - . -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the reason for deleting Flying pig (just out of curiosity)? I think he should be blocked for disruption, ASAP. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as a page created specifically to troll. I, however, want a ban rather than a block - this is a chronic problem (there's two other threads on him in the archives). -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm fine calling an indef block here a ban. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Jeske is referring to a topic ban. (Correct me if I am wrong, Jeske.)  --Iamunknown 04:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. What's the difference, though? <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When an account is blocked, it cannot be used edit any page other than its talk page. When a person is banned, the usual invitation to edit a page (or a specific page or group of pages, if topic banned) is formally revoked.  It is not a technical restriction, like a block - it is a social construct, which must be enforced by means including blocks.
 * I would advise you not to consider blocks, especially indefinite blocks, or bans lightly - the Arbitration Committee recently has been rather disapproving of individuals who regard such restrictions lightly (see the ongoing Matthew Hoffman case). --Iamunknown 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know what the difference between a block and a ban is; I was just confused by the term "topic ban". I didn't know what "topic" meant (it means banning him from a certain group of pages, right?), and thought Jeske was just calling for an outright ban. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a straight-out ban - this user has done little, if anything, to articles and has spent most of his time in Talk: and User talk: space trolling, especially as of late. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am totally confused. Is this a sockpuppet? ( I've run into V-dash before and I just don't understand what is with this editor) --M<font size="-3">ASEM 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to an anon calling himself the Wandering Hero, he [V-Dash] simply starts inane debates on topics he dislikes for no other purpose than to start an argument. Given his actions, I have very little doubt that he's doing anything but this.  It should be noted that V-Dash has used sockpuppets in the past (User:DOTEmerzon, User:Mantlefish, and User:Vdx10), and all three socks (all blocked) were used only to inflame disputes or make accusations of administrator abuse against me. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was alerted to this edit (particularly in the edit summary) by User:Sukecchi who was concerned if it this was a personal attack or not (the edit following a series of reverts of non-useful talk page edits.) --M<font size="-3">ASEM 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note on Masem's first diff (the "I am totally confused"), V-dash was not indef blocked, so I think the user was just reverting the bad template. So banning - a Community Ban, as WP:BAN states, is a situation "where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term, usually indefinitely, and there is no longer any administrator who proposes unblocking them." Maybe this is the next step. With three different threads on the guy, he has received adequate community exposure, and while he has been unblocked before, his persistent harassment warrants another block for disruption in the form of harassment. Now, another part of WP:BAN says "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community' and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users." So perhaps we should block him first, and then after enough time has passed, discuss whether he is banned or not. Unless we're shooting for a blockless ban, here. If he evades, he gets blocked. <font color="Black">J- <font color="Red">ſtan  ContribsUser page 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
I've filed an RFCU after seeing the contribs of - he's doing the same thing V-Dash has done on the Pokémon Diamond and Pearl article; specifically edit-warring to remove "Console" from "Console role-playing game" in the infobox. V-Dash is currently being watched to make sure he does not use abusive socks again. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 21:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro pedophile advocacy userbox
A User:ados has created a girllover userbox and posted it on his user page, girlover means he is an admitted pedophile who wants to "love" underage girls. I have removed it but this is clearly a serious violation of our no pro pedophile advocacy policy. Can an admin please take a look and take further action. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted.  BLACK KITE  17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that policy. And neither do I believe that identifying as a pedophile is pro-pedophilia-advocacy. Can somebody please explain to me
 * 1) where i can find this wikipedia policy
 * 2) why having a pedophilia userbox (such as others have homosexuality userboxes) is an act of pedophile advocacy?
 * -Ados (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mail the arbcom. Self-identifying as a pedophile is clearly a blockable offence and I am sure if you try to use on-wikipedia spaces to justify why you should be allowed to identify as a pedophile that you'll end up being blocked yourself. Better just to accept thtya that is how things are here and get on with some editing instead. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest you guys also check User:Ospinad for a similar issue? - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think Ados has a point that people should be made much more aware than they are - I'd prefer said decision to be on metaphorical paper and much more viewed, than an unwritten rule. Will (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaps, aren't we better off with userboxes like this? The more people spell out their biases for us the happier I am, for one - means I have to do far less work figuring it out for myself. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pedophile self-identification is considered to be "likely to bring the project into disrepute" by Wales and arbcom and others (according to Wales talk page archives and no I don't have a link). See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons for more data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder has blocked editors for "bringing disrepute" upon the project.

Seems pretty clear. 75.175.10.51 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is really sick! But that brings up the question that there should be one place for the rules. I did not know that it was not permitted to have such userbox. I also didn't know such userbox existed.

Some people have a gay and lesbian userbox. Homosexuality is illegal in some places. Therefore, are these boxes illegal?

Being pro-Republic of China as an independent country is an offense that can land you in jail in the People's Republic of China. Is this an offense on Wikipedia.

I am willing to help write an illegal activity guideline page for wikipedia. Any interest? It could be a common sense document, not legalese (also not Congolese, ha ha). That way, it will be in one place. There could be a wikilink from the sign up page. Anything to make people welcome and not turn them away from WP just because they have a little bad judgment. We all have bad judgment, just some worse than others. Anyone oppose to me forming a committee to draft a proposed guideline page?Congolese (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I to didn't know that self-identifying oneself as a pedophile or pro-pedophile was forbidden and can result in the editer being banned. I do think that such a policy is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Seriously, does it really benefit Wikipedia to have what is essentially a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with pedophilia? Frankly, I don't think people should be prohibited from identifying themselves on their user pages or be banned because of it. Blocks and bans should only be placed when there is disruptive behavior, such as POV pushing or vandalism. Until then, we should assume good faith. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-identifying as a pedophile on your user page can, and will, bring the project into disrepute and has been explicitly prohibited during the pedophile userbox wheel war decision. As it states "users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category."  In addition, "Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects; as a foundation issue that is beyond debate" &mdash; Jimbo explicitly denied these type of userboxes, and for good reason. --Haemo (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That still seems to be to be at complete odd with Wikipedia's basic philosophy. So what other groups, besides pro-pedophilia editors, are considered to bring the project into disrepute? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Both the ArbCom and Jimbo disagree, and there is already an arbitration ruling which explicitly prohibits these kinds of userboxes.  The extent of the ruling is exactly as far as it states &mdash; it could presumably be expanded if the Foundation sees fit in the future. There's nothing more to say on the issue &mdash; deletion was entirely correct.  If you disagree, mail the ArbCom, or file a new case arguing that they should overturn their last ruling on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pro-paedophile editors do not bring Wikipedia into dispute. Those pro-paedophile editors who self identify on their userpage do. From observation, overtly racist and anti-semetic userboxes get removed and the users sanctioned also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ER....You may want to read this

Wikipedia is not censored Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NOT#CENSORED See also: Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, and Censorship Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

It's not illegal to say you're a girl lover - acting on it certainly is (and NO I don't support that at all.   It's just like saying you'r Pro-Marijuana.  It's legal to say, but not legal to do.   Deletion is against said policy. KoshVorlon <B> ".. We are ALL Kosh..." </B> 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That applies to articles and not to user pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can bring a party - such as Wikipedia - into disrepute by saying all sorts of things (under a "Freedom of Speech" basis) which you have no intention if acting upon. The disrepute is not that you have done said thing, but that you have used those offices to express an opinion or to self identify. Consider it this way, a userbox that declares that the editor self identifies as a pyromaniac - even though they have never succumbed to the urge - might be also considered bringing the place into disrepute. The question is; how does it reflect upon how people think of Wikipedia if such comment is allowed? On that basis expression of some personal information is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the problems of pedophiles using web 2.0 sites and the net to entrap victims we as an encyclopedia would be exposing ourselves to media ridicule and tremendous criticism if we were to take any other line on this issue than that self identification as a pedophile anywhere on wikipedia is strictly not acceptable, I don't really agree that we need to advertise this as its common sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, that userbox will make people upset and it's not worth the fuss. It has been decided that the userbox is unnacceptable, so move on. Ask yourself (this is everyone, not just Ados), is it worth creating a big conflict over whether you can include this box on a userpage? There's no point, other than to make a point, arguing over whether it should or shouldn't be allowed when we know that we can't change the policy. Please everyone just go back to article editing; I think the Christmas Eve article could use some references. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an arbcom case about it, I suggest to look at that and see what has been said about the userbox in general. IMHO, I think that box is not a good idea, irregardless of the arbcom case. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to link to the arbcom case being talked about? Also, while I understand a userbox is not allowed, I can't help but point out that he's saying he's a pedophile right now and that obviously isn't being blanked. If he wants to say it in plain text on his userpage, who cares. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about this classic ArbCom case where these very issues were discussed, and they basically said keep the freaking box deleted. Grand master  ka  06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I noticed something very disturbing while reading the case, User:Zanthalon has been blocked indefinitely. Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence is the only comment I can find on this user, and notes that this user has not violated any policy. WTF happened there? -- Ned Scott 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an unwriten policy of "thou shalt not present the childlove movement in a positive light". That, in combination of a userpage on which he admitted to being sexually attracted to children, is why he was banned. --Carnildo (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as discussed in another arbcom case, bans like this are handled via email with the ArbCom. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, no public discussion of the ban is allowed. --Carnildo (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No public discussion my ass. This person made a notice on their page long before they ever knew they were not allowed to, and was not "in a positive light", but in a short message in context to dispelling possible COI suspicion. This person was banned for being a pedophile, not because of what they did on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding
A premature knee-jerk request to protect was granted by User:Royalguard11 without comment or warning and without due diligence such as a review of the vote on the request for a block on the talk page. No significant edit warring was occurring except by the person who requested the block. That person had reverted twice. But there was no revert of that persons reverts and extensive discussion on the talk page. I believe that RoyalGuard has blocked and taken off for Christmas, but not all editors want to be off wikipedia for Christmas. So I request this block be lifted. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * it's protection, not a block. There are many other things to edit. DGG (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Full Protection last I looked. No ability to edit. I was going to make a very minor edit and was unable. Lawrence Cohen supports this AN/I. I am requesting that the page be unprotected or semiprotected not fully protected.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said on your talk page I supported posting here, but I think you suspected for the wrong reasons. Lawrence Cohen  15:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep protected: Leave the protection in place for now, and I strongly encourage admins to read the talk page, and also Archive 5, watchlist the page, and weigh in. There is an active movement under way from a minority of editors to actively promote a super-minority viewpoint above 1) accepted consensus 2) what all the sources say--literally, the sources say a certain thing by like a 19:1 ratio, and they're pushing hard in violation of policy and by distorting NPOV to promote their minority viewpoint. It's fluttered over to Reliable Sources and Fringe Noticeboards before, but without much action. I think people may be hesitant to step in because of the caustic nature of the topic, but before the past three days, when the minority really ratcheted up the rhetoric when they had no other options left, it was incredibly civil as discussion goes, and downright good-natured. A poison pill was dropped on talk, dropped again, and then rammed down the page's throat for good measure afterwards, changing everything. Lawrence Cohen 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected: The only person edit warring on article was same person requesting full protection. He got article lead how he wants it and now he wants it to stay that way. Blue Tie is right. Shibumi2 (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, his version was the consensus version supported on talk. Lawrence Cohen  15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another editor claims that your last version was the consensus version. And I happen to prefer it. I am surprised that your version though is a minority view that you now fight against. Very odd. But you are entitled. Having said that there is no edit war underway.  There is a discussion.  But if there is no intent for the discussion to lead anywhere then a war may later ensue.  That would be regrettable.  But there is no edit war now.  You should wait until there is one to block.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I did not understand and thought Lawrence Cohen was neutral on the issue.


 * As an aside.. I do not consider myself to be a member of some minority.  In fact, I am surprised that Lawrence thinks so, as I have said that I support something closer to HIS version of the page.  So he must also be in some weird minority too.  I cannot explain that.  However, what I am really doing ON THE TALK PAGE (no edit wars) is seeking that Wikipedia standards be applied and I would be sad if that were considered a minority view.  I would have to reconsider being an editor here.


 * Having said that I do not believe that there is an edit war underway and the full protection is not needed. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If removing protection is only going to continue a low level edit war, then keep protected, and suggest dispute resolution - possibly formal mediation? Addhoc (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this: Where is the evidence of edit warring?  How old is it?  Who was edit warring?  I think these are appropriate questions to ask before protecting the page. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority opinion ... I think that many of the editors have confused "what waterboarding is" with "the use of waterboarding", and are ascribing characteristics of the latter to the former. They seem profoundly uninterested in the former, and are certain that there is verifiable truth in the statement that "waterboarding is torture", when their sources are saying that "the use of waterboarding is torture". htom (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Htom, better probably to take that to the talk page of the article than to discuss it here. The issue here is the protection not the article itself. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The "waterboard" is the actual item used for waterboarding, and "waterboarding" is the activity. Thus, the comment by OtterSmith is inaccurate and misguided, as "waterboarding" is a form of torture, as is the Rack (torture), etc. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not looked at waterboard, have you? Try suggesting moving waterboarding to waterboarding (torture) and an independant waterboard page if you think that's appropriate; I see no real requirement that an actual board be involved at all, but that's experience, not verifiable research. htom (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep protected - An examination of the recent history of this page shows that protection was initially needed due to revert warring (centering primarily on the article's initial sentence, which began "Waterboarding is a form of torture," which was at that time disputed by at least one editor). This was resolved through long and careful discussion and examination of all available sources on the matter. Then, over the past few days, several new editors who had not participated in the previous discussion began to remove references to waterboarding as a form of torture, but without first creating a new consensus that this was correct for the lead. Even after explaining to these editors that a new consensus must first be re-developed for altering the lead to state that waterboarding is not a form of torture, at least two editors have reverted repeatedly without first building consensus. Thus, continuing protection does seem warranted in this case. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep semi-protected - There is still lots of information that needs to be added. The warring is getting heated but not too out of control. Until it does we should semi-protect so we can continue to improve the article. Remember (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Shibumi2 edit warring on Talk:Waterboarding
More drama being caused by warriors here. Please see here. He has been asked repeatedly on Talk:Waterboarding to *not* archive active or recent sections, but he persists in edit warring. Will an admin please take action? More information and examples at Talk:Waterboarding. Please help. This talk page is starting to get out of control with new people there, and I am requesting admin monitoring. I have notified Shibumi2 of this thread. Again, as mentioned in the previous post by someone else today on this article, please help to mediate and intervene on the Waterboarding talk page. People are ignoring sources, saying that United Nations sources are not valid, and it's just gotten rather ugly at this point, and NPOV has gone out the window three times over. Civility is about to pitch itself out, unfortunately, it looks like. Lawrence Cohen 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is now blanking *all* the talk archive pages, and dumping them back into the main talk page, to make a point? Can someone please intervene? There have been quite a few reversions of talk pages and I don't want to cross 3RR. Lawrence Cohen 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours for disruption. That page is a wreck. The temptation is to full protect it and liberally hand out blocks, though realistically that would only inflame matters further. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's asking for an unblock on the basis he was trying to help by making the page smaller, but that makes no sense as he forced three full archive pages back into the main talk... Lawrence Cohen  20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Shibumi2 was asked several times to not archive (at least without explanation), since a bot takes care of that (this is stated in a template that appears at the top of the talk page). Yet he did it several times after being asked, again without edit summary; then began moving very old archives back into the talk page, apparently to make a WP:POINT. Previous discussion about preserving the "Sources" section in the Talk page (which Shibumi also chose to archive, in an ill-advised move) should be noted. Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know Shibumi2 except from that talk page, but I suspect he or she did not know what they were doing. The user has less than 500 edits and half of the lifetime edits seem to be this month.  So perhaps something of a newbie.  What I am suggesting is that the user erred but perhaps in a good faith effort to do right.  But I do not know the particulars.  I'm not objecting to the block but, rather, encouraging people to assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Flibbitywibb
Blocked user User:Flibbitywibb has not taken the block too well and is filling his/her talk page with profanity. Could someone protect it? Ros0709 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done by Theresa knott. Note you're likely to get a faster response at WP:RFPP. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose extending ban to indefinite for user Gazpacho
I recently imposed a one month block on for edits such as this one. Since then he has been removing the block notice on his talk page and adding anti Wikipedia diatribes on both his user and talk pages. Looking back through some of his earlier edits, it appears he stated an intention to leave Wikipedia back in October. Based on his activities since his block, I don't believe he will return as a productive editor after the block expires. Therefore, I'd like to propose that it be extended to indefinite and that the user and talk pages be protected as they are currently being used solely as a soap box. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support blanking and protecting the pages for the duration of the block. If a months break doesn't allow them to cool sufficiently we could always indef then. Time is not of the essence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone has protected the talk page as well as the talk page of a user who is probably the same user. My only concern is the soapboxing on the user's main page.  With that cleared and protected, I'm happy with trying to get him to cool off for the rest of the block.  --StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn. Another long-time Wikipedian who burned out.  <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix  talk  00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The pages are protected, and I have courtesy blanked the talkpage (with just a small comment to that effect). The editor is aware that they are blocked, and if they are not permitted to publicise their opinions I see no reason why it should be advertised to third parties that the editor is temporarily blocked. I will not contest another admin undoing my edit, if opinion is otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Simplonicity and Template:History of the Chinese
(Referred here since I am uncomfortable carrying out a block myself.)

has created a POV fork of Template:History of China entitled Template:History of the Chinese that substitutes BC/AD dating for BCE/CE dating, and has been simply refusing to try to reach a consensus on the issue. I've started a TfD on it, but user is simply reverting people's reverts and not responding. I believe a cool-off block of a day or two is in order, but given I referred it for TfD, I am uncomfortable doing the block myself. Someone who can, please review the situation and see if you believe it is appropriate. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, he/she appeared to have stopped after my latest warning, but is still not discussing. Whatever thoughts/actions you might deem proper would still be appreciated.  --Nlu (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkics in Armenia <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia

 * This issue is been moved to Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. -- Cat chi? 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Grandmaster and User:Atabek seems to want the title "Azerbaijanis in Armenia"
 * User:VartanM and User:Eupator seems to want the title "Turkics in Armenia"
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

A slow paced move war seems to be the case. I do not know the details (did not really looked deep into it) but there seems to be a problem. People may have been violated their revert parole from the linked arbcom case above. In any case an admin review is necesary.

I am particularly bothered by VartanM's conduct on List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia as he is removing reliable (governmental) sources:  

-- Cat chi? 23:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting and notifying. This is a content dispute, which revolves around what sort of material should go into the article. As for ASALA, Turkish governmental sources can not be considered reliable, and neutral since the Turkish government was the primary target of ASALA. And we all know what Turkish government thinks about Armenians. You are welcome to provide neutral sources. I suggest looking in the TKB. VartanM (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Content dispute or not, revet parole maybe at work. I'll let an admin or two decide on the verdict.
 * This statement adds to the problem. I find it inflammatory. Governmental sources are well within WP:RS. Obviously the Ugandan government will not cover ASALA attacks...
 * -- Cat chi? 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will always welcome mediators and third opinions in Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes. Judging by the month old diff you brought it up, you can't provide neither. I am still waiting for the explanation in the talkpage of ASALA article. If you want a constructive environment, you shouldn't revert the article to your proffered version and then report the other party to ANI. Back to the


 * Azers/Turkics in Armenia the only outcome I see is having two sapperate articles, one for Azerbaijanis in Armenia, another for Turkics in Armenia. You can not have an article about Turkic tribes, some of whom are distinctly different from Azeris and call the article Azeris in Armenia. If there are any volunteers who are willing to help us divide the article, they can express their views in the talkpage. VartanM (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "And we all know what Turkish government thinks about Armenians." <- That is racist and inflammatory.
 * It seems like the only problem you have with the Governmental source is that it is Turkish...
 * -- Cat chi? 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole violations and Arbcom reports are properly handled on the Arbitration Enforcement page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement). The report on this page is therefore inappropriate.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You read the text? It has been already moved! -- Cat chi? 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue is been moved to Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. -- Cat chi? 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Gorgoroth editor
Hey; recently there has been some confusion on the Gorgoroth page as to the band line up, but the official response has finally been sorted, and they are sourced on the page. However, one user (who originally went by the name User:Dallas666bolen, started changing this claiming he has spoken personally to one of the band members (see my talk page here). The discussion went on, all the while him breaking the 3RR, until at last he was given his final warning. As you can see with his final reply on my page, he intends to create multiple accounts of sock puppetry to "spread the truth" - and has done. If you look at the contributions for his new account, followed by the message I left him, and the final message he left me, it is obvious that he is the same person who does not intend to stop adding misinformation to the Gorgoroth article. ≈ <font color=";#8000FF">The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked User:Virfirnus indef for now due to stated intention to sock and disrupt. Will look into more later. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

persistent personal attacks, hostility, assumptions of bad faith, etc
initial personal attack, evidence he was warned and evidence he read it. More personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Using "newsspeak" to disparagingly refer to something another editor has said, more hostile comments , again assuming bad faith and using disparaging remarks. More attacks. Hostile comments here after a reminder to follow 3RR. Some uncivil behaviour and bad faith assumption here on another article. --Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What Crossmr is failing to mention is that we went around on his abuse of the rules to force a bias on the article literally many months ago (well over a year I think), and I finally withdrew because his manipulative actions were making me so angry that I didn't want to have a flamewar.  His record of what I honestly perceive to be abuse of the rules is long-lived and can be seen in the edit record for anyone who cares to examine it.


 * Yes, I have been intemperate, and I'm sorry for having let myself be goaded -- but the very existence of this complaint is evidence of what I've been talking about. You will note that he trolled my User Talk page in an attempt to goad me into violating 3RR so that my criticism and attempts to set the article at least partially right would be forced to cease, and when I wouldn't fall for that, he now attempts to get you to do his dirty work for him.


 * It is my honest belief, however poorly put, that he and some other editors are in collusion to exercise tight control over this article in a concerted effort to minimize or keep out entirely any mention of the enormous criticism LiveJournal management has received by a significant portion of its user base, which should be reflected in the article. I honestly believe, based on this apparent collusion, that this group of editors is in fact deliberately acting in bad faith, against the common purpose we as editors are supposed to share, that of making a valid, credible encyclopedia.


 * I would request that an objective group of editors and/or administrators carefully examine the entire edit record of the LiveJournal article -- I sincerely think that if you do, you will see a consistent pattern of edits to remove criticism, citing the letter of the rules while violating the spirit of them, a pattern so consistent and determined that most editors trying to correct the problem simply throw their hands in the air and give up, having other things to do with their lives, leaving the biased editors maintaining their control.


 * (Please note that one citation censored for allegedly not being from a reliable source gave any user of Wikipedia or LiveJournal the precise means for examining for themselves whether or not the allegation of mis-management in a particular context was true -- how much more reliable can one get than by enabling readers to make their own test of the evidence? I would hope that applying the scientific method will never be construed as violating a Wikipedia rule!)


 * I will withdraw from attempting to edit there for a period of time (which, after all, is Crossmr's immediate goal in invoking you) and temporarily give him the "win" he appears to so desperately need, while hoping for an independent audit of the edit record.


 * Don't take my word for it, or his -- examine the edit record! -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see this entry  on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard for another current example of two editors questioning the imposed control over the article and the disparaging reaction from one of Crossmr's allies in this dispute, which shows one of the reasons I believe there is a concerted, bad faith effort to create article bias.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that there is some sort of conspiracy to control the point of view on the article doesn't excuse your hostile and aggressive comments made on the talk pages. it also seems to have nothing to do to that and more to with any opposition facing you as evidenced by your language on the other article's talk page. WP:V and WP:RS are quite clear. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth, and things like random blogs, users comments to blog postings, forum postings, etc are not considered reliable. Trying to create a point of view based on those is original research, this policy directly addresses applying the scientific method and if you're analyzing evidence to draw a conclusion or put forth a theory that a reliable source hasn't drawn it doesn't belong in articles. However, the issue here isn't the LJ article but your behaviour in relation to it and other articles. I'm happy to debate anything with anyone on wikipedia, but that ends when someone can't conduct the debate with respect.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're trying to goad me again, but I'm not going to bite except to note (as anyone who looks at my total contribution record will see) that I have no trouble addressing respectfully anyone whose behavior is respectable. What I perceive you doing with the LiveJournal article is not.


 * And that's all I'm going to say to you here. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not rocket science, DK. Instead of beating the WP:CABAL dead horse, go find yourself some sources. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A.) Some horses are in fact alive despite popular assumption-without-examination that they're dead.


 * B.) Instead of my citing selected sources and risk people assuming bias on my part through that citing (much as your buddy above has actually done to obscure the total picture) I would ask that the entire edit record be examined so that other editors and administrators may see for themselves the full picture of what those involved in biasing the article have done.


 * C.) In all seriousness, regardless of whatever wiki-sins I may or may not have committed, you could use a lesson in how to post in a civil manner yourself, as your comment above serves much to prove my points. May we both learn better.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit vs. a revert
Just a question about 3RR. 1) If I edit text (not an undo) that had been stable for days, on a page and 2) another editor reverts my edit. (that editor had not made any edits to the page in several days) 3) I soon after revert his edit.

Is my first edit considered a revert? (#1 above)

Here are the my two diffs and the other editors revert. my 1st edit, other editors revert, my subsequent revert. The text in question starts with "It has also been referenced in a scholarly journal." Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends. The important point is the effect of an action, not whether it's accomplished by hitting the "undo" button or other automated means. Per WP:REVERT, "A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version." So an ordinary edit can be a revert depending on its effect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So if I start editing text on a page that no else is editing and later someone reverts my edit, does my original edit considered a revert? WP:REVERT says "Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." My edit was not a change to an older version of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say no, but if you're arguing these kinds of semantics I'd take a look at the bigger picture of what's going on in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is Quackwatch. The edit I made lead to a revert that began a mini revert war. My 1st edit was here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Crossmr. The fact that you're so concerned with precise technicalities is not a good sign. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally: when in doubt, take it to talk. Persistent edit warring is frowned upon and can lead to blocks (not necessarily a statement targeted at you, just in general); gaming the system isn't a good way to handle things. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate Fair Use Rationale vandalism
Any chance that an admin can have a word with with regard to Image:Haven(comics).jpg. This user is very verbose about his dislike of FUR and is repeatedly removing deletion tags from this image whereby his FUR is "BLAH BLAH BLAH" etc. I'd also suggest he be kept on someone's watchlist as his protests/disruptions are becoming more vndalistic.--<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we have a total namespace ban on this user? This isn't the first time he's done this. Will (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as i can see, the fair use rational is disputed because it isn't explicitly stated that the fair use claim is for the page on the comic itself? Couldn't somone just have added it in? Hang on a minute I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Beaten to it by User:Addhoc. Sorted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the point. is constantly refusing to adhere to FUR guidelines, so much in fact that he is positively anti them. Check his talk page for more evidence. This is just one example of a litany of similar disruptions. But if you prefer to paper over the gaps instead of sorting the problem out properly then feel free. The more you let this guy do the more he'll do it. Likewise he'll keep uploading images and then expect someone else like you to supply the FUR. Rather than sorting the problem your response will add to it. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  09:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Id an image is obviously fair use, as this one clearly was, then what is the problem with someone else providing the fair use rationale? Looking at the page in question the only problem with the rational that was already there as part of the template was the fact that it didn't mention the page on which the image was deemed fair use to use on. So he has a thing against the guidlines? So what? If you want him sanctioned you need to come up with a lot worse "vandalism" than this IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This specific image is not the point, it's just one more example in his disruption of WP and his determination to not stick to the guidelines. If you're okay with that then screw it, I'm fucked if I'm going to get in a sweat about it. Alternatively if you want editors deliberately espousing the rules then go for it. Sticking to rules doesn't seem to be de rigeur round here any more. As you are so keen to supply the FUR why don't you just leave him a message giving him carte blanche to upload images you'll trail behind him sorting them out for him. Strikes me that people just don't give a fuck any more. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to get frustrated. You only gave the one example image, and in this case, the best (for wikipedia) course of action was for a rationale to be added. Where is the problem with that? If you want to suggest that this user is overall detrimental to the encylopedia please provide some more evidence of disruption.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you guys want to paper over the gaps then so be it. I'm not an administrator I have better things to do than amass evidence when I've already pointed you at his talk page. As far as I'm concerned I've notified the administrators and done my 'civic' duty. Also as far as I'm concerned you haven't done yours. Why should I care? As far as I'm concerend it's now confirmed as okay to do as he does. Thanks for the reality check. In future I'll stick to editing and I'll let you stick to doing nothing. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing on Religion in the United States
I hate to bring this up on the noticeboard ("nothing administrators can do", yada yada), but we are experiencing some fairly heavy POV pushing at Religion in the United States, to the extent that it is quite detrimental to the encyclopedia, and needs to be addressed now. We have a user who has openly proclaimed himself to be antogonistic to Christianity (see Talk:Religion_in_the_United_States) and pro neo-Paganism inserting that Neopaganism has 10 million followers in the US, and is thus the second largest religion (and against consensus at that). He gives very pro-Pagan sites, while reliable sources put the figure much extremely lower (200,000-1,000,000). This user has been warned about such POV pushing before, but to no avail. Of course, I can do nothing, as I will break 3RR. I am very close to ignoring all rules in this instance, as this is clearly false data and POV pushing. Someone please help. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He admits that his source is some guy's estimate (not an actual survey) ... comparing that up against US census data ... well, you can see where this is headed. --B (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the comments below, if the additions have unreliable references and are against the existing consensus are they not then vandalism (which can be reverted without reference to 3RR). If it is a content dispute then you may need a third opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any real dispute. One user was attempting to remake the article in his own image.  There were two sources claiming that there are 10 million Pagans in the US.  One was a Christian "oh noes, the evil pagans are taking over" source from 1986 and the other is a recent (2005) estimate from an Australian college professor, whose paper gets more g-hits on Wikipedia (5) than it does on the rest of the planet combined (4) .  Both claims are worth the paper they are printed on.  US census data and every meaningful source on the planet puts the numbers something under a million. This is purely a case of one user pushing a POV. --B (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks that way; not vandalism but misguided POV-pushing. MastCell Talk 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly seems so, and could probably be cut off at the source without any other issues arising. Jmlk  1  7  10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this possible?
Can a user do this? --Esimal (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they can. Note that removing a warning is confirmation that they have read it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "You took the words right out of my mouth...." --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable behavior only if you intentionally have a redlink userpage. --W.marsh 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You can do it no matter what your userpage is like. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I only notice the redlink userpage people doing it... --W.marsh 14:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This question seems to come up quite a bit... Jmlk  1  7  05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because not all language versions of Wikipedia have the same rules as here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont have a red link user page, check it out. Lobojo (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You will notice that I have a long archive history on my page. I have, I believe, twice ever removed content from my talk page. One was this time (I don't appreciate being templated by new users, and at that by users who are universally agreed to be POV pushing, see above thread); another time was when a user was harassing me about leaving for a while. I choose to keep a redlinked username for now (and, as not being an admin, I don't see why else it should be important to have a blue one). The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Laos blocked in 2006 asking for unblock
I just noticed this... User talk:Laos. He edited in 2005, and was blocked mid-2006 by Pschemp, who appears to be no longer active, as a username block. Laos says the username policy was for names made after 2006. Just wanted to draw some attention to it, since it seemed somewhat odd. Lawrence Cohen 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's complaining "I think that Pschemp's recent actions need an audit from a level headed admin to see if anyone else is in the same boat: his/her responses to apparently diffident questions on his/her talk page appear prickly and inflammatory on occasion" but saying he hasn't edited in over a year? Something seems strange.  That aside, I'm not particularly opposed to an unblock. --B (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pschemp last edited Dec 7 which isn't that long ago. I've left him a note about this discussion. Suggest that Laos either be unblocked or asked to choose another name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Barring a more compelling reason, I don't see why the username policy wouldn't apply; however, I'm not clear on why this username is problematic? Am I just missing something? – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He probably got that idea from the username policy. "The username policy covers accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia for accounts created after 2006-12-08." It was added in this edit by Patsw in April 2007. However, there is a typo that no one has noticed for almost a year, evident in the talk page discussion that led to the date being added to the policy. Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 6 refers to the date as 2005-12-08. While we can also talk about what relevance the "grandfather policy" truly is, there is also the question of which version has a typo (that is, if anyone actually cares). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The user have been unblocked by jpgordon.  Snowolf How can I help? 09:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sagbliss
An edit by 76.67.136.114 popped up in my watchlist. He's made a lot of inane edits today, and it's obvious that he is permablocked User:Sagbliss. I reverted all his edits (which, irritatingly, took longer than I'd expected, though BEANS means I'm not going to say why). What's also obvious is that this is just the latest IP numbers he's using. I was quite willing to give the IP a week's Kwanzaa vacation from WP, but in view of his likely ease in using an alternative number wasn't sure that this would help anyone. Indeed, not quite knowing how best to proceed (and because he doesn't seem active right now) I didn't even leave him a warning message.

(I have to say that at least one of the school articles he vandalized does look like a grotesque puff piece, richly deserving a radical edit. Though not vandalism, of course.)

Over to somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a cursory review and couldn't tell for sure if 76.67.136.114 is really the same as . I haven't followed Sagbliss' case, though.  In any case, though, the recent edits by 76.67.136.114 were vandalism, so I left a lump of coal in his stocking.  (Anthracite coal, to be specific.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A perusal doesn't exactly tie much together... could be, but also might not. Jmlk  1  7  07:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Public-access television
RE: 70.59.33.63 individual has engaged in an Edit war on Public-access television.Two administrators (myself and User:Beetstra) have removed directory entries on Public-access television, which in this case clearly do not abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines NOT and NOT. Merely being informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I welcomed the anon, and get called an ass?, perhaps another editor would kindly remind this person of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears the ip created the user to give the illusion of broader support for his position.--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, if we assume good faith, they could have just decided to register. We needn't bite their head off for that. Posted to talk, will probably do so again in the future. Seems like a content dispute, at first glance. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording of the "new" account's post is what caught my attention. Albeit a bit vague, I'll AGF. --Hu12 (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible block evading sock puppet


IP 97.88.205.124 has begun making disruptive edits against users whom the blocked User:A B Pepper has previously attacked. This IP has been editting Christian views about feminism - Pepper's main article. They have engaged in tendentious reverts directed at users Pepper does not like. And after a checkuser this IP has been described as a possible sockpuppet of A B Pepper (see Requests for checkuser/Case/A B Pepper).

A B Pepper was blocked on September 27 2007 for incivility, personal attacks and sock-puppetery (using IP 75.132.95.79). These are the users A B Pepper attacked:
 * User:Cailil,
 * User:Afaprof01,
 * User:Sxeptomaniac‎
 * User:C.Logan
 * User:Orangemike (this is incivility rather than a personal attack)

There is evidence of staking behaviour from this IP against the users who warned and attempted to enagage A B Pepper.
 * Cailil ;
 * Orangemike;
 * C.Logan ;
 * Sxeptomaniac.
 * Diego - User:Diego warned A B Pepper for incivility

Last night 97.88.205.124 threatened to stalk User:Bobblehead. With an edit summary violating WP:NPA. They also began stalking a number of other users:


 * User:Latreia
 * User:Evan Carroll

I brought this to Slrubenstein's attention and they asked me to bring it to RFCU and then here. This looks like a case of simple harrassment to me: threats to "correct" others, stalking edits and tendentious reverting of users A B Pepper dislikes; couple that with the fact that the checkuser sees this as a possible sock of A B Pepper and I'm ready to call it a WP:DUCK--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 17:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a mailing list to delete a template
This matter concerns some emails on the public WikiEN-l mailing list in May 2007. I became aware of these emails only recently and through much of my own research. In May 2007 I was not a subscriber to wikien-l and I am still not a subscriber to wikien-l.

On May 16, 2007, David Gerard, a former arbitrator and a current administrator with checkuser rights and oversight rights, wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list and said "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long." David Gerard also wrote an email saying "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?".

I don't know if admins on Wikipedia have any control over behavior on a mailing list, but this page says the WikiEN-l mailing list is moderated. The page also says David Gerard is a WikiEN-l mailing list administrator and a message at the bottom of the page says the WikiEN-l mailing list is "run" in part, by him.

I don't want to get into a discussion here about the merits or faults of that particular template. Is it acceptable to use a mailing list to tell other editors to remove a template from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, admins don't have any control over the Wikimedia mailing lists. They're moderated, but not by us. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could send an email to the mailing list administrators, but this incident involves one of them. --Pixelface (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's really no issue here. The mailing list is open to all (unless someone is trolling or disrupting) and they are not censored. You are entitle to post there suggesting that {spoiler} is added to every article on the wiki. There's a whole cross-section of wikipedians there, posting an idea is at lightly to ensure someone opposes it as someone supports it. I can see no problems with David's post. Better people suggest things on an open mailing list, that use closed ones of like-minded people.--Docg 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I already know where you stand on that particular template Doc glasgow. You see no problem with users using mailing lists in order to delete things on Wikipedia? Better to suggest something on a template's talk page or guideline talk page than use a mailing list for meatpuppeting. --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mailing list is open and not censored, and may well have a wider spectrum watching it than any talk page you might suggest. Anyway, I'm not saying that there are not better places to propose things, merely that proposing things there is not forbidden, either to you or anyone else.--Docg 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This email does not look like a proposal to me. --Pixelface (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pixelface, you are now beating the dust which has blown over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay. This has been to TfD, DRV, here, the mailing list, I can't think of a forum where it hasn't been shopped.  The answer is: we don't do spoiler warnings any more.  We have current fiction, you can make a counterpart for current video games if you absolutely must (looks like Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 15 showed that we simply don't do spoilers by any name), and everybody else has moved on. And to answer the specific point, the mailing list is officially endorsed as a venue for meta debate, but the dleetion debate and reviews were on-wiki anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You were present at the discussion on the mailing list in May 2007 and you personally removed the template from 222 articles using AWB after David Gerard sent the email. And you the TFD in November before the template had been listed for deletion for seven days. Is the WikiEN-l mailing list officially endorsed so editors can tell other editors to remove every transclusion of a template so it can be deleted as "virtually unused"? --Pixelface (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Seven months ago, and yes, I removed it from some articles where it was used inappropriately, but that's completely irrelevant - it was seven months ago, it's been exhaustively discussed on wiki since, and bringing it up again is not helping anyone. What admin action is supposed to be taken against someone for postings made on the official mailing list seven months ago and actions widely discussed in numerous venues since? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not irrelevant that you read that email by David Gerard and helped remove templates and you closed the TFD for that template early. What admin action is supposed to be taken? Admins can undelete things. If a former arbitrator tells other editors to remove a template from every article and then the template is deleted because it is "virtually unused", I think that's something that requires an admin action. I suppose a steward action might even be necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a perfectly valid reason to delete something. May I remind you of CSD G6 - Housekeeping. And what are yu suggesting by "a steward action might be necessary"?--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If a template being "virtually unused" is a valid reason to delete it, any editor could remove any template from every article in order to get the template deleted at TFD. Stewards perform desysoppings. --Pixelface (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia mailing list is in fact used to discuss things regarding Wikipedia. If this surprises you, you may also be interested in learning about when the War of 1812 was fought and who's buried in Grant's Tomb. But these attempts at forum shopping are frankly pathetic, and are rapidly straining the limits of an assumption of good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the official Wikipedia mailing list also used to tell other people to remove a template from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to make it look contraversial. It isn't secret or anything, there are archives that anyone can look at and anyone can join the list if they want. There's no issue here.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And yes, it can be used to tell someone to remove a template from every article, if there's consensus to do so, which there is here.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Phoenix-wiki, you are free to read the May 2007 mailing list archives and tell me where there was consensus to remove that template from . --Pixelface (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a subscriber to the list.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So show me where there was consensus on the mailing list to remove that template from every article. Does WP:CONSENSUS refer to consensus off Wikipedia? --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, when someone notes that they dislike the widespread use of a template on the mailing list, the mailing list is in fact an appropriate place to suggest they remove it from some uses. Come on, you can't really think there's anything untoward here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mailing list is an appropriate place to tell editors to check "What links here" for a template and have them remove it from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. If the template is no longer wanted, it's a perfect place.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying a template should be removed from every article and then listed for deletion at WP:TFD? --Pixelface (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there already seems to be consensus that it shouldn't be there.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a complete red herring anyway. The point is, most of the uses were clearly redundant: ==plot== followed by "warning, plot details follow".  The bulk of removals were for this reason, and there was extensive debate at the time at WT:SPOILER and other venues.  This attempt to refight an old battle is very tiresome. I closed the TfD (a little early, but only a little) because it had reached a point where no new arguments were being advanced. I had done pretty much nothign on spoilers for months, and my only removals of spoilers were clearly redundant.  DRV upheld the deletion, there is no consensus to have spoiler warnings, the onus is on those seeking to add content to justify it, in this case there is no consensus, onl a continual restatement of the same rejected arguments.  I suggest that the spoiler fans fork the content into a new project whose mission is to protect the reader form finding out that the boat sinks or the wolf gets it. We have had the debate, examined our navels at length, and conluded that, good faith not being in doubt, spoiler warnings are not what Wikipedia is about. I was wondering why the whole thing was being shopped to yet another forum, but I saw that {{tl|current fiction} was deleted, and it was deleted because the small pro-spoiler group was trying to turn it back into spoiler.  It seems to me that they have had their quota of kicks of the can and should probably just find something else to think about.  Guy (Help!) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A template should be removed from every article after a TFD that results in delete, not before. --Pixelface (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is just one problem with your argument, the template had largely been orphaned for at least 5 months. This is a completely different situation from removing a template just before sending it to TfD. --Farix (Talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was continually removed from every article for several months. --Pixelface (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved in the debate either then or now, I would like to note that it is entirely unclear that the suggestion given in the linked emails was to remove the spoiler warning from all articles. The context appears to be: 72.193.221.88 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone points out that many spoiler tags are misplaced
 * Someone else (apparently an admin, although I fail to see what difference this makes) suggests how to go about locating and cleaning up misplaced templates
 * This same person expresses frustration that removing the template from inappropriate places is creating an edit war.

When Spoilers was locked for two weeks, Pixelface declared that he would no longer participate in any discussion about spoilers as long at the page was fully protected. Since the edit protection has expired yesterday, Pixelface returns to making the same controversial changes to the guideline page that got the page protected in the first place. and is now bringing this half hearted "bad people must have done bad things" even when there is no proof. This has gotten us nowhere in the last 7 months and has simply poisoned the well. Combine this with the edit warring over whether descriptive plot summaries based on the primary source constituted "original research" leaves a huge impression that Pixelface is simply being disruptive on the entire matter. --Farix (Talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Guy has WP:SPOILER for four more weeks. --Pixelface (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, there is something strange about this debate. Consider for a moment: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn from reliable independent secondary sources, yes?  So any supposed spoiler must by definition already be out there in secondary sources, because of course we would never go to a movie and then come back and write a review into a Wikipedia article, that would violate policy and guidelines.  All the pro-spoiler crowd need to do is use fact on anything which is not in the secondary sources.  If the secondary sources consider it a spoiler, in the case of current releases they generally won't print it.  The major broadsheets review all kinds of things, they don't tell your the plot twists because they'd never get another press pass and their readers don't want to hear spoilers.  Once the cat is out of the bag and we have reliable secondary sources for the plot twists, removing, obscuring or otherwise obfuscating in Wikipedia is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.  Can someone provide an example of a spoiler printed only in a small number of reliable sources, hidden or avoided in most, and which therefore may present a valid case for a spoiler warning if one were to achieve consensus? Guy (Help!) 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Elegant and irrefutable logic, Guy. <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉
 * The fact tag will no longer exist if one can use a mailing list to recruit editors to remove it from every article and then list it for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Spectacularly irrelevant. I see no evidence that anybody has ever proposed removing fact, and it's extremely unlikely that removal would fly, since it is of crucial importance in marking content whihc is deficient per policy and guidelines, in a way that spoiler unquestionably was not.  You also failed to answer the substantive point re sourceability of supposed spoilers. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David Gerard performed disruptive canvassing when he told editors on the WikiEN-l mailing list to remove a template from every article. There's your proof. David Gerard admits to removing the template from "10 to 20,000" articles. And  an editor says the template was removed from 45,000 articles. This is about the behavior of David Gerard using off-Wiki communication that led to 45,000 articles being changed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David's suggestion to the mailing list is hardly canvassing. He has also been cleared of disruption charges at least twice now over his removals of the spoiler tag, especially when the concurrent RfC wasn't show a consensus of the redundant spoiler warnings which he was removing. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to when you say "He has also been cleared of disruption charges at least twice now over his removals of the spoiler tag"? Does that have to do with WikiEN-l mailing list? --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two rejected Abcom requests and one rejected AWB abuse report. As for the connection to the ML, it's because you are insinuating that David's comments on how to clean the over usage of the spoiler warning is the proof that the edits to remove spoiler warings were disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Venue total was wikien-l, a TFD, an RFC, WT:SPOIL, AWB, arbcom, mediation, back to arbcom. And now another one, several months later. I'm slightly impressed - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also further discussion on the subject at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler and the next section. Merry Christmas everybody!  Snowolf How can I help? 14:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed block of Pixelface
The misrepresentations of this mailing list thread are bordering on spurious personal attacks, frankly. David Gerard was responding to a comment about somebody's dislike of the overuse of spoiler tags. His response amounted to "Remove them one by one." There was not, in that post, any attempt to coordinate efforts to remove the tags. The only thing that prevents these lies from being personal attacks is the simple fact that discussing something in an official and public discussion forum is not against policy, and is in fact why the mailing list exists. Would somebody please block Pixelface for these disruptive attempts at character assassination? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am an editor with no prior participation in the spoiler template issue, and no prior interaction with Pixelface. After reviewing this ANI report, which I can only describe as spurious, and Pixelface's talk page, which is full of warnings for similar incidents, I support Phil Sandifer's recommendation that Pixelface be blocked for repeated personal attacks, incivility, and tying up administrative resources with frivolous and vexatious complaints. —Psychonaut (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What have I said that you consider a personal attack? I don't think I've tied up administrative resources with frivolous and vexatious complaints and I find that statement offensive. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are taking David's comments on how to clean up the template usage and insinuating that it is proof that David disrupted Wikipedia when it obvious proves nothing. That is a personal attack. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a personal attack to say an editor engaged in canvassing which led to the disruption of 45,000 articles. What do think about comments like "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?" "Kill it with a stick" and "and also please kill it."? Do those comments prove his email telling editors to remove the template from every article was in good faith? --Pixelface (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "There was not, in that post, any attempt to coordinate efforts to remove the tags." In this email, David Gerard said "Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?", a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler . --Pixelface (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not misrepresented anything here. And I have not attempted to "character assassinate" David Gerard. David Gerard wrote "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long." after Phil Sandifer wrote "Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies." on the WikiEN-l mailing list in May 2007. --Pixelface (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a non-admin, I support the idea of a block. It should be clear that nothing is going to happen to David Gerard from the other admins comments, and frankly the evidence you just presented doesn't even begin to constitute canvassing. So what do you want to happen? The template was unnecessary and isn't coming back, which should also be clear. So what do you hope to gain by all of this? If you're not willing to stop warring over this dead issue, you should, unfortunately, be blocked until you're ready to contribute productively. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="Navy">AniMate 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that template was unnecessary, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But this about using a mailing list to tell people to remove a template from every article. And please do not tell me I am not ready to contribute productively. You're free to examine my contribution history. --Pixelface (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David didn't tell anyone to do anything. All he did was suggest a way to clean up the spoiler tag's over usage. Nothing more, nothing less. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He did, actually. And you forgot the part where he referred to editors trying to keep the template in an article as "blithering idiots." --Pixelface (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't say that a block is necessary, but a RfC on his actions is probably called for. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also support an RfC instead of a block at this point. Chaz Beckett 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope an WP:RFCC is not being considered in order to prevent a request for arbitration from being made. --Pixelface (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it would be filed to address your conduct. Your continuing assumption of bad faith is part of this behavior. Go ahead and request arbitration if you believe it's necessary. Chaz Beckett 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point users have had an opportunity to present their views on this matter. It does not appear that any administrator action is called for at this time. It may be of interest that earlier this year an arbitration request on the "spoiler warnings" issue was declined by ArbCom. On the other hand, a principle currently under discussion at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision might also be of interest. I do not believe that any block is necessary if all parties move forward from this point in good faith and engage in productive discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * see also: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop --Jack Merridew 10:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The in June 2007 did not address behavior on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the arbitration committee has any say over conduct on the mailing list, or what exactly the arbitration committee should do about Wikipedia editors expressing their opinion with civility and in good faith on that list. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David Gerard wrote, "if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated." Saying "kill it with a stick" and referring to a template as an "accursed thing" and saying "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?", and "Usually spoiler tags end up in nonfiction articles because someone puts a bit of irrelevant cruft in with a vague relation to the subject. Then it needs a tag because OMG SPOILER." and referring to editors trying to keep the tag in an article as "blithering idiots" is expressing one's opinion with civility and in good faith? Or were you not referring to David Gerard in your comment? --Pixelface (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I wrote misleadingly above about David's wikien-l comments. Yes, you're right, they were delivered with good faith, civility, common sense, and HUMOR. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems patently obvious to me that editors expressing opinions with civility and good faith on mailing lists is of no concern whatsoever to the Arbitration Committee. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychonaut, I invite you to read the WikiEN-l mailing list archives for May 2007. You can see every email with the word "spoil" in the subject line here. I realize that the Arbitration Committee deals with behavior on Wikipedia. But I see no reason why behavior that's unacceptable on Wikipedia becomes acceptable when it occurs on a mailing list. --Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will state for the record that I recently started a thread relating to a deleted article on wiki-en-L, as an introduction to new information that had come to light about the subject. My explicit reason for doing so was "I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is publicly accessible" (quoting my own email there). It was implicit in my email that the discussion would wind up at some page or other of Wikipedia; however, this was a quick way to bring the subject to the attention of a broad range of editors and admins, many of whom do not read AN or AN/I constantly, and even fewer of whom would have watchlisted DRV or the pages related to the subject. In my mind, that is an appropriate use of an official and publicly accessible Wikipedia communication process - to draw a subject to the attention of a broad range of people who may otherwise not be aware of the issues. The spoiler warning issue was not discussed on wiki-en-L in isolation from other related on-wiki discussions. Indeed, in my experience almost every subject discussed on the mailing list is being discussed somewhere on-wiki, frequently in little-watched pages, and the inclusion of the subject to the mailing list often brings more diverse opinion and suggestions. Risker (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support a block of Pixelface untill such a time as he's ready to accept that we don't use spoiler warnings.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 12:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The beatings will continue until morale improves. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For added comedy value, check the template-based notice Pixelface left on my talk page. I think he deserves 0.01 points for sheer creativity in finding a new venue to shop this to (and he didn't even hit WP:CSN the first time around, despite dark threats to on WT:SPOIL), weighed against the -10,000 points of ability to actually build consensus to keep spoilers on rather than sit muttering in a corner "we wuz robbed, it wasn't that nobody cared and those who did thought we were wrong." Possibly he would benefit from writing some article text for that "encyclopedia" project of ours - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute resolution steps are now venue shopping? I've written plenty of article text. You're free to examine my mainspace edits, here and here. Using a mailing list for meatpuppeting is an interesting tactic I'm unfamiliar with, but it looks like you accomplished your goal. Wait, I'm sorry. Shall we be speaking off Wikipedia on our mailing list David? --Pixelface (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly appears to me that is a vexatious litigant and should be censured as such. ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but we're much better off with Pixelface's complaints on this page than when he put them on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Small progress, but a move in the right direction. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed.

I've blocked Pixelface per the consensus and reasons presented here. John Reaves 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I applaud this decision and echo many of the statements made above. The user's behaviour has been highly problematic and his use of deliberate obtuseness to goad other editors into personal attacks or other forms of vexatious expression is unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettable but unavoidable. The spoiler issue should not be revisited for at least six months, in my view, to allow the dust to settle. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the block as I can't see anything actionable, and I think this has turned into something of a witch hunt of those questioning the dominant mindset on this issue. I actually think that the complaint is ultimately without weight, but I do not believe Pixelface knew this at the start. I think we should encourage an atmosphere where people's actions can be justly questioned and then, in cases like this where even if correct no action would have been required against the alleged protagonist, people could be credited with the intelligence to decide for themselves what the facts are and move on. Orderinchaos 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very bad block and needs to be undone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
I have unblocked. I believe there may have been grounds for a one hour block, but we are treating this guy worse than some of our persistent trolls and vandals, and I did not like the pack hunt mentality which was emerging above. A venue such as RfC would have been, and still would be, preferable for these concerns about Pixelface's actions / behaviour, and I propose those with more cause or knowledge than myself about the matters concerned take steps to initiate such a forum. Orderinchaos 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A public lynching versus a forced sequestering? Excellent idea... John Reaves 08:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with OIC. The block was unneeded and regrettable. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the likely candidate for victim of vexatious litigant, I don't think a block achieved anything more than heating tempers. "Cool down" blocks never do. And the polite and civilised rotten tomatoes and cabbages returned in his direction above say all that any reasonable person should need as a response to draw a conclusion from - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin
After numerous warnings from many editors I put an alert out on this user. In response, he has suggested that users, apparently including me, should be executed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't like it, but I have to go right now.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) While intemperate, this is not a serious threat. Your userpage states that English is not your first language; please be aware that hyperbole of this sort is common in English (especially American English). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he clearly speaks of executing people in a figurative sense, as in blocking accounts. Nothing wrong here.--Atlan (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the figurative "X ought to be shot" or "...hung from the nearest tree" metaphor from my own breed of English. It's frequently used in relation to public figures, and I think most people who use it would be utterly shocked if the target of their comments did meet their end with a bullet. Orderinchaos 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Guido is a disruptive element to this project.  He has stalked me to other articles in which he has absolutely no interest, until he went on the attack.  Time for him to be blocked AGAIN.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, and may be an insinuated threat, which is illegal and does not belong on WP. Even if it was somehow being metaphorical, it's completely inappropriate. Even if Guido is a disruptive editor. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a metaphor...please have a thicker skin, people. OrangeMarlin is a prolific contributor and I seriously doubt he would ever suggest real-world violent action. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought about with respect to the coach of the Los Angeles Kings, but that was merely a fleeting thought. And as a physician, I took that oath, something to do with "do no harm."  This is kind of ridiculous AN/I, isn't it?  Can we close it and move on to more serious things like drinking beer?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite silly: American English is rife with such terms. In fact, I suggest you watch 12 Angry Men, and not how Henry Fonda's character rips apart the prosecution's reliance on the phrase, "I'm going to kill you".  Guido, as a linguist I know that the Dutch are generally fairly good with English: British English.  Not the same thing, really. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Fonda was wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really doubt that. American television is the primary English influence in the Netherlands. A Dutchman will say gas and garbage instead of petrol and rubbish, without even knowing whether that's American or British English. But that's another discussion entirely. I will say though, that while the Dutch are generally proficient at foreign languages, colloquialisms are not their strong point.--Atlan (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider this normal conversation, then perhaps it's time that somebody gives you a wake-up call. Language differences do not play here, it's the attitude. An attitude, that is universally unacceptable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought the problem here was a death threat. So now it's an attitude?--Atlan (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase in question was "I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it." Obviously Orangemarlin was speaking figuratively, but there is room for increased drama and misunderstanding there. If you mean "I think we should block a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get blocked as well, so be it.", then say that. Effectively, if there were any trolls around, OrangeMarlin fed them by using such language. Best to avoid using such language, rather than waste time having to defend yourself like this. Of course, the blow-up over semantic issues obscures the point that blocking indiscriminately and causing collateral damage is a bad idea, and will likely get admins desysopped rather than thanked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fonda was wrong? Not sure what version you saw, but certainly not the real version.
 * As for the Dutch and learning English, I'm not so sure that British English still isn't what's taught, but perhaps it isn't. Nonetheless, colloquialisms are the hardest part of any language to learn.
 * I like this "An attitude, that is universally unacceptable". Shame it isn't true. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a problem here, but not an easy one to solve. A number of articles attract virtually no attention other than from POV-pushers; that leaves one or two good Wikipedians fighting the NPOV corner against all comers, and leads to burnout - at this point trolls will often come along to poke them with a stick.  It happens that many (though by no means all) of these good Wikipedians are admins.  Wikipedia, as a project, seems to have "delegated" management of POV targets to a people who are then considered expendable, or even considered the source of the problem, when burnout strikes. As they get more experienced, the POV-pushers become more adept at querulous argumentation, citing policy and constantly trying to establish a new "neutral" average between their POV and the current state of the article, a kind of ratchet effect.  Cold fusion has twice been reverted to the 2004 FA version due to the pernicious effect of "fringecruft", there are many other articles where minority activists dominate the agenda.  I've seen this at articles like, and user:ScienceApologist is one of the on-admins who is burning out fighting off the kooks.  The bad news is, when that happens, the kooks will move in big time.  Watching articles prone to kookery is a thankless task, I go back every couple of months to  and sometimes I'm horrified at what's been done.  This is not an especially healthy situation for the project, but these articles at the margins, the ones that form the core of the fringe cosmology obsessions,  and other paranormal subjects, simply don't get enough eyes to impede the POV-pushers, because most editors (rightly) can't tolerate the stupidity that goes on there.  I also think some people are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is now probably the number one most important place to promote your fringe view, mad theory, band or whatever.  I don't know a good way to fix this. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly couldn't agree more with Guy's comments above. It's a big problem in politics areas too, even fairly mainstream ones. The worst ones are those who persistently fly under the radar but are pretty much incapable of improving the encyclopaedia, as they do far more damage to our credibility and integrity than even the worst vandal, who is guaranteed to get reverted by a neutral outsider or article watcher at some point. Orderinchaos 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is something that cannot be fixed, and that will eventually (probably soon) grind Wikipedia to a halt. At some point we will simply run out of undisputed topics.
 * What happens on Wikipedia is furthermore a reflection of the world, where tolerance, civility and interest in the truth diminish by the day. It is only normal, alas, to find the same here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It can certainly be addressed ("fixed" is an ambitious word). It's not hard to identify accounts which employ Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy at the expense of the encyclopedic mission and policies. I can name offhand half-a-dozen such single-purpose advocacy accounts, most with real-life conflicts of interest. It is currently very difficult to restrict such abuse, particularly as current sentiment appears to extend significantly greater understanding and benefit of the doubt toward a nascent single-purpose agenda account than toward longtime contributors attempting to deal with such problems. The answer is simple: restrict such accounts aggressively if they prove unwilling to subordinate their real-life agenda to the goal of writing a respectable encyclopedia. As to Guido's contention that the world today is less tolerant and civil than it was 10, 50, or 100 years ago, I wonder whether someone who's not white, male, European, Christian, heterosexual, etc would share that view. MastCell Talk 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not belong to that privileged group. I've experienced discrimination for many years an I can tell you: it's getting worse fast. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcell and JzG. There are an increasing number of accounts that exist only to attack stable articles, and introduce unsourced or poorly sourced nonsense. I typically see several a day. Many people in WP are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, in denial about this problem. But it is real, and I can show many many examples of just pure nonsense pushing.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting conversation. I would favor Mastcell's approach, except that it's unclear to me that he'd identify the correct people to oust from Wikipedia.  Perhaps a better approach would be to beef up the efforts to grant "featured" status to articles that deserve it, and then make an exception to 3RR: anyone can revert as often as they like to the most recent version that passed Featured Article Review (FAR).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weren't you placed on some restricted editing by ArbCom? And didn't you violate it recently with a 3RR?  So, you're point is what?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear what your point is here, Orange Marlin. Editors placed on editing restrictions or who have recently been blocked shouldn't have that waved in their faces unless it is relevant to what is being discussed. How would you feel if people kept bringing up this incident in a few months time? For what it is worth, I see Ferrylodge's point about featured articles. The pointh is that if a group of editors take an article by the scruff of the neck and work hard on it (on a draft page if need be), and then carefully integrate the changes and pass it through FAC, then there is a standard there to keep to. That is much better than incessant low-level edit wars. And the amount of referencing needed for FAC sometimes reduces the potential for edit warring full-stop. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While not especially helpfully phrased, Orangemarlin kind of has a point: the fact is that Ferrylodge almost certainly would not agree with most neutral admins' choice of who to oust, because he's the kind of editor that sits right on the margins of actual bannability, hence the broadly worded content restriction allowing pretty much summary banning from any article on his hot topic by any uninvolved admin, given evidence of disruptive editing. That he has edited such articles disruptively despite this restriction is probably not a good sign.  So, yes, there will be people like Ferrylodge who will hotly dispute the decision as to who should be restricted or politely asked to leave, we should listen to such concerns courteously but always with an eye to the editor's history.  Sure, some inveterate POV-pushers may occasionally highlight a genuine problem with Wikipedia, but most of the problems identified by such people are actually the problem I identified above but seen fomr the other end: they are not being allowed to skew the article far enough their way.  In some quarters, the existence of people like this - Judd Bagley being a canonical example discussed recently - is seen as proof positive that Wikipedia is evil and failing.  As far as I can see it, the fact that we kicked Bagley off is a good thing and we should not feel ashamed of that, even though we may regret the fact that some people are constitutionally unable to contribute to the encyclopaedia that should not stop us from recognising these people and showing them the door.  I believe that the very high profile of Wikipedia coupled with the relatively small resources and practically non-existent hierarchy makes this perhaps the largest single challenge we currently face.  Simple things like everybody watchlisting the date article for their own birthday, or maybe choosing one hotly disputed topic of only tangential interest to them, may help to offset the problem of long-running wars between dedicated armies of POV-pushers and small bands of defenders of the wiki.  Arbitration cases like Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 are informative; see the infobox on talk:Lyndon LaRouche for the escalating dispute on that article and its related subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, this stuff is cropping up elsewhere in relation to and/or edits he has performed in. See: user talk:JzG, WP:WQA, WP:WQA and now WP:WQA.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm scared. Oh wait a minute, Guido is fishing for a forum to whine about me.  And JzG's comments were started by me--you can read his reply.  So, since I wet myself in fear of the attack by Seicer, let me go get drunk.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. This is not an isolated incident; you have been commented upon elsewhere for your rather controversial edits. Your comments above in this matter and elsewhere are evidence that you could really care less regarding the outcome of discussion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look more closely at the places where he has been "commented upon," I think most would agree that Orange Marlin should be proud. His editing behavior is noteworthy only because so few are willing to stand up to those who constantly add fringe gobbledygook to Wikipedia, quite frankly. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Equally, I suspect, there are articles where POV-pushers have failed to gain traction, and where those keeping the articles NPOV and in good condition, are remaining civil and not burning out. What is needed is to find more people that won't burn out, or at the least to actively replace those that burn out. Burn out is, to a certain extent, unavoidable. More, and less discriminate, blocking won't solve the problem of burn out. Getting more new editors involved will. Has anyone considered that the reason some people are feeling all alone and burnt out is because their attitude to editing has driven off some POV-pushers (but not all) and new editors? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there someplace we can figure this out? With the US Presidential Election comign up, all the political articles relevant are also taking a beating. In fat, I posted all over about a Huckabee group actively conspiring off-wiki to muddle the article, only to be rebuffed and ignored all over. The article's being defended, but I had a stretch off wiki due to real world, and in that time one of the biggest pro-Huckabee editors swept in, removed all criticism, redistributed tiny toned down versions into the rest of the article, and thus eliminated about half of the bad stuff about Huckabee in the article, despite its' being sourced and so on. It's too late to fix it now, and I'm dropping the article from my watchlist, becauseof that real world stuff (health).
 * Perhaps we need a POV-Pusher project, or NPOV taskforce, where we can list an article a day, and members sweep in, restore a real NPOV, and then move to the next? we could all agree to keep 'fixed' articles in our watchlists, thus assuring that multiple eyes would review for true neutrality and so on? It would really only take three or four neutral eyes on an article to keep it straight, though banging articles into shape can be tough. Those most likely to do well on this already know how to use the talk page, and build consensus... Just an idea... ThuranX (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Boehner
I'm a bit concerned for the new user. I'm not going to provide diffs here, as he only has 16 contributions so far. But of those 16 contributions, all but the one to his user page have been reverted by a variety of users. In just a short time, he managed to get into two edit wars and subtly push an anti-Global-Warming POV on three different pages, mainly through addition of unsourced weasel statements, most recenttly with a false edit summary. I'm bringing this here since I'm honestly not sure what to do with him. While his POV-edits and intentional blue-linking of his userpage scream banned sockpuppet to me, I'm very much struggling to assume good faith, as this may just be a newbie in need of serious intervention. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, who's the Global Warming editor that this might be? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Been struggling to place this one. Maybe yet another sock of User:Scibaby (who has been doggedly persistent), but the approach is somewhat different. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest the username was not appropriate but its done. Happy sock hunting! Brusegadi (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's a fairly common name. The leader of the Republican party in the U.S. House of Representatives is John Boehner. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Boehner for 24 hours as he returned about 30/40 minutes a go to Global warming with more of the same after being warned. Gnangarra 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor constantly reverting page to factually incorrect state
Now, I rarely bring anything to ANI, since I try to stay out of edit wars and out of the spotlight, generally. But I noticed the other day on my watchlist that Qpel had be reverted to a factually incorrect state by User:Timharwoodx, who claimed my edits were full of grammar errors. OK, I have no issue if someone thinks my grammar is atrocious--just tell me what the problem is and I'll fix it! But reverting to a factually incorrect version is obviously inappropriate, so I reverted and asked him on his talk page to point me to the grammar errors so I could fix them, while keeping the information correct. He then proceeds to revert me again (with an inflammatory edit summary) and personally attack me on the article's talk page while refusing to engage in discussion. I reverted a second time, but as I don't want to get into an edit war (and he's refusing to do anything except insult me in the third-person on the talk page), I figured I would bring it here.

What should I do? —<font color="#0000bb">Da<font color="#000066">rk<font color="#000022">•S hik ari [T] 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)`


 * (Comment from passer-by) I find it quite amusing that the first reversion of the text, which cited poor grammar, contains a blatant spelling error. FWIW, I believe this reversion was a bad one. Ros0709 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the reversion; I think yours is in the right. Of course, if Tim brings up some valid points then please consider them. As for him; his language is quite nasty indeed. I'd suggest taking a calm approach; the one you took on the article's talk page seems a bit too excited, though it is on the right track. I left a note on the article's talk page; hopefully the user will be able to communicate with a third party without being aggressive. I'll leave a note on his talk page about this, too. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although this is an English Wikipedia, this is by no means resolved to fluent English writers, per Contributing FAQ. In fact, we welcome those that have English as a second language.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes made by 82.148.96.68
I hope this is the right place for my questions. I cannot find any information on what to do with my problem. I noticed that 82.148.96.68 made a lot of edits. Some of these were clearly vandalism, but a lot were just changes of dates and numbers. These are quite difficult to verify. I have been at it for a while, but I cannot put all my effort on just verifying and reverting changes from this user. What should I do? Is it allowed to revert all changes from a certain user, if some changes are found to be vandalism?

For example, today the user made 8 changes on airline pages within 11 minutes. He/she changed a lot of dates from 2007 to 2008, and in one case 2009. By checking sources I managed to find evidence of at least one case of vandalism. I also found one case from yesterday, and two from before that. None of these had been detected earlier. Judging from the talk page, he/she has a history of vandalism.

Thus, I wonder about two things: Firstly, what to do with the user? I have never thought about indefinite block of an anonymous IP address is a good thing up until now. Secondly, how can I request help to go through all of the changes made by this user? Or can we revert all of the changes to save us all a great deal of work? --τις (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gone with the Chuck Norris method. Let's see how he responds. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I rolled back a few as they were referenced to a specific edition of Flight International from 2007 and the new figures had no reference at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

India related articles showing up as nonsense to be deleted
Don't know why or how to fix it, but a number of India related articles are showing up in Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reckon it's just a database hiccup. It should work itself out. --Haemo (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IndicText was vandalized earlier. Null editting the pages should solve the problem.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! thought it might be that, but didn't see how. Dloh  cierekim  22:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Long-time abuse by User:24.7.81.82 in television related articles
This user (under multiple IP numbers) has long vandalized multiple television-related articles by posting blatantly false information (for example, posting television premiere dates as far in the future as 2023 without any supporting resources, or sans any hope of verifiable information). When he is given a final warning, he will stop posting for a period -- basically long enough to get out from under any notion of being banned. He has, however, been banned on multiple occasions. He does not communicate with anyone when they post a warning to him or a note to him. Is there anything that can be done to stop him outside of continually watching and grabbing him each time he posts? --Mhking (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Address has now been blocked for one week following report to AIV. Can anyone determine how static this IP is, there might be a case of a tariff involving months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's comcast cable internet. Thje only edits are from the vandal, so I think it's safe to assume a static IP and block for 3 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Addhoc (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I hope I haven't overreacted over this --Mhking (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon Spamming Articles
An anon is spamming Wikipedia with links to the Cyber Crimes Us Organization. This person is even adding such links to articles where they are not directly relevant. It seems that every single edit made from this IP address has been to add these links. Here are some diffs:, , , , , , , &. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he stopped about 24 hours ago, so there's not much to do. Just keep an eye on them.  --Haemo (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted most of what's left. But as Haemo said, there isn't much we can do, since it was a while ago and the IP has stopped. — Kurykh  01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I nuked the remaining spamlinks. MER-C 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Baillieston

 * Involved users
 * and others
 * and others
 * and others
 * and others
 * and others

Appears to have been going on for the last two months or so. This only came to attention after one of the participants posted on my talk page in a canvassy sort of way. No attempt has been made to discuss on the talk page and bad faith is being assumed. MER-C 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

68.123.72.85 automated additions/categories
FYI - ip address 68.123.72.85 is definitely running some automated tools to improperly categorize any article related to Christianity. A quick look at the IPs Special:Contributions/68.123.72.85 is an obvious indicator of abuse; Also someone needs to mass-undo all these changes because they are all way out of hand... --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible block of user making repeated disruptive edits to Theresa Duncan article

 * This was posted in the middle of the page, I am just posting it at the bottom.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I got fouled up. Candy (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User 75.32.190.138 has recently been making repeated deletions of external links on the Theresa Duncan article, and during the past 24 hours has reverted attempts to undo his edits far more than three times. His comments are grossly uncivil and he has disregarded attempts to discuss his changes on the article's talk page. He is trying to push his own POV; no one else has come forward to support him as the authority he says he is. Note that he has identified himself as Alex Constantine on the talk page but has never registered and has made edits from other IPs as well. A review of the revision history of the Theresa Duncan page should make this clearer. Candy (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IP was blocked for 24 hours by Pigman. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 05:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ioeth (and Pigman). It took me about 20 minutes to make my post (I am not that experienced at this!), and I think that must have been done after the last time I checked the page! Candy (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All the same, good job and thank you for making the report. Keep up the good work!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta
I've kept an eye on this user since a virtually indecipherable post made by the user on an article talk page. The user page is a ton of gibberish code and pasted templates from all over WP, and the talk page is more of the same. I don't know how the user either expects to communicate with or respond to others with the state of the userspace, but I felt it was borderline enough not to merit blanking without a second opinion. Could somebody take a look and consider a course of action? MSJapan (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the userpage should just be deleted? There should be an Mfd though. The talk page doesn't look like a big deal thoug, just a warning not to sign with a name that isn't yours--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already three or so threads on this user; he uses a screen reader. I believe the most recent one is on a subpage of AN/I. There are users working with him. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. Gimmetrow 23:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) With the best will in the world to User:hopiakuta (I perceive him as well-intentioned) and other users, I am aware from experience that there are communication challenges here, and it's not just a one-way issue. He (?) clearly thinks in a different manner, both functionally and structurally, from the mainstream. I feel a little guilty discussing him in his absence (?), but it seems fairly clear that the issues are not going to go away; however, I am also aware that several users have made valiant attempts to decipher the issues with him. I don't think he would welcome the deletion of his user page; having seen it, it seems to be a place where he keeps things of interest to him. It may seem like gibberish to some, but I'm sure to him it makes perfect sense. The issue seems to be how we can talk to hopiakuta, perhaps off-wiki, to try and reach some accommodation for his (and our) obvious differences. Although he uses a screen-reader, that is not the only issue, and I'm not sure where this can fruitfully go. However, with twelve minutes to go until Christmas, I wish him, and everyone else, the compliments of the season. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be sure, he does not seem to use a screen reader, he's said he uses an ordinary browser (albeit one with, apparently, unicode problems and large page issues) with a large font. —Random832 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's be nice to hopiakuta! Delete the user page?  That's like vandalism, isn't it?  For some of the world, it's Christmas.  What a thing to do during Christmas; vandalise a user page and try to say it's the community's consensus.  Hi, hopiakuta, welcome to WP! Congolese (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think if he wants to put stuff we don't get/understand on his userpage, as long as it's not directed at other editors or offensive, who cares? We have a diverse community and many of this user's mainspace contributions improve the encyclopaedia - often minor edits making needed corrections. I'd worry more frankly about the POV pushers and vandals and trolls who actually damage the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, if that were the case, but there are some perfectly understandable statements made by him in that other discussion. When he can describe his symptoms without all the templates and such, and can therein avoid linking every other word, the fact that it happens elsewhere seems to me to be a matter of intent, especially if he's making a mess of things to try to make a POINT to get some sort of accessibility implementation (which I do not believe would solve the problem). MSJapan (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember to assume good faith. —Random832 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, please AGF. Read the linked sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. This person, if you read their off-Wikipedia writings, writes like he does here everywhere. Please don't disparage a person with obvious problems! Lawrence Cohen  14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My partner's a psych and reckons whatever it is limits his ability to organise, so he have to have everything in front of them while he works. Hence the seemingly random storage of all sorts of pasted text and linked text in userspace (note he does *not* do this in mainspace). He's obviously very intelligent and is well versed in the English language, which is great as it means he can be of use and benefit to the project, and in fact, if one examines his contributions, is of use and benefit to the project. Therefore why treat him like he's doing something wrong? We're aware of the issues, so we can assist him in his goals here where he requires it and ignore whatever he chooses to do in his userspace, which he obviously sees as a necessary part of him being a solid contributor. The rules on userspace are basically for two reasons - to prevent it becoming pseudospace (i.e. articles that don't meet our notability or other criteria effectively finding a new home) and to prevent it from becoming a home for personal attacks or other directed abuse or BLP violations. Neither of these is occurring. Orderinchaos 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin TerriersFan abusing his position
Could someone please deal with this admin. TerriersFan is yet again abusing his position by excluding IP editors who don't agree with him. Please see Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the associated Talk page. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The protection is valid due to repeated adding of unsourced information, but as an editor, TerriersFan should have asked another admin (here or on WP:RFPP) to do so. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No - a single addition of material that apparently was sourced. Problem is TerriersFan didn't rank the source, so because he seems to think he owns the article, he simply SPd it to stop those annoying IPs from contributing. This is not the first time he's done it - check his request for Admin. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On Terrier Fans request for admin! One person made reference to his alleged refusal to accept consensus, and that was quickly countered by other editors, and shown to be a reaction to a warning Terriers Fan gave. This is not a reaction to a "single edit". Indeed, it was me and not Terriers Fan who reverted the addition. This article has been plagued by vandalism and unhelpful edits by IPs, which is a serious problem in an article where WP:BLP issues have to be considered. Several instances of IP vandalism have occurred since semi-protection was removed, and this unhelpful edit (it was sourced, but quoted the source selectively) was simply the catalyst for re-instating protection. I had previously asked whether it should be reinstated in an edit summary. The user making this complaint seems to be engaged in a vendetta, hiding behind multiple IP addresses (he has already changed it since his initial post). Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't change it, my ISP changes it. No vendetta, just observing what's been going on at the article in question. There are in fact three users, of which TerriersFan is one, who own the article and implicitly require other contributors to seek permission before editing. The tactic of SP, which as pointed out above should not be used by an admin with an editing interest - is one of the methods used to force compliance. A check of the edit history will show numerous examples of semi-protection by TerriersFan on grounds which are unsound. Look also at the suggestion by another user for a timeline (start of Talk). TerriersFan invites the user to "be bold" then tells him "don't do it".


 * This is a long shot, but there is a slight possibility of sockpuppetry here - and it is only slight. The users in question are TerriersFan, Harry was a white dog with black spots and The Rambling Man. Checkuser might be worth trying. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems like a baseless acussation, two of those users are admin who work on separate areas of the project outside of this article, there is no evidence suggesting sockpuppetry, and a request will most likely be declined because checkuser is not for phising. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That these users are sockpuppets of each other is patently rediculous. Even insinuating so does not do your position any benefits on this.  I will review the protection and see if it was appropriate, however don't go throwing around baseless accusations of sockpupettry; these are three long standing Wikipedia members with long histories of positive contributions.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here he goes again, making ludicrous accusations from behind an IP address. He has been rumbled on his ludicrous misrepresentation of Terriers Fan's request for admin debate, so now he is changing tack. And again, he misrepresents Terriers Fan above. He did indeed tell the editor to be bold, but he didn't then tell him "not to do it" - he said, don't put an incomplete timeline in the article. Do it in the sandbox and add it when it is finished. That is quite different to the implication above, This user is not to be taken seriously if he can't even get his facts straight. The grounds are certainly sound in this case, and as I have said before, when WP:BLP is concerned, urgent action is sometimes required. In future, if Terriers Fan feels the need to semi-protect this article urgently, I hope he will then confirm his decision with other admins. But he certainly has done nothing wrong, as has already been pointed out. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Yes, you're probably correct. I am not making an accusation. I did say there was only a slight possibility, and so there is. Personally I doubt it, but you never know. I mention it only because the three "owners" of the article have very similar views, which verge on the obsessive, as to how the article should develop. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I have removed protection in the interest of starting dialogue and achiving harmony on this article. See the article talk page for more details. Conditions have been placed on this protection removal, and if the conditions cannot be met by the parties involved, the article will be reprotected. I hope this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the protection. I hope it stays unprotected. Harry, you clearly don't like IP editors - big time! Have you ever considered going to an alternative Wiki where they aren't allowed? Alternatively you could start a debate, or go to the current one (which I assume exists) to make Wikipedia a "logged-on user only" project. There are merits in having Wikipedia as such, and I wonder if it might be good thing. My complaint is that since Wikipedia does allow IP editing, you try to undermine the policy. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with IP editors. I only have problems with them (and any editor) when they vandalise and make unhelpful edits, and I definitely do object to IPs like you who hide behind IP addresses to make ludicrous accusations and disparage people without the accountability that you demand of others. Please stop it. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor who edits using their IP address is "hiding" a lot less than one who chooses a pseudonym. —Random832 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)